Answer:
A
Explanation:
The books are typically written some time after the event actually happens while Journals Interviews and Pictures are all things that happen at the moment of the event.
Hope that helps
Answer:
Gumagawa kami ng isang bagay sa lipunan.
Paliwanag:
Lahat tayo ay mga ekonomista dahil may kakayahan tayong magamit ang mga kakaunti na mapagkukunan sa isang mahusay na paraan. Ang ekonomista ay isang inaasahan na nag-aaral ng ugnayan sa pagitan ng mga mapagkukunang naroroon sa lipunan at ang produksyon nito. Kaya ayon sa kahulugan na ito tayong lahat ay ekonomista dahil gumagawa kami ng isang bagay mula sa mga mapagkukunang naroroon sa ating lipunan. Ang bawat indibidwal ay gumagawa ng isang bagay na hinihiling ng ibang tao at sa paraang iyon umuunlad ang lipunan.
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:
archeologists, historians, and geographers.
Explanation:
hope this is Helpful!
Numerous originalists would reply "yes," on the grounds that legal audit isn't listed as an energy of the Judicial Branch in the Constitution.
Then again, the legal audit was at that point a setup training when the Constitution was composed, and the Framers, a significant number of whom were attorneys with information of court method, didn't expressly disallow it. Article III makes no say of how the Judicial Branch should practice statute. The absence of direction has a tendency to infer the Framers deliberately permitted adaptability and a level of independence in deciding the courts' operation. In the event that they had no aim for the Judicial Branch to go about as a mind the energy of the other two branches, they could have set more unequivocal rules for the legal to take after.
