Answer:
d. all of the above
Explanation:
Arbitration is a legal technique of resolving disputes outside the courts, whereby parties involved in the dispute refer it to an arbitrator (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal") or arbitrators( one or more persons) , by whose decision (the "award") they may be bound(as in mandatory arbitration) or not(as in voluntary or nonbinding arbitration).
The above methods of arbitration :peer review, arbitration, mediation all allow the dispute parties' input before arbitration decision. Peer review method involves dispute resolution in the workplace whereby employees are able to take disputes to fellow employees and managers to act as arbitrator to resolve disputes which may not be binding on the parties. Mediation on another hand is a dynamic method of dispute resolution where a third party helps to resolve disputes by helping dispute parties negotiate to resolve to dispute. Arbitration however differs from mediation in that the arbitrator makes decisions based on evidence presented and not waiting to negotiate an agreement between both parties. All three methods however require dispute parties to make inputs so as to arrive on final decision.
Answer:
stop being so judgmental and getting along with our differences.
Answer:
justtttt because eeeeeeeeeeeeee
Answer:
i to c
iv to b
then pretty sure iii to d
and ii to a
Explanation:
the definition of collation government (a) is "A coalition government is a form of government in which political parties cooperate to form a government. The usual reason for such an arrangement is that no single party has achieved an absolute majority after an election" so that sounds most like ii so ii to a and community and social groups are simliar so iii to d
Such tendentious revisionism may provide a useful corrective to older enthusiastic assessments, but it fails to capture a larger historical tragedy: Jacksonian Democracy was an authentic democratic movement, dedicated to powerful, at times radical, egalitarian ideals—but mainly for white men.
Socially and intellectually, the Jacksonian movement represented not the insurgency of a specific class or region but a diverse, sometimes testy national coalition. Its origins stretch back to the democratic stirrings of the American Revolution, the Antifederalists of the 1780s and 1790s, and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. More directly, it arose out of the profound social and economic changes of the early nineteenth century.
Recent historians have analyzed these changes in terms of a market revolution. In the Northeast and Old Northwest, rapid transportation improvements and immigration hastened the collapse of an older yeoman and artisan economy and its replacement by cash-crop agriculture and capitalist manufacturing. In the South, the cotton boom revived a flagging plantation slave economy, which spread to occupy the best lands of the region. In the West, the seizure of lands from Native Americans and mixed-blood Hispanics opened up fresh areas for white settlement and cultivation—and for speculation.
Not everyone benefited equally from the market revolution, least of all those nonwhites for whom it was an unmitigated disaster. Jacksonianism, however, would grow directly from the tensions it generated within white society. Mortgaged farmers and an emerging proletariat in the Northeast, nonslaveholders in the South, tenants and would-be yeomen in the West—all had reasons to think that the spread of commerce and capitalism would bring not boundless opportunities but new forms of dependence. And in all sections of the country, some of the rising entrepreneurs of the market revolution suspected that older elites would block their way and shape economic development to suit themselves.
