Answer:
International relations, the study of the relations of states with each other and with international organizations and certain subnational entities (e.g., bureaucracies, political parties, and interest groups). It is related to a number of other academic disciplines, including political science, geography, history, economics, law, sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
The field of international relations emerged at the beginning of the 20th century largely in the West and in particular in the United States as that country grew in power and influence. Whereas the study of international relations in the newly founded Soviet Union and later in communist China was stultified by officially imposed Marxist ideology, in the West the field flourished as the result of a number of factors: a growing demand to find less-dangerous and more-effective means of conducting relations between peoples, societies, governments, and economies; a surge of writing and research inspired by the belief that systematic observation and inquiry could dispel ignorance and serve human betterment; and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs. The traditional view that foreign and military matters should remain the exclusive preserve of rulers and other elites yielded to the belief that such matters constituted an important concern and responsibility of all citizens. This increasing popularization of international relations reinforced the idea that general education should include instruction in foreign affairs and that knowledge should be advanced in the interests of greater public control and oversight of foreign and military policy.
This new perspective was articulated by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913–21) in his program for relations between the Great Powers following a settlement of World War I. The first of his Fourteen Points, as his program came to be known, was a call for “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” in place of the secret treaties that were believed to have contributed to the outbreak of the war. The extreme devastation caused by the war strengthened the conviction among political leaders that not enough was known about international relations and that universities should promote research and teaching on issues related to international cooperation and war and peace.
International relations scholarship prior to World War I was conducted primarily in two loosely organized branches of learning: diplomatic history and international law. Involving meticulous archival and other primary-source research, diplomatic history emphasized the uniqueness of international events and the methods of diplomacy as it was actually conducted. International law—especially the law of war—had a long history in international relations and was viewed as the source of fundamental normative standards of international conduct. The emergence of international relations was to broaden the scope of international law beyond this traditional focal point.
Answer:
its birth
Explanation:
i checked it and its right
Answer:
A simplified alphabet made it easier for people to participate in decisions that shaped their communities.
Explanation:
The right option is a: Called for equal representation for each state in Congress. This plan, also known as the Small State Plan, was presented by the statesman and signer of the U.S. Constitution William Paterson (1745-1806) at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in response to the Virginia Plan, which had also been presented at the same Convention. The Virginia Plan proposed that <u>both</u> chambers of Congress would be determined <u>proportionately</u>. The lower chamber or house would be elected by the people and the upper house would be elected by the lower house. Consequently, more populous states (like Virginia) would have a larger number of representatives than smaller states (like New Jersey), and they would have more control over the national government. The alternative to this proposal was the New Jersey Plan, which called for one single chamber with <u>one single vote per state</u>.
Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change
