First of all, the answer must first be rounded down to prominent nations in Europe during this time that attempted to practice imperialism. These include Russia, the United States, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Russia and Austria-Hungary practiced similar forms of imperialism, simply expanding into the immediate nearby nations. The "winners of imperialism would first and foremost include Great Britain, who took over approximately 1/3 of the globe at one point, had an extremely populous and powerful overseas empire, and commanded great profits. France comes in next, owning vast portions of Africa and pieces of Asia. The "losers" would first include Austria-Hungary, who definitely achieved minimally. Portugal and Spain both obtained small amounts of territory due to their poor economies, Spain especially losing parts of its empire to America after the 1898 Spanish-American War. Italy is prominently known as the biggest loser; it invaded Ethiopia, and failed, owned no land in Asia, and had one major colony, Libya, which was unprofitable and continually rebelled. Germany was a very powerful nation, yet it failed to gain mus territory for joining the game too late, thought Germany's incredibly able prime minister Otto von Bismark commented that imperialism was a waste of time. Belgium and the Netherlands may also be seen as "winners", both taking territory of a size far greater than their own nation, both of which were highly profitable. Russia would probably be on neither side, having owned a vast territory and much imperialism yet not much of it was incredibly significant. Now, the United States owned little territory, only some in the Pacific and the Caribbean, which was a small amount for the strength of the country, but the nation was typically opposed to imperialism and what it got was VERY profitable, and truly all that the nation desired. So true winners would be Great Britain and France, while losers would be Italy and Austria-Hungary.
Answer
The Full Faith and Credit Clause deals with legal proceedings between states.
Explanation
Full Faith and Credit Clause are the obligation under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution for each state to recognize the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause refers to the first sentence of Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution: Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. It normally deals with legal proceedings between states.The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that states honor the court judgments of other states.
<span>The answer is true. War and terrorism are both means of attempting to accomplish political objectives.
</span>
Evaluation of unanticipated adverse device effects (UADDEs) must be reported to the FDA by the IRB and all investigators participating in the test of the product within ten working days.
<h3>What is IRB and FDA?</h3>
The full meaning of IRB is Institutional Review Board, while the full meaning of FDA is the United States Food and Drugs Administration - a Federal Agency.
The above bodies are responsible for protecting American citizens from harmful products.
Learn more about FDA and IRB at;
brainly.com/question/17432443
#SPJ11
The answer is <span>Helping a constituent navigate red tape
</span><span>constituent casework refers to the response/actions that member of congress gives to provide constituents with help that they requested.
In this context, red tape refers to the formal rules that must be followed by government officials to do something eventhough it may be a hinder to decision making process.</span>
