Compare and contrast the Republic of India, the communist state of the People's Republic China, and the constitutional monarchy of Japan.
Distinguish the form of leadership and the role of the citizen in terms of voting rights and personal freedoms.
Research the forms of leadership, voting rights, and personal freedoms of the citizens of India, China, and Japan.
Conduct an academic discussion with fellow students, using academic vocabulary.

Answer:

What impact did the expansion of railroads in the West have on the American Indians who lived there? They were displaced from their tribal lands. They moved into towns and lived among the new settlers. They stopped farming and took jobs in factories.

Answer:

The hole in the system is that while you can set any legislation you may, wealthy businesses will continue to ship immigrants in by the busload to do cheap labor. And with the financial power they have behind them, there is not much our justice system can do. Only if legislature were to put into effect a set of laws to limit the powers of wealth in some way, would you close that hole in our immigration laws.

Explanation:

Answer:

b, d, e

Explanation:

Answer:

D.analyze the cost and benefits of an economic choice

Answer:

May 5, 1789

May 5, 1789

May 5, 1789

May 5, 1789

Answer: May 5, 1789 – November 9, 1799

Explanation: The French Revolution was a watershed event in world history that began in 1789 and ended in the late 1790's with the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte. During this period, French citizens radically altered their political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as the monarchy and the feudal system.

Answer:

this answers may help you

Answer:

1)I wonder if there are and how many other universes are out the in space

2) I wonder if other planets are livable but scientist just haven’t discovered them yet

3) I wonder how many astronauts have been to space in total

Explanation:

Answer:

D

Explanation:

In May 1955 West Germany joined NATO, which prompted the Soviet Union to form the Warsaw Pact alliance in central and eastern Europe the same year. Thus, the correct answer is option D.

The Warsaw Pact, formally the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, was a Cold War collective defense treaty signed in May 1955 in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe.

The Warsaw Pact was the military counterpart to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon), the regional economic organisation for Central and Eastern European socialist states. The Warsaw Pact was formed in response to West Germany's admission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1955, as a result of the 1954 London and Paris Conferences.

Therefore, the addition of West Germany to NATO in 1955 prompted the USSR to form the Warsaw Pact.

To learn more about Warsaw Pact, click here:

https://brainly.com/question/731626

#SPJ6

Answer:

Joseph Breen was American film censor.

His concerns were related to the sexual content show in the Casablanca.

Explanation:

Joseph Breen full name was Joseph Ignatius Breen born on 14 October, 1888.

He was an American film censor with the Motion Picture Producers and the head of the Production Code Administration.

He was also the Distributors of America applying the Hays Code to film production.

Joseph Breen had the concerns with the Casablanca relating to the sexual contents appearing in the movie.

Answer:

Why does conflict develop? in The Final Years

Explanation:

The world has transformed rapidly in the decade since the end of the Cold War. An old system is gone and, although it is easy to identify what has changed, it is not yet clear that a new system has taken its place. Old patterns have come unstuck, and if new patterns are emerging, it is still too soon to define them clearly. The list of potentially epoch-making changes is familiar by now: the end of an era of bipolarity, a new wave of democratization, increasing globalization of information and economic power, more frequent efforts at international coordination of security policy, a rash of sometimes-violent expressions of claims to rights based on cultural identity, and a redefinition of sovereignty that imposes on states new responsibilities to their citizens and the world community.1

These transformations are changing much in the world, including, it seems, the shape of organized violence and the ways in which governments and others try to set its limits. One indication of change is the noteworthy decrease in the frequency and death toll of international wars in the 1990s. Subnational ethnic and religious conflicts, however, have been so intense that the first post-Cold War decade was marked by enough deadly lower-intensity conflicts to make it the bloodiest since the advent of nuclear weapons (Wallensteen and Sollenberg, 1996). It is still too soon to tell whether this shift in the most lethal type of warfare is a lasting change: the continued presence of contested borders between militarily potent states—in Korea, Kashmir, Taiwan, and the Middle East—gives reason to postpone judgment. It seems likely, though, that efforts to pre-

Page 2

Suggested Citation:"Conflict Resolution in a Changing World." National Research Council. 2000. International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9897.×

Add a note to your bookmark

vent outbreaks in such hot spots will take different forms in the changed international situation.

A potentially revolutionary change in world politics has been a de facto redefinition of “international conflict.” International conflict still includes the old-fashioned war, a violent confrontation between nation states acting through their own armed forces or proxies with at least one state fighting outside its borders. But now some conflicts are treated as threats to international peace and security even if two states are not fighting. Particularly when internal conflicts involve violations of universal norms such as self-determination, human rights, or democratic governance, concerted international actions—including the threat or use of force—are being taken to prevent, conclude, or resolve them just as they sometimes have been for old-fashioned wars. In this sense some conflicts within a country’s borders are being treated as international.

There are various prominent recent examples. They include the delayed international military responses to genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and repression in East Timor; the unprecedented military response of NATO to repression in Kosovo; the establishment and enforcement of no-fly zones in Iraq; and the use of economic sanctions against South Africa and Yugoslavia. Threatened or enacted coups d’état against democratically established governments have also sometimes been treated as international conflicts, as in Haiti. Similarly, threats of the violent dissolution of states or of their dissolution into violence have triggered international concern, as in Bosnia, Albania, and Somalia.

How important are such recent developments? In particular, do they make any important difference in how the actors on the world scene should deal with international conflicts? Do the tools developed for managing international conflicts under the old world system still apply? Are they best applied in new ways or by new entities? Are there new tools that are more appropriate for the new conditions? How do the old and new tools relate to each other?

This book is devoted to examining these questions. This chapter begins the examination by identifying the major strategies of conflict resolution, old and new, that are relevant in the emerging world system. We use the term conflict resolution broadly to refer to efforts to prevent or mitigate violence resulting from intergroup or interstate conflict, as well as efforts to reduce the underlying disagreements. We presume that conflict between social groups is an inevitably recurring fact of life and that the goal of conflict resolution is to keep conflicts channeled within a set of agreed norms that foster peaceful discussion of differences, proscribe violence as a means of settling disputes, and establish rules for the limited kinds of violence that are condoned (e.g., as punishment for violations of codes of criminal conduct)

Answer: The injustices of racism led to a more vocal and successful Civil Rights Movement.

Explanation:

Answer:

They were both great presidents, but I'm going to side with James Monroe. President James Monroe had the best foreign policy for the United States in the early 1800s. A policy called the Monroe Doctrine was issued by President James Monroe in favor of the new Latin American states, which warned European nations to honor the independence of the former colonies of Spain. The Monroe Doctrine created a strong nation in the United States, able to stand up for its own rights and that of its neighbors. Monroe’s policy showed how strong and independent the U.S was, but it also supported others who were seeking independence. The Era of Good Feelings was a name for President Monroe's two terms, a period of strong nationalism, economic growth, and territorial expansion. Since the Federalist party dissolved after the War of 1812, there was only one political party and no partisan conflicts.

Answer:

B

Explanation:

Joseph Stalin was a awful dictator who killed everybody that opposed him

Answer:

He was the leader during WW2 for Soviet Russia. Scaring Germany, his army made a successful atempt at the battle of Stalingrad where before that, Russia had factories making multiple tanks and aircraft that would help push the Nazis out of Russia. The Nazis were not suplied with winter gear when winter came along. Hitler didn't decide to give his troops winter gear because he thought they wouldv'e taken Russia already. Because of the extreme cold, Stalin gathered his troops that were trained to fight in the extreme cold and pushed Germans back into Germany.

Explanation:

Hope this helps!

Answer:

Assimilation she is right

Explanation:

This idea was called assimilation. settlement. removal. expansion.

plz mark brainlyest but u dnt have to

Answer:

assimilation

Explanation:

Answer: See explanation

Explanation:

Some of the core principles in the United States of America include separation of power, limited government, checks and balances, sovereignty, and federalism.

According to the separation of powers, the government in an economy is divides into three main sectors which are the executive who carries out laws, legislative who makes the laws. and the judicial branch, who interprets the law.

It's been crucial in the shaping of the government as everyone has a role

Answer a b f g and c

Answer: if talking about a map, the answer should be compass

Explanation:

Answer:

Buddhism is a non-theistic religion (no belief in a creator god), also considered a philosophy and a moral discipline, originating in India in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE. It was founded by the sage Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha l. c. 563 - c

Explanation:

Answer:

Emerson and Thoreau each value instinct is described below in details.

Explanation:

Both of them understood that people should explore trustworthiness in nature. Both Emerson and Thoreau considered existing a simplistic life. Thoreau understood that if life is lived in a rush, it is a misuse. ... Emerson understood that individualism should be discovered through nature. Emerson was an ambitious scholar who came to revolution steadily. Thoreau was a sympathizer of nature who took a dusky appearance of his fellow men.

Answer:

22

Explanation:

A = x

B = 4x

C = 90

D = 60

The sum of the interior angles in a quadrilateral is 360, so:

A + B + C + D = 360

x + 4x + 90 + 60 = 360

5x + 150 = 360

5x = 360 - 150

5x = 210

x = 42

Answer:

Had to have like 3000 people in it or something

Explanation:

Answer:

congress setting up a government for the territory

Ex planation:

It's right I'm taking the test and It is right.

Answer:

Suny: That is the central question of my forthcoming book. There is a tendency on the part of some scholars - particularly Armenians - not to try to explain the genocide because – “why do you need to explain it? These are Turks, this is what they do, and this is the kind of regime it was.” Or, slightly more sophisticated – “oh, it's Christians and Muslims – they are inevitably in conflict.” Or — “it's clashes of nationalism.” Now for me, religion, nationalism, the nature of Turkish culture, Ottoman society, the state - all of these are the questionsto be asked, not the answers. That is, they need to be investigated. The way I would explain this genocide, and I think it has relevance for other kinds of ethnic cleansings and mass killings, is that the regime developed what I call an “affective disposition” - that is, an emotional understanding of who the enemy was. They constructed the Armenians as an existential threat to the Ottoman Empire and to the Turkish nation, what they conceived as the Turkish nation at that time. I try to explain the origins of this affective disposition - this mental universe - in which emotion, fear, anger, and resentment combined to create an image of Armenians. Armenians originally had been thought of as a loyal millet, but after 1878 the Armenians became an instrument of certain foreign powers to intervene in the Ottoman regime and internal policy — the Ottomans began to see them as a threat.

Remind us what happened in 1878.

This was the Russian-Turkish War of 1877-1878. The Russians beat the Turks, and they were going to impose reforms on the Ottoman Empire, and that was the beginning of the new “Armenian question” that continued right up to the war. Now, some people would say "well, you don't need to go into emotions - it was a perfectly strategic, rational choice. The Armenians were actually a threat in World War I, and the Turks decided to get rid of them for national security reasons.” My view is that's an insufficient explanation. Why did they see them as a threat? A threat is always a perception. It's about emotion, it's about understanding, feeling, sentiment, and construction - both cognitive and emotional construction. I'm taking a step backwards to see how they got into the position that they could imagine people this way and then carry out the worst possible kinds of things. I’m bringing emotion into it.

By some accounts, Armenians sided with Russia at the beginning of World War I —was that something the Ottomans could point to that the Armenians were a threat?

This is the problem. You can't say the Armenians sided with Russia. That is what the Ottomans would say, and they perceived that. So there are people who try to justify what the Ottomans did to the Armenians by saying they were with the enemy. What I try to show in the book is that the overwhelming majority of Ottoman Armenians wanted to stay in the Empire, but they also wanted reforms to protect them and allow them to prosper. They wanted Kurdish predations against Armenians to be contained, for example. The Ottoman government was opposed to these reforms, but ultimately had to agree to them in February 1914. When the war came, though, they used the first opportunity to get rid of them. I’ll give you an example. As the Ottomans are going to war, they mobilize the population. Hundreds and thousands of young Armenian men are drafted and join the Ottoman army. A few desert and go over to the Russian side. Some prominent leaders go over to the Russian side. The Russians form Armenian voluntary units on the Caucasian side against the Ottomans, but the Turks see this as treachery and demobilize hundreds of thousands of Armenian soldiers, take their weapons and uniforms away, turn them into labor battalions, and eventually murder them. So it's a very different thing. It's not that there wasn't sympathy among some for Russia, but there was also no particular love for Russia. Russians didn't like the Armenian nationalist revolutionaries any more than the Turks did so they were persecuting them as well. The Armenians were in an unfortunate position - in Persia, in Russia, and in Turkey. They were like the Kurds today.

Answer:

In the USA government, it's the executive branch of the USA government.

Answer:

citizens and specialized businesses

Explanation:

The development of the Second Great Awakening can be linked to B: Increased geographical mobility aided travel to new regions and the sharing of ideas.

Therefore, option B is correct.

Learn more at:https://brainly.com/question/1100097?referrer=searchResults

Answer:

As the four major European powers (Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria) opposing the French Empire in the Napoleonic Wars saw Napoleon’s power collapsing in 1814, they started planning for the postwar world. The Treaty of Chaumont of March 1814 reaffirmed decisions that would be ratified by the more important Congress of Vienna of 1814–15. The Congress of Vienna was the first of a series of international meetings that came to be known as the Concert of Europe, an attempt to forge a peaceful balance of power in Europe. It served as a model for later organizations such as the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945. They included the establishment of a confederated Germany, the division of French protectorates and annexations into independent states, the restoration of the Bourbon kings of Spain, the enlargement of the Netherlands to include what in 1830 became modern Belgium, and the continuation of British subsidies to its allies. The Treaty of Chaumont united the powers to defeat Napoleon and became the cornerstone of the Concert of Europe, which formed the balance of power for the next two decades. The basic tenet of the European balance of power is that no single European power should be allowed to achieve hegemony over a substantial part of the continent and that this is best curtailed by having a small number of ever-changing alliances contend for power.

The Congress of Vienna dissolved the Napoleonic world and attempted to restore the monarchies Napoleon had overthrown, ushering in an era of reaction. Under the leadership of Metternich, the prime minister of Austria (1809–48) and Lord Castlereagh, the foreign minister of Great Britain (1812–22), the Congress set up a system to preserve the peace. Under the Concert of Europe, the major European powers—Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and (after 1818) France—pledged to meet regularly to resolve differences. The goal was not simply to restore old boundaries but to resize the main powers so they could balance each other and remain at peace. The leaders were conservatives with little use for republicanism or revolution, both of which threatened to upset the status quo in Europe. This plan was the first of its kind in European history and seemed to promise a way to collectively manage European affairs and promote peace.

Explanation:

Answer:

Atlanta campaign - Civil War conflict

Confederate victory - battle of chickamauga

Battle of kettle creek - was fought in the appalachian plateau region of Georgia.  

Explanation:

The Civil War began in 1861 and lasted up to 1865. The opposed between the South and the North started during the election of 1860 based on slavery. The outcome of the war was worst and bloody.

The Atlanta campaign was the military operations that took place in north Georgia under William T. Sherman.

The Battle of Chickamauga fought between Confederate forces and Union during the Civil War. The battle ended with defeating Union in southeastern Tennessee and northwestern Georgia.

Battle of kettle creek fought during the American Revolution. Patriots militia defeated Loyalists militia commanded by Colonel James Boyd.

Answer:

impacted foreign trade with nations other than Britain

Explanation:

The Embargo Act of 1897 was repealed because it "impacted foreign trade with nations other than Britain."

This is evident in the fact that American traders lost a lot of money during the period of embargo, as it was not only the British, the embargo asked not to trade with but other foreign nations as well.

The purpose of the act was to lessen the power of Britain during their war with France, however, it affected the American merchants more as it prohibits trading with not just the British but other foreign nations. It was later repealed in 1809 as against the scheduled 1810.

Answer:

c

Explanation: