Answer:
Thank yo for asking this...I was waiting for someone to ask me this.
EXPLANATION: This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to prosecution in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. We consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime. We argue that personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) continues to apply even where prosecution is sought for international crimes
<span>The answer is "adopting". It is an excerpt from the book of Andrea Sofroniou, "Therapeutic Psychology". It tackles Adolescence, a Psychosocial Stage by Erik Erikson, where an individual (aged 12-19 years), encounters conflict between his identity and feelings of confusion.
"If the adolescent fails to resolve the identity crisis by the time of entry into adulthood, he will feel a sense of role confusion or identity diffusion. Others seem to avoid the crisis altogether and settle easily on an available, socially approved identity. Still others resolve their crises by adopting an available but socially disapproved ideology. This latter option is called negative identity formation and is often associated with delinquent behavior. Resolution of the adolescent identity crisis has a profound influence on development during later adulthood."</span>
I tend to agree with the perspective of Betty Friedan on this question.
Betty Friedan was an early leader of the feminist movement in the United States. Her important book, published in 1963, argued that women in America in the 1950s and early 1960s had an unfulfilling way of life. They were told that fulfillment and happiness as a woman came from being a wife, mother, homemaker. But her own studies showed that women were hungering for something else. They needed an identity of their own, not just from relation to husband, home and children.
You might want to see a bit more I said on this subject in response to someone else's question. Read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/8824227#readmore
Answer:
The states should ratify the Constitution because the Constitution would remedy the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation by creating a stronger, more effective union of the states. They should Ratify it because the Constitution would divide the powers among three branches or that neither branch could become too powerful to threaten their freedom or take away their rights.
Explanation:
