Organization and Procedure of the Peace Conference

1919 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-212
Author(s):  
Charles G. Fenwick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Special Functions ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Prime Ministers ◽  
Western Front

The difficulty of threading one's way through the intricacies of the organization of the Peace Conference is due chiefly to the fact that the conference is from one point of view a continuation of various interallied conferences and councils created for the prosecution of the war. In some cases the functions of these bodies have apparently been taken over by the conference, and in other cases the preëxisting councils and commissions have continued in operation as interallied agencies distinct from the organization of the conference. A brief review of the most important of these agencies will be of assistance, therefore, in making clear the origin and special functions of the conference.The Supreme War Council was created by an agreement between Great Britain, France and Italy at a meeting held at Rapallo, Italy, in the first week of November, 1917. It was composed of the prime ministers and a member of the governments of each of the great powers fighting on the western front. Its purpose was to watch over the general conduct of the war and prepare recommendations for the decision of the governments. It was to be assisted by a permanent central military committee, consisting of Generals Foch, Wilson and Cadorna, but the decisions of these technical advisers were merely to be the basis of recommendations from the War Council to the several governments, leaving the general staffs and military commands of each power responsible to their individual governments. The United States subsequently adhered to the Rapallo agreement, and participated in the meeting of the council at Versailles on December 1, 1917.

Counterterrorism Between the Wars

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary S. Barton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Independence Movements ◽  
Second World ◽  
The U.S

This is a book about terrorism, weapons, and diplomacy in the interwar years between the First and Second World Wars. It charts the convergence of the manufacture and trade of arms; diplomacy among the Great Powers and the domestic politics within them; the rise of national liberation and independence movements; and the burgeoning concept and early institutions of international counterterrorism. Key themes include: a transformation in meaning and practice of terrorism; the inability of Great Powers—namely, Great Britain, the United States, France—to harmonize perceptions of interest and the pursuit of common interests; the establishment of the tools and infrastructure of modern intelligence—including the U.S.-U.K. cooperation that would evolve into the Five Eyes intelligence alliance; and the nature of peacetime in the absence of major wars. Particular emphasis is given to British attempts to quell revolutionary nationalist movements in India and elsewhere in its empire, and to the Great Powers’ combined efforts to counter the activities of the Communist International. The facilitating roles of the Paris Peace Conference and League of Nations are explored here, in the context of the Arms Traffic Convention of 1919, the Arms Traffic Conference of 1925, and the 1937 Terrorism Convention.

“The Royal Book of Degrees from the Point of View of Modern Slavonic Scholars. International Research Conference in Los Angeles

2009 ◽  
pp. 131-132
Author(s):  
Andrey S. Usachev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
International Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
University Of California ◽  
Research Conference ◽  
Book Culture

The publication on the conference devoted to discussing of bibliological problems, connected with a monument of Russian medieval book culture — the Royal Book of Degrees (Kniga stepennaia tsarskogo rodosloviia), 1556–1563. Conference has been organized by University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), on February 26–28th, 2009. It was attended by scholars from the United States, Russia, Great Britain, Germany and France, including the author of the article.

Partnership or Predation? How Rising States Contend with Declining Great Powers

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-126
Author(s):  
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Economic Interdependence ◽  
Rising Powers ◽  
The Soviet Union

International relations scholarship overwhelmingly expects that relatively rising states will threaten and challenge declining great powers. In practice, however, rising states can also cooperate with and support declining powers. What explains the rising state's choice of policy? When do rising states support or prey on declining great powers, and why do such strategies vary across time and space? The answer depends on the rising state's broader strategic calculations. All things being equal, a rising state will generally support a declining power when the latter can be used to offset threats from other great powers that can harm the rising state's security. Conversely, when using a declining state to offset such challenges is not a plausible option, the rising state is likely to pursue a predation strategy. The level of assertiveness of support or predation, meanwhile, depends on the declining power's military posture: the stronger the declining state is militarily, the less assertive the rising state tends to be. A review of the strategies adopted by two relatively rising powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, toward a declining Great Britain after 1945, and of a rising United States vis-à-vis a declining Soviet Union in the late Cold War, illustrates how this argument outperforms explanations that focus instead on the importance of economic interdependence and ideology.

A Territorial Pattern for the Military Occupation of Germany

1944 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 970-975
Author(s):  
James K. Pollock
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Soviet Leader ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Military

With the military defeat of Germany now assured, it becomes imperative to complete plans for occupation of the country. There is apparent agreement among the United Nations that Germany must be occupied; but, although much work has been done on the subject, by both the military and political branches of the several Allied Governments, to date we have not had any general policy directives from the heads of the three great powers, namely, Russia, Great Britain, and the United States. Presumably, at the Teheran conference Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin came to a preliminary meeting of minds with reference to the various aspects of the war against Germany. At the second Quebec conference, it may reasonably be assumed that the President and Mr. Churchill, keeping in close contact with the Soviet leader, finally came to some definite agreement regarding the measures necessary to encompass the complete defeat and occupation of Germany.It has been generally agreed all around that Germany must be occupied by the troops of the Allied Nations, but many of the specific details of such an occupation have not yet been thought through. When we speak of the occupation of Germany, we must first of all define exactly what we mean by the term Germany. It is expected that “Germany” will be understood to cover only those territories included within the Republic prior to Hitler's accession to power. It might be better to agree that the boundaries shall be understood to be those of January 1, 1932.

International Law and Political Science

1913 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alpheus Henry Snow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Great Majority ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Political Society ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Internal Relations ◽  
The Law

It is a truism that the science of law proper – the science dealing with the United States or the law of Great Britain, one finds the whole science based on the fact of the existence of a political society known as the United States or Great Britain, which formulates, applies and enforces the law which governs these nations in their internal relations. When one enters upon the study of what is called international law, one finds himself expected to accept as a fundamental proposition that there is no political society which formulates, applies and enforces the law which he is told governs all nations in their external relations, and that this law is formulated, applied and enforced among or between the nations. This difference in fundamentals leads to corresponding differences in the derivative notions. Practitioners of law proper take little or no interest in what is called international law. From their point of view, that which is called international law is only a collection of the rules of a highly interesting game, success in which depends largely upon “face ” and personality; nor can it be denied that there is much to justify this opinion. Students of law reflect the attitude of mind of the practitioner, and the great majority of students end their legal education when they finish the courses in national domestic law, giving no consideration to the law which governs the actions and relations of the nations.

The Canal Fortifications and the Treaty

1911 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 620-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crammond Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Panama Canal ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Canal Zone ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Territorial Rights

Connected as it is with the progress of the present phenomenal movement for international peace, the question whether the Panama Canal should be permanently fortified as part of its construction and before it is opened to the commerce of the world, is of the highest importance; and for this reason the views and conclusions of the commissioners who considered the subject under authority of Congress in 1899–1901, when negotiations were in progress between the United States and Great Britain for a new agreement to take the place of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, are of the gravest public interest and are worthy of the most considerate attention. It was not until November, 1903, that the Isthmian Canal Zone came under “ the perpetual control ” of the United States by the treaty of the 18th of that month with the new-born Republic of Panama; but, for some years prior, the United States had been considering the acquisition of a strip of territory in the Isthmus, and the construction of a waterway between the two oceans, on its own responsibility, at its own cost, and under its own control. It was from this new point of view that the Canal Commission of 1899–1901, of which the late Admiral Walker was president, made its investigations and report; and it was to open the way to the accomplishment of this enterprise without a violation of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and with the consent of Great Britain, whose interests in the physical union of the Atlantic and Pacific were second only to those of the United States, that the negotiations then pending between the two governments had been commenced and were subsequently carried on until they resulted in the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, which was signed on November 18, 1901, proclaimed February 22, 1902, and is now in force. It antedated by some months the passage of “ the Spooner bill,” which provided for the purchase of the rights and property of the New Panama Canal Company (De Lesseps’ successor in France) and for the acquisition of the necessary territorial rights from Colombia, or, failing that, from Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

scholarly journals Gone with the War? Neutral State Responsibility and the Geneva Arbitration of 1872

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 787-820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Chadwick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Civil War ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Neutral State

The Geneva Arbitration of 1872 was convened to settle various differences between the United States and Great Britain and, in particular, American allegations of British collusion with regard to shipbuilding for the Southern Confederacy during the American Civil War. The Arbitrators ultimately found Britain liable, and awarded $15,500,000 to the United States. This decision remains controversial to the extent that it rested on rules which were not yet accepted as principles of general international law, and which clearly favoured the case of the United States from the outset. It is thus the purpose of this article to explore the facts behind the Geneva Arbitration, and to argue that the finding of British liability in Geneva marked the beginning decline of the laws of neutrality. Neutral Countries […] may be exploited by the Great Powers both strategically and as a source of additional armies and fleets. Of central importance to the game are those Neutral Countries and provinces which are designated as “Supply Centres.” […] A player's fighting strength is directly related to the number of Supply Centres he or she controls, whilst the game is won when one player controls at least 18 Supply Centres.

scholarly journals Foreign geopolitics of great powers: comparative analysis of interests, vectors and concrete results

2013 ◽  
pp. 112-120
Author(s):  
Myroslav Dnistryanskyy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Key Words ◽  
The United States ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Global Security

Comparative analysis of objectives and basic directions of geopolitics of the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China are made. A place of Ukraine in geopolitics of great powers is appointed. Contradictions of realization of geopolitical interests by great powers in context of global security and sustainable development are shown. Key words: geopolitics, geopolitical analysis, great powers, foreign policy, geopolitical interests.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document