A total of fifteen states were created out of the land from the Louisiana purchase.
<h3>What states were created from the Louisiana Purchase?</h3>
The states that were created from the Louisiana purchase include but are not limited to:
- Arkansas
- Iowa,
- Kansas,
- Missouri,
- Nebraska,
- Oklahoma,
- some parts of Colorado,
- Louisiana,
- Minnesota,
- Montana,
- New Mexico,
- South Dakota,
- Texas, and
- Wyoming
Learn more about the Louisiana Purchase at:
brainly.com/question/2882580
The largest category of primary malignant brain tumors that arise from cells in the CNS are called <u>Gliomas</u>
A malignant brain tumor is a rapidly developing malignancy that can spread to the spine and other parts of the brain. According to their growth rate and propensity to recur after therapy, brain tumors are often rated from 1 to 4 based on their behavior. Grade 3 or 4 tumors are classified as malignant brain tumors, whereas grade 1 or 2 tumors are typically classified as benign or non-cancerous.
The majority of malignant brain tumors are secondary malignancies, meaning they first developed in another area of the body before spreading to the brain. Brain-originating tumors, or primary brain tumors, are those.
To know more about malignant brain tumors
brainly.com/question/12020868
#SPJ4
The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), developed by the UN, shows the growing importance of human rights by It is criticized for becoming a justification for intervention on behalf of state interests not related to protection of human rights.
<h3>The concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)?</h3>
All Heads of State and Government endorsed the duty to safeguard populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity at the 2005 World Summit. Three equally important pillars support the responsibility to protect (commonly abbreviated as "R2P"): the obligation of each State to protect its citizens (pillar I); the obligation of the international community to support States in protecting their citizens (pillar II); and the obligation of the international community to act when a State is blatantly failing to protect its citizens (pillar III). When the concept was adopted in 2005, it was a solemn commitment with high hopes for a world free of these atrocities.
- There are several circumstances in today's world where populations are at risk of R2P crimes or where such crimes are already occurring. These crises are occurring in a climate of waning internationalism, declining adherence to international human rights and humanitarian law, political division in important decision-making bodies like the Security Council, and a degree of defeatism toward advancing ambitious agendas like protection.
- Alarming contempt for core principles of international law has been on display. We are witnessing widespread and egregious attacks on protected civilian sites, such as hospitals and schools, as well as on protected individuals, including humanitarian and health-care workers, in many of the armed conflicts that have broken out in recent years.
- The most severe transgressions of international humanitarian and human rights law, which may qualify as atrocity crimes, continue to be committed by the armed forces and auxiliary militia of States, which is a depressing reality given the rise of violent, non-state armed organizations.
- Similarly, governments do not hold those responsible for atrocity crimes accountable for their deeds. In order to prevent the investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes, some States parties to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, are not collaborating with the Court or are even considering withdrawing from the Statute.
- The Security Council is becoming less willing to bring issues to the Court, and certain political figures obviously want to avoid being held accountable in court.
Learn more about Protect (R2P) here:
brainly.com/question/16179318
#SPJ4
Answer:
Elections affect the Supreme Court like this:
When a president is elected in the US, they are most likely to be of one political party or another. The president also appoints a Supreme Court Justice. If a president is considering appointing a judge, they will probably appoint someone who shares their views, so as to sway matters that get taken to the Supreme Court in their favor.
Explanation:
Example, because I'm not sure I explained correctly: If a president is more left-leaning, they can (and probably will) appoint a left-leaning judge, so that they will judge matters as they or their political party would judge them. Appointing a judge with whom you disagree with isn't a strategic idea, because the president's ideals may be very different from a right-leaning judge. t-leaning, they can (and probably will) appoint a left-leaning judge, so that they will judge matters as they or their political party would judge them. Appointing a judge with whom you disagree isn't a strategic idea, because the president's ideals may be very different from a right-leaning judge.
They believed it was a sacred place of course.
