Answer:
Europeans forced the Chinese to sign it, ending the first Opium War.
Explanation:
The first opium war is also known as the Anglo-Chinese War and the war was between Great Britain and China. The government officials in china banned opium trade and threatened to kill anyone that involve in the illegal trade.
The banned didn’t go down well with Britain because the British control the trade and felt that the threat by Chinese was a threat to Britain and this led to a war between the British and the Chinese.
Answer:
An example of a problem or situation for which dictators appear to provide "solutions" to their country (although in reality they end up establishing authoritarian and violent governments) is, for example, a social or political conflict within the nation's society.
Thus, for example, after the conflict between the monarchy and the republicans in Spain in the 1930s, the dictator Francisco Franco entered the scene, establishing a dictatorship that lasted 36 years.
It helped our government because it created the 13 and the 14th amendments, it also inspired the 19th amendment to be passed, which is the amendment that gave women their rights.
Answer:
The alliance system, which were the triple alliance formed by Germany,Italy and Austria-Hungary and the Triple Entente formed by UK,France and Russia.
The alliance system had caused great suspicion among the nations, as the alliance system was meant to be kept secret. The nations would be wary that they were to start war as they found backups for themselves.
It also support a nation's will to start a war as they would have back up, this urged WWI to happen.For example, with the support of Germany (blank cheque) Austria-Hungary sent an ultimatum to Serbia,which was impossible for Serbia to fulfill, finally lead to the outburst of WWI.
In addition, the system would enlarge the war scale to become a world war as one another would be drag into the war if one were involved.
Explanation:
<span>The Supreme Court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving: protection of individual rights.
Writing for the conservative group, <em>The Heritage Foundation</em>, Elizabeth Slattery defines judicial activism as "w</span><span>hen judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference."
Cases involving individual rights are likely to elicit charges of judicial activism because the Constitution does not spell out each and every sort of right citizens may have. New questions come up that were not considered or specified at the time the Constitution was written. For instance, <em>Roe v. Wade </em>(1973) addressed the question of abortion and an individual's right to privacy. <em>Obergefell v. Hodges </em>(2015) addressed the legality of same-sex marriage. Both are cases of individual rights, where the Constitution did not give direct instruction on the issues at stake. The decisions on those issues, to allow abortion and to allow same-sex marriage, both are criticized by conservatives as instances of judicial activism.</span>
