1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Usimov [2.4K]
3 years ago
11

Which country was NOT located in the New World? Brazil Malaysia Peru Mexico

History
2 answers:
Darina [25.2K]3 years ago
8 0

The correct answer is B. Malaysia

Explanation

The term "New World" is the name given to the American continent in Europe after its discovery in 1492, with this discovery many American civilizations such as the Mayas, Incas, Olmecs, Aztecs, among others, were discovered. According to the above, it is possible to affirm that Malaysia is the only country of options that does not belong to the "new world" because it is located in Asia. So, the correct anwer is B. Malaysia

s2008m [1.1K]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Malaysia

Explanation:

Any country located in Africa, Asia, Oceania, or Europe is would not be located in the new world.  Malaysia is a country located in South East Asia. Hope this helps!

You might be interested in
Who is in control of history? a : man b : god c : the historian
podryga [215]
B: god is in control of history
4 0
3 years ago
The north vietnam army was called the army of the republic of vietnam. true false
nikitadnepr [17]
A.the answer is false
3 0
2 years ago
Help fast!!!
kifflom [539]

The Guantánamo detention center is a high security prison located in the Naval Base of Guantánamo Bay, located on the island of Cuba. It is an American property. Since 2002, US authorities have used it as a detention center for detainees accused of terrorism, most of them detained in Afghanistan during the invasion of this country, which followed the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The United States considers them "illegal enemy combatants" - most of them are accused of belonging to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and not prisoners of war, so it understands that they do not have to apply the Geneva Convention and, therefore, that they can to hold them indefinitely without trial and without the right to representation of a lawyer, something that has been criticized by governments and human rights organizations around the world. The United States later admitted that, except for the members of Al Qaeda, the rest of the prisoners did. it would be protected by international conventions. Some jurists consider that the situation is in a "legal vacuum".

The first judicial decision was made on July 31, 2002. The federal judge of Columbia, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, determined that the US legal system lacked jurisdiction over persons held at Guantánamo. This ruling was ratified in March 2003 by another federal judge. In June 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "the United States courts have the jurisdiction required to dispute the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in hostile and incarcerated activities in Guantanamo Bay" and He ruled that three prisoners who had invoked their right to be tried could take their case before civil courts. However, the majority of federal judges, in whose hands is how to apply the doctrine marked by the Supreme, seconded the thesis of the Administration that It is possible to retain the "foreign combatants" indefinitely, without bringing charges against them or putting them on trial. In 2006, the Supreme Court again attacked the Pentagon's strategy, stating that organizing military tribunals for foreign prisoners of war "violates the Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention", and that, moreover, it is not included in any rules. The Congress, with a Republican majority at that time, reacted by passing a law that expressly covers these military courts.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Please help me and I’ll give you brainiest!!!!!!!!!
Greeley [361]

Answer:

C. Set up an orderly process

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why were ranches in<br>North Texas able to<br>grow to great size?​
lisov135 [29]

Answer:

By the late 1800s, huge ranches had developed in Texas. One factor that led to their growth was changes in the railroads. In the 1860s, most rail lines ended north of Texas, so cattle had to be driven to them. In the 1880s, rail lines were extended into the state.

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which synonym best describes a person who is not upset during a loud and angry discussion?
    6·2 answers
  • How did dr martin luther king jr voter registration drive affect the passage of national civil rights legislation?
    13·1 answer
  • Hellspsosododkdkdkxkxj
    11·1 answer
  • Which aspect of government determines the form of government according to the constitution
    14·1 answer
  • What important event occurred during the han dynasty
    8·1 answer
  • The Mayflower Compact was a social contract?<br><br> True<br><br> False
    7·2 answers
  • The Hellenistic Era produced a great body of
    15·1 answer
  • Which of the following is an example of the fear of anarchy in the United States in the 1920s?
    10·2 answers
  • How were Native Americans affected by westward expansion?
    12·1 answer
  • The Oka Crisis is an example of
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!