Your question isn't formulated with enough information, but I'll try my best. Sensitivity levels is what I believe is the answer to this question. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Answer:
A trade association is the kind of international organization that would most benefit this nation.
Explanation:
Small nations generally do not have large economic output or global supremacy in the production of any specific or specific service. Therefore, its presence and importance in world markets is not so important, and in case it needs to compete with larger nations, it cannot do it by its own means because it does not have the necessary economic volume to affirm its presence in the market.
Therefore, to help these nations stabilize economically and commercially, the largest and most dominant nations often enter into trade agreements with them to help them progress.
Answer:
a. United States v. Salerno
Explanation:
The case between "United States v. Salerno" which was heard in the hear 1987 is one of the landmark case in the United States of America. In the case of United States v. Salerno, an important decision was taken in which the court make the Bail Reform Act of 1984, constitutional. According to it, the court can detain a person who is arrested, before the trail, if the government proves that the accused is a threat or dangerous to the society.
Thus the answer is --
a. United States v. Salerno
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
