Answer:
The Alaska Purchase (Russian: Продажа Аляски, romanized: Prodazha Aliaski, meaning "Sale of Alaska") was the United States' acquisition of Alaska from the Russian Empire. Alaska was formally transferred to the United States on October 18, 1867, through a treaty ratified by the United States Senate.
Russia had established a presence in North America during the first half of the 18th century, but few Russians ever settled in Alaska. In the aftermath of the Crimean War, Russian Tsar Alexander II began exploring the possibility of selling Alaska, which would be difficult to defend in any future war from being conquered by Russia's main archrival, the United Kingdom. Following the end of the American Civil War, U.S. Secretary of State William Seward entered into negotiations with Russian minister Eduard de Stoeckl for the purchase of Alaska. Seward and Stoeckl agreed to a treaty on March 30, 1867, and the treaty was ratified by the United States Senate by a wide margin.
The purchase added 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km2) of new territory to the United States for the cost of $7.2 million 1867 dollars (one cent per acre). In modern terms, the cost was equivalent to $132 million in 2019 dollars or $0.37 per acre.[1] Reactions to the purchase in the United States were mostly positive, as many believed possession of Alaska would serve as a base to expand American trade in Asia. Some opponents labeled the purchase as "Seward's Folly", or "Seward's Icebox",[2] as they contended that the United States had acquired useless land. Nearly all Russian settlers left Alaska in the aftermath of the purchase; Alaska would remain sparsely populated until the Klondike Gold Rush began in 1896. Originally organized as the Department of Alaska, the area was renamed the District of Alaska (1884) and the Alaska Territory (1912) before becoming the modern State of Alaska in 1959.
Explanation:
sorry if my answer is wrong :)
Spearman would have supported the notion that intelligence resulted from a single ability and could be represented by a single test score.
Before.............................
Assuming you mean Zeus, the king of Greek gods, Zeus was worshipped by the Greeks during the time of the ancient Greek empire.
The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), developed by the UN, shows the growing importance of human rights by It is criticized for becoming a justification for intervention on behalf of state interests not related to protection of human rights.
<h3>The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?</h3>
All Heads of State and Government endorsed the duty to safeguard populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity at the 2005 World Summit. Three equally important pillars support the responsibility to protect (commonly abbreviated as "R2P"): the obligation of each State to protect its citizens (pillar I); the obligation of the international community to support States in protecting their citizens (pillar II); and the obligation of the international community to act when a State is blatantly failing to protect its citizens (pillar III). When the concept was adopted in 2005, it was a solemn commitment with high hopes for a world free of these atrocities.
- There are several circumstances in today's world where populations are at risk of R2P crimes or where such crimes are already occurring. These crises are occurring in a climate of waning internationalism, declining adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, political division in important decision-making bodies like the Security Council, and a degree of defeatism toward advancing ambitious agendas like protection.
- Alarming contempt for core principles of international law has been on display. We are witnessing widespread and egregious attacks on protected civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools, as well as on protected individuals, including humanitarian and health-care workers, in many of the armed conflicts that have broken out in recent years.
- The most severe transgressions of international humanitarian and human rights law, which may qualify as atrocity crimes, continue to be committed by the armed forces and auxiliary militia of States, which is a depressing reality given the rise of violent, non-state armed organizations.
- Similarly, governments do not hold those responsible for atrocity crimes accountable for their deeds. In order to prevent the investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes, some States parties to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, are not collaborating with the Court or are even considering withdrawing from the Statute.
- The Security Council is becoming less willing to bring issues to the Court, and certain political figures obviously want to avoid being held accountable in court.
Learn more about Protect (R2P) here:
brainly.com/question/16179318
#SPJ4
