Answer:
Mark as brainliest
Explanation:
symbolic presence in international legal accounts of the 19th century, but for historians of the era its importance has often been doubted. This article seeks to re-interpret the place of the Berlin General Act in late 19th-century history, suggesting that the divergence of views has arisen largely as a consequence of an inattentiveness to the place of systemic logics in legal regimes of this kind.
Issue Section:
Articles
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-1885 has assumed a canonical place in historical accounts of late 19th-century imperialism 1 and this is no less true of the accounts provided by legal scholars seeking to trace the colonial origins of contemporary international law. 2 The overt purpose of the Conference was to ‘manage’ the ongoing process of colonisation in Africa (the ‘Scramble’ as it was dubbed by a Times columnist) so as to avoid the outbreak of armed conflict between rival colonial powers. Its outcome was the conclusion of a General Act 3 ratified by all major colonial powers including the US. 4 Among other things, the General Act set out the conditions under which territory might be acquired on the coast of Africa; it internationalised two rivers (the Congo and the Niger); it orchestrated a new campaign to abolish the overland trade in slaves; and it declared as ‘neutral’ a vast swathe of Central Africa delimited as the ‘conventional basin of the Congo’. A side event was the recognition given to King Leopold’s fledgling Congo Free State that had somewhat mysteriously emerged out of the scientific and philanthropic activities of the Association internationale du Congo . 5
If for lawyers and historians the facts of the Conference are taken as a common starting point, this has not prevented widely divergent interpretations of its significance from emerging. On one side, one may find an array of international lawyers, from John Westlake 6 in the 19th century to Tony Anghie 7 in the 21 st century, affirming the importance of the Conference and its General Act for having created a legal and political framework for the subsequent partition of Africa. 8 For Anghie, Berlin ‘transformed Africa into a conceptual terra nullius ’, silencing native resistance through the subordination of their claims to sovereignty, and providing, in the process, an effective ideology of colonial rule. It was a conference, he argues, ‘which determined in important ways the future of the continent and which continues to have a profound influence on the politics of contemporary Africa’. 9
Answer:Emperador romano es el término utilizado por los historiadores para referirse a los gobernantes del Imperio romano tras el final de la República romana.
En la Antigua Roma no existía el título de «emperador romano», sino que este título era más bien una abreviatura práctica para una complicada reunión de cargos y poderes. A pesar de la popularidad actual del título, el primero en ostentarlo realmente fue Miguel I Rangabé a principios del siglo IX, cuando se hizo llamar Basileus Rhomaion (‘emperador de los romanos’). Hay que tener en cuenta que en aquella época el significado de Basileus había cambiado de ‘soberano’ a ‘emperador’. Tampoco existía ningún título o rango análogo al título de emperador, sino que todos los títulos asociados tradicionalmente al emperador tenían su origen en la época republicana.
La discusión sobre los emperadores romanos está influenciada en gran medida por el punto de vista editorial de los historiadores. Los mismos romanos no compartían los modernos conceptos monárquicos de «imperio» y «emperador». Durante su existencia, el Imperio romano conservó todas las instituciones políticas y las tradiciones de la República romana, incluyendo el Senado y las asambleas.
En general, no se puede describir a los emperadores como gobernantes de iure. Oficialmente, el cargo de emperador era considerado como el «primero entre iguales» (primus inter pares), y muchos de ellos no llegaron a ser gobernantes de facto, sino que frecuentemente fueron simples testaferros de poderosos burócratas, funcionarios, mujeres y generales.
Explanation:
Answer:
A) Cultural relativism is the correct answer.
Explanation:
The idea that a person's values, practices and beliefs should be understood in context of their culture instead of judging them against the criteria of another. Franz Boas was the first person to use it in anthropological research and later his students popularised it, but he didn't coined the term. This term was first used by social theorist Alain Locke in his book Culture and Ethnology
Answer:
Well one of my parents is a counselor and the other is a truck driver and he manages the business.
Explanation:
The main reason william penn made a treat with american Indians is pennsylvania was based on quaker beliefs. Thus, Option C is the correct statement.
<h3>What became the reason of Penn's treaty?</h3>
The Treaty of Shackamaxon, additionally referred to as the Great Treaty and Penn's Treaty, become a mythical treaty among William Penn and Tamanend of the Lenape signed in 1682.
Penn and Tamanend agreed that their humans mumans might ight stay in a nation of perpetual peace.
Thus, Penn, who have been jailed more than one instances for his Quaker beliefs, went directly to discovered Pennsylvania as a sanctuary for spiritual freedom and tolerance. Option C is the correct statement.
learn more about Penn's treaty here:
brainly.com/question/6199691
#SPJ1
