scholarly journals The founding fathers and the two confederations. The United States of America and the United Provinces of the Netherlands, 1783-1789

1982 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 423
Author(s):  
L.S. Kaplan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
United Provinces

scholarly journals The Origins of Creationism in the Netherlands: The Evolution Debate among Twentieth-Century Dutch Neo-Calvinists

2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham C. Flipse
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Science And Religion ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
The Sixties ◽  
Late Nineteenth

The Netherlands is, besides the United States, one of the few countries where debates about creationism have been raging for decades. Strict creationism has become deeply rooted in traditional Reformed (Calvinist) circles, which is all the more remarkable as it stemmed from a very different culture and theological tradition. This essay analyses the historical implantation of this foreign element in Dutch soil by investigating the long-term interaction between American creationism and Dutch “neo-Calvinism,” a movement emerging in the late nineteenth century, which attempted to bring classical Calvinism into rapport with modern times. The heated debates about evolution in the interbellum period as well as in the sixties—periods characterized by a cultural reorientation of the Dutch Calvinists—turn out to have played a crucial role. In the interbellum period, leading Dutch theologians—fiercely challenged by Calvinist scientists—imported US “flood geology” in an attempt to stem the process of modernisation in the Calvinist subculture. In the sixties many Calvinists abandoned their resistance to evolutionary theory, but creationism continued to play a prominent role as the neo-Calvinist tradition was upheld by an orthodox minority, who (re-)embraced the reviving “Genesis Flood” creationism. The appropriation of American creationism was eased by the earlier Calvinist-creationist connection, but also by “inventing” a Calvinist-creationist tradition, suggesting continuity with the ideas of the founding fathers of neo-Calvinism. This article aims to contribute to a better understanding of what Ronald L. Numbers has recently called the “globalization” of the “science-and-religion dialogue.”

scholarly journals Commanders-in-chief beyond the border: analysing the powers of heads of state in Northern American federalism

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-127
Author(s):  
Tiago de Melo Cartaxo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
The United States ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Heads Of State ◽  
American Federalism

Abstract Canada and the United States of America are examples of how two constitutional systems in the same region may adopt substantially different solutions in respect of the powers of the head of state. While the United States Founding Fathers opted to follow a republican and presidential path, the Canadian constitutional system developed a framework under the British monarchic background, in part as a rejection of their neighbour country’s federal and constitutional choices. This article proceeds with a comparison between both systems of Northern America, demonstrating that the powers of heads of state may vary, even between countries which were historically influenced by the same constitutional and democratic traditions, but, as a result of a multitude of historical and cultural influences, decided to follow different constitutional pathways.

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