Answer:
Mark as brainliest
Explanation:
symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.
Issue Section:
Articles
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5
If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9
This is a matter of opinion. Do YOU think the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was worth it? Let's look at the factors.
What were some of the positives? Well, firstly, it ended World War II. That's kind of a big deal. In fact, it caused Japan not only to surrender, but UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. Basically, that means the US could ask Japan to do whatever it liked--which the US liked! Secondly, it was a triumph of science. The atomic bomb was a revolutionary work of science. Nothing like it had ever been made before, and it was all based on secrecy and theoretical science. The atomic bomb also <span>provided the basis for new, improved weapons, including the hydrogen bomb. </span>Thirdly, it helped establish the United States as a world power. Knowing about this super powerful weapon the US had, countries were likely to back off!
But there's a lot of negatives here, too. Keep in mind that most of these benefits were for the United States alone. Of course, there was one other BIG negative for the United States, and that's cost. The atomic bomb was worth billions of dollars! A second big one wasn't so much for the United States as for the world, especially Japan. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the effects on the people and city were devastating. People were vaporized. Cities and buildings were flattened, and nothing is left but carnage. People died, their skin peeling off, from cancer and radiation. It was awful! Thirdly, it caused the arms race. Knowing the US had this super weapon, ALL the countries started building their own. Now, we pretty much live in fear of all the nuclear weapons there are today--which are hundreds of times more powerful each than the first bomb!
So what do you think? Was it worth it?
It does not
sorry if this is wrong
The bubonic plague caused one third (1/3) of Europe's population to meet their painful demise.
