Answer:
International relations, the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups). It is related to a number of other academic disciplines, including political science, geography, history, economics, law, sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
The field of international relations emerged at the beginning of the 20th century largely in the West and in particular in the United States as that country grew in power and influence. Whereas the study of international relations in the newly founded Soviet Union and later in communist China was stultified by officially imposed Marxist ideology, in the West the field flourished as the result of a number of factors: a growing demand to find less-dangerous and more-effective means of conducting relations between peoples, societies, governments, and economies; a surge of writing and research inspired by the belief that systematic observation and inquiry could dispel ignorance and serve human betterment; and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs. The traditional view that foreign and military matters should remain the exclusive preserve of rulers and other elites yielded to the belief that such matters constituted an important concern and responsibility of all citizens. This increasing popularization of international relations reinforced the idea that general education should include instruction in foreign affairs and that knowledge should be advanced in the interests of greater public control and oversight of foreign and military policy.
This new perspective was articulated by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913–21) in his program for relations between the Great Powers following a settlement of World War I. The first of his Fourteen Points, as his program came to be known, was a call for “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” in place of the secret treaties that were believed to have contributed to the outbreak of the war. The extreme devastation caused by the war strengthened the conviction among political leaders that not enough was known about international relations and that universities should promote research and teaching on issues related to international cooperation and war and peace.
International relations scholarship prior to World War I was conducted primarily in two loosely organized branches of learning: diplomatic history and international law. Involving meticulous archival and other primary-source research, diplomatic history emphasized the uniqueness of international events and the methods of diplomacy as it was actually conducted. International law—especially the law of war—had a long history in international relations and was viewed as the source of fundamental normative standards of international conduct. The emergence of international relations was to broaden the scope of international law beyond this traditional focal point.
I believe it was Gerald Ford which was the 38th president of the United States. Hope this helps!
Explanation:
Law does not function in vacuum. Law operates for and in the society; and it is influenced by the mores and attitudes of the society. Correspondingly, law is an instrument of social change. The law thus never can be static; it has to change constantly with the changes in the society. Judiciary plays a major role for this change since judges interpret and redefine the laws through their judicial decisions. The demands of the time and society become prominent factors for judge in the law interpretation process. Their judicial opinions consequently become precedents - 'settled' or 'established' law that can provide legal foundation for settling subsequent cases. Hence, those who are associated in the field of law have to read case judgments for their research or academic purposes.
Mere knowledge of legal rules is not enough to do research in law. It also needs the analytical skills to extract ratio, observation and to apply these principles in different factual situations. This paper endeavors to identify certain parameters, which by no means are exhaustive but are only enabling points which could help a researcher to read and understand the judicial opinion. To achieve the very purposes of reading, the yardstick is not mere the ability to read, but to comprehend very essence of what is written.
The author believes that when a judgment is written well with clarity and consistency, even a common man would be able to figure out the contours of law. Since the objective of any judgment or judicial opinion is justice, the judge's conveying skill and the reader's skill ought to converge upon a common end.
