No clause in the statue argue that the treaty should be applied retroactively, and it is not explicitly stated in the treaty during the initial signing of it. Additionally, it was neither Eurasian municipal law or customary at the time. Eurasia can state it was part of the 25% who never engaged in this practice before the treaty. According to the Lotus Case, if the states are divided on whether an action is obligatory you do not have customary international law. Lastly, Eurasia does not agree to the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over this case, so it has no right to sue the country.
After the 7 Years War, the alliance did not make much sense as an aggregation of power given the disparate objectives of the two nations. France’s primary concern was its rivalry with the British, which played out on the sea and in their colonial empires, both arenas in which the Austrians were little help. On the other hand, Austria was primarily concerned with a rising Prussian power and gaining territory in Bavaria, yet the French were continuously unwilling to intervene against Prussia to help Austria achieve its aims, and refused to help Austria take Bavaria, even in exchange for new French territory in the Netherlands. (Hardman and Price 113) With Schroeder’s insight, it is clear that this alliance functioned as a tool for the allies to block each other as potential threats more than it served as a tool to build a military coalition. France benefited from the alliance because with Austria as an ally, they could focus on their goals overseas, by both reducing Austrian support of the British in the colonies and allowing Austria to balance Prussian power on the continent, creating a stable domestic environment for France.
This research paper assesses the Arab-Israeli conflict and the other major players that were involved in the conflict though on the outside. These outside actors include Great Britain, the United States, the European Union (EU), the Soviet Union (until 1992), Russia (from 1992 onwards), or the United Nations (UN). The paper in particular assesses the role of the United States as a case study. It states the United States involvement in the conflict as an external actor, whether it had a positive or negative impact on the conflict and also a clear cut explanation of the negative and positive impact. Introduction Before 1948, there was no Israeli state and Israelis were dispersed all over Europe and the Arab States.
In this section we will assess the possibility for the euro to become a dominant global currency rivalling the U.S. dollar in the future ; and in the same time see what impact the euro crisis has had on the Euro as a currency. As a result of the creation of a single trading market and the formulation of the single currency, the Euro, the Eurozone has become a major trading power in the world (http://europa.eu/about-eu). The EU’s trade with the rest of the world represents approximately 20% of global trade. Moreover, the EU is actually the world’s biggest exporter and the second biggest importer of goods and services (http://europa.eu). Though, on average the euro’s share within the different international markets is still clearly smaller than the US dollar’s.
Here is the issue, throughout the European nations there are severe clashes in regards to social and economic norms. The basic norms that the EU promotes is democracy and justice. But, these norms differ country to country. There is no sense of unity within Europe, including no universal language. Before there can be “one Europe”, a viable European identity requires an emotional belief in an ‘ethnic’ community of destiny with an ancient and eternal common cultural heritage (McMahon,
When analyzed, the economy did not play a major role leading up to the war. One political issue between the colonists and the British was the lack of representation for the colonists. The British standpoint was, as is mentioned in Document 1: “That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.” The British view was that the colonies did not deserve representation in Parliament. In the colonists eyes, the British government was committing atrocities against them that could not be tolerated. This is a disagreement was a political issue that didn’t involve any economic factor, and a major piece leading to the American Revolution.
To this day, an analysis of the European Integration cannot be done unless the theories of neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism are not confronted. It can be said that these remain the most comprehensive and widely accepted theories of European Integration by the finest researchers of Regional Integration. This research paper contextualises the prevailing theories of European integration and this paper deploys the conceptual distinctions between Neo-functionalism and Intergovernmentalism. Lasting peace and stable economic system was demanded in the aftermath of the Second World War. The European Union process emerged out of that ground and the institutionalization of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 paved the way to ensuring
Jehovah's Witnesses were almost not affected by the holocaust, for example: “They refused to swear loyalty to the nazi regime… refusal to raise their arms in the heil Hitler salute, join the labor front, participate in nazi welfare collections and vote in election”( Jehovah's Witnesses: Article 1). Due to the Jehovah’s Witnesses seeing the evil in the nazi’s, they refused to join them. This decision was heavily influenced by religion, considering the nazi’s wanted to get rid of religion for the Aryan race. After refusing to join the nazi party, Jehovah’s Witnesses went through large amounts of persecution, for example: “Individual local groups of nazi’s broke up bible study groups and assaulted many Jehovah’s Witnesses” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Article 1). With Jehovah’s Witnesses strong religious beliefs, nazi’s heavily persecuted them.
Attempting to convince major European powers to agree as to what this common outlook should be is next to impossible. Intergovernmentalists contest the theory of economic determination in regards to the integration process, convinced that national governments will consciously make decisions that will not only be economically driven. Intergovernmentalists argue that extensive cooperation will continue to benefit all participants in as much as it enhances the mutual interests of all participants (Martell, 2009). Thus, they argue that decisions taken in regards to the EU integration process will always be political, despite if the motive is economical. Neofunctionalism is a liberal theory of integration in that it focuses on human welfare needs.
There was the presidential peace initiative committee in 2002, the federal administrative panel of inquiry in 2008, the federal advisory committee in 2010, post advisory committees on security challenges in 2012 and so many others. Failure of successive governments to implement any of the recommendations by the panels of inquiry set up to investigate previous crises is one reason it still