II. Worksh ops

1985 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Charles C. West ◽  
J. Mutero Chirenje ◽  
J.D. Gort ◽  
Walter Fernandes ◽  
Michael Bourdeaux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Roman Catholic ◽  
Seventh Day Adventist ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Diverse Nations

AbstractThe workshop brought together some twenty persons from varied and diverse nations and political-economic circumstances - Ghana, Netherlands, New Zealand, Republic of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States of America, West Germany and Zimbabwe. The workshop also reflected a number of Christian denominations - Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Roman Catholic and Seventh Day Adventist. The gathering then was truly pluralistic and ecumenical. Such composition made for a rich encounter of varied and diverse understandings and approaches.

Care-leaving in South Africa: an international and social justice perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue Bond
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Support Services ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Care Leavers ◽  
Poor Outcomes

AbstractInternationally, the care-leaving debate began in the 1970s. The poor outcomes associated with care-leaving in the United Kingdom, United States of America and Australia prompted attention resulting in policy change in recent years, which continues to develop. The experience and outcomes for care leavers in South Africa reflects that of their contemporaries in other countries, however, contextual factors compound the problems that they face and there is little support available to them. This paper discusses some of the challenges facing care leavers and the development of the care-leaving debate, legislation and policy in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. A comparison of the care-leaving arena in South Africa and the support services available to care leavers in the different countries will be presented. The paper concludes by arguing that the absence of services for care leavers is a neglect of the state's responsibility as corporate parent, and represents an issue of social justice.

Conflict Resolution in Southern Africa: Why Namibia is not Another Zimbabwe

1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 37-45
Author(s):  
David F. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The U.S

Despite continued American insistence that a negotiating impasse had not been reached, by the final months of 1982 it seemed clear that internationally-recognized independence for Namibia would not soon be achieved. While Washington claimed that negotiations between South Africa, Angola, and the Southwest African Peoples Organization (SWAPO) (with the U.S. as mediator) remain meaningful, there appears to have been a decisive move away from settlement. The latest round of negotiations, spearheaded by the United States as the leading element of the Western Contact Group (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, and Canada), has attempted to move South African-controlled Namibia to independence on the basis of Security Council Resolution 435 of September 1978.

Provisional Maritime Consultative Council

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-560
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand

The Provisional Maritime Consultative Council, established as the result of a meeting held in October, 1946, of the United Maritime Consultative Council, held its first meeting in Paris from May 16 to 19, 1947. Represented were the governments of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, United States, France, United Kingdom, Greece, India, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Poland and the Union of South Africa, with Sweden and Yugoslavia represented by observers.

Twenty-five years of Norwegian sovereignty in Svalbard, 1925–50

Polar Record ◽  
1951 ◽  
Vol 6 (42) ◽  
pp. 179-184
Author(s):  
Anders K. Orvin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Island

By a treaty signed in Paris on 9 February 1920, Norway was given the sovereignty of Svalbard, comprising all the islands situated between longs. 10° and 35° E. and lats. 74° and 81° N., thus including Spitsbergen, Bjørnøya (Bear Island), Hopen (Hope Island), Kong Karls Land, and Kvitøya (White Island). The treaty, which has since been recognized by a number of other states, was signed by the United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland, the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, and Sweden. The U.S.S.R. recognized Norway's sovereignty of Svalbard in 1924 but did not sign the treaty until 1935; Germany signed the treaty in 1925. On 14 August 1925, Norway formally took possession and the Norwegian flag was hoisted in Longyearbyen. Since then, twenty-five years have elapsed, and in honour of the occasion the anniversary was celebrated at Longyearbyen in 1950.

An Agreement Establishing the South Pacific Commission, Signed February 6, 1947, in Canberra, Australia.

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 419-428 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
South Pacific ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom

The Governments of Australia, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, (hereinafter referred to as “the participating Governments”),

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document