The Registration and Publication of Treaties

1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

In late 1917, when the Soviet Government of Russia published various documents from the archives of the Russian Foreign Office, an insistent demand was created throughout the world for the abolition of secret diplomacy. A volume of secret treaties was published in England in 1917 and in the United States in early 1918, and the consequent reaction of public opinion greatly influenced the current statements of the aims of the belligerents. In his address of January 8, 1918, President Wilson put the subject of secret diplomacy at the forefront in the “program of the world's peace” embodied in the Fourteen Points: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always openly and in the public view.” It has since developed that these words may have been written without a knowledge of the contents of the secret treaties made by Allied Powers during the war; but they were largely responsible for the crystallization of the revulsion which followed the publication of the secret treaties into a determination that the end of the war should signalize the beginning of a new era in the conduct of international relations.

Author(s):  
Przemysław Potocki

The article is based on an analysis of certain aspects of how the public opinion of selected nations in years 2001–2016 perceived the American foreign policy and the images of two Presidents of the United States (George W. Bush, Barack Obama). In order to achieve these research goals some polling indicators were constructed. They are linked with empirical assessments related to the foreign policy of the U.S. and the political activity of two Presidents of the United States of America which are constructed by nations in three segments of the world system. Results of the analysis confirmed the research hypotheses. The position of a given nation in the structure of the world system influenced the dynamics of perception and the directions of empirical assessments (positive/negative) of that nation’s public opinion about the USA.


Author(s):  
Scott Paeth

This chapter examines the development of Reinhold Niebuhr’s thoughts on nationalism. Over the course of his lifetime, Niebuhr continually returned to the question of nationalism as a factor in international relations, revising his understanding in light of the particular circumstances confronting the United States and the global community. His early writings on German Americanism yielded to a more sceptical analysis of nationalism as a manifestation of collective egoism, but one which could nevertheless provide important resources to human communities. The threat of Fascist nationalism in the 1930s caused him to yet again revise his understanding of nationalism, as a revitalized form of democratic nationalism became necessary to confront it. The Cold War presented the context for Niebuhr’s mature reflection on the subject, advocating for a form of chastened nationalism, which was aware of both its responsibility to confront evil in the world, as well as its own tendencies towards self-delusion and the abuse of power.


1979 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Ceadel

On 9 February 1933 the Oxford Union debated and carried by 275 votes to 153 the motion ‘That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country’. After a few days this became a major news story, first in Britain then also in the world press: the British embassies in Madrid and Santiago cabled the Foreign Office in alarm at the appearance of the story in the Spanish and Chilean press. The motion was taken up also by student debating societies all over Britain and overseas: in the United States, for example, any pledge to take no part in war came to be known as the ‘Oxford pledge’ or the ‘Oxford oath’. Since the debate, which took place ten days after Hitler had become chancellor of Germany, appeared to contrast British liberal, pacifist effeteness with fascist martial virility it was seized on in Germany and Italy. The Liberal M.P. Robert Bernays told the house of commons how he had been asked about the debate later in 1933 by a prominent Nazi youth leader: ‘There was an ugly gleam in his eye when he said: “The fact is that you English are soft.”’ And on 7 July 1934 Alfred Zimmern, professor of international relations at Oxford, wrote from Geneva to the former Union president responsible for the debate: ‘I hope you do penance every night and every morning for that ill-starred Resolution. It is still going on sowing dragons’ teeth. If the Germans have to be knocked out a second time it will be partly your fault.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
William B. Bowes

In The United States, The Homelessness Situation Has Developed Into What Is Commonly Called A Crisis. An Array Of Helpful And Unhelpful Responses Has Been Proposed, And Public Opinion On The Homeless Varies. Apathy Or Inaction On The Part Of The Church Is Not An Option, Since Concerns For The Poor And Displaced Permeate Scripture. This Article Considers The Complex Factors Related To Homelessness And The Theology Of Scripture On The Subject, Evaluating Approaches And Offering Meaningful And Effective Responses In Light Of The Role Of The Church In The World. The Intersection Of Ecclesiology And A Practical Response To The Crisis Will Be Examined To Elucidate Better A Specifically Christian Approach. KEYWORDS: Homelessness, Homelessness Crisis, Ecclesiology, Biblical Theology, Poverty, Church Action


Author(s):  
Elaff Ganim Salih ◽  
Hardev Kaur ◽  
Mohamad Fleih Hassan

The war launched by America and its allies against the country of Iraq on 2003 was a debatable and notorious war for the public opinion was shocked with the realization that the reasons for launching the war under the title ‘Iraq’s Mass Destruction Weapons’ were false. The tragic consequences of this war led many writers around the world to question the policy of the United States and its manipulation of facts to justify their narratives. The present study examines the American policy of invading Iraq in David Hare’s Stuff Happens. It investigates Hare’s technique of combining documentary realism with imaginative reconstruction of the arguments to dramatize the American Invasion of Iraq. Stuff Happens is a historical and political play written as a verbatim theatre. It depicts the backroom deals and political maneuvers of the Bush administration in justifying their campaign against the ‘Axis of Evil’ culminated by the war against Iraq. The verbatim theatre is the best way of showing the gap between ‘what is said and what is seen to be done’. Scenes of direct speeches by real characters are part of this theatre dramatized to present a new reading of a historical event. In addition, characterization is used by Hare’s to chronicle the American war on Iraq. The study follows a postcolonial framework. The study concludes that Hare’s Stuff Happens succeeded in shaking the public opinion with the truth that Bush’s administration has manipulated facts in order to achieve their colonial and imperial interests in Iraq, which led to more destruction and violence in this country.


Author(s):  
Scott Lucas

President Eisenhower easily swept to victory in 1956, defeating Adlai Stevenson, whom he had also beaten in 1952, despite crises and wars that had suddenly flared in Hungary and Egypt. When the events of 1956 are examined through public and private records, the president’s response to these crises appears to confirm his claim that he would not allow policy making to be hostage to the wishes of the public. Instead, he made clear time and again that he would proceed with what he thought was the “right” course for US interests, irrespective of the American public’s reaction to the policy or to his reelection campaign. At the same time, he was ready to invoke public opinion in the United States and throughout the world to try and bend other statesmen to his will.


Author(s):  
Yuri Levada

Trust is closely related to other social concepts such as hope, expectations, loyalty, charismatic authority, rational considerations, and the mass imagination. Recently, ‘trust’ and a related concept, ‘social capital’, have become the subject of special interest in Russia and other post-Communist countries. Under the Soviet regime it was forbidden to conduct proper nationwide surveys of public opinion. But even if opinion surveys had been allowed, the researcher would have found it impossible to obtain any measures of public trust or distrust with respect to state institutions or leaders. In the mass mind, such terms as ‘public opinion’ did not exist. This chapter examines the problem of trust in public opinion in Russia. It compares the indices of trust in Russian social institutions (president, political parties, army, courts, church, media, etc.) with those in the United States. The chapter also summarizes the results of a survey that explored Russians' degree of trust in various countries of the world.


1964 ◽  
Vol 4 (40) ◽  
pp. 339-347
Author(s):  
Ann Magnussen

The subject I have been asked to discuss is one which has been of great concern to the nursing profession in the United States for many years, but this interest has been accentuated by our recognition of the vulnerability of every part of the world in modern warfare. The nurse has traditionally been the personification of those who care for the sick, and the helpless. Her very presence gives the patients a feeling of security and comfort. The public, the physicians, and the patients expect nurses to have an important role in national defense. Therefore, nurses must be prepared and willing to carry out their responsibilities effectively.Before telling you what we are planning to do to prepare nurses to function adequately in national defense, it will be necessary to review the milieu in which we work as each country has its own framework in which activities are carried out and, therefore, the pattern of action may not be the same for every country. Further, I recognize that there are countries represented here that have had much more experience with the problems inherent in planning for national defense than we have in our country.


Author(s):  
Kathryn L. Schwaeble ◽  
Jody Sundt

The United States is unique in its reliance on incarceration. In 2018 the United States had the largest prison population in the world—more than 2.1 million people—and incarcerated 655 per 100,000 residents, the highest incarceration rate in the world. The U.S. public also holds more punitive attitudes in comparison to citizens of other Western, developed countries. For example, when presented with the same description about a hypothetical criminal event, Americans consistently prefer longer sentences compared to residents of other countries. Attitudes about the death penalty are also instructive. Although international support for the death penalty has declined dramatically over time, the majority of Americans are still in favor of capital punishment for certain crimes. In comparison, Great Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965, and only 45% of its citizens continue to support capital punishment. This raises an important question: Can understanding the will of the public help explain how governments respond to crime? The answer to this question is more complicated than expected upon first consideration. The United States generally starts from a more punitive stance than other countries, in part because it experiences more violent crime but also because Americans hold different moral and cultural views about crime and punishment. U.S. public officials, including lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors, are responsive to trends in public attitudes. When the public mood became more punitive during the 1990s, for example, U.S. states universally increased the length of prison sentences and expanded the number of behaviors punishable by incarceration. Similarly, the public mood moderated in the United States toward the end of the 2000s, and states began reducing their prison populations and supporting sentencing reform. It is also true, however, that public officials overestimate how punitive the public is while citizens underestimate how harsh the justice system is. Moreover, the public supports alternatives to tough sentences including prevention, treatment, and alternatives to incarceration, particularly for juveniles and nonviolent offenders. Thus public opinion about punishment is multifaceted and complex, necessitating the exploration of many factors to understand it. Looking at public attitudes about punishment over time, across culture and societies, and in a variety of ways can help explain why social responses to crime change and why some people or groups of people are more punitive than others. Two ideas are helpful in organizing motivations for punishment. First, public support for punishment may be motivated by rational, instrumental interests about how best to protect public safety. Public concern about crime is a particularly important influence on trends in the public mood, but fear of crime and victimization are inconsistently related to how individuals feel about punishment. Second, attitudes about punishment are tied to expressive desires. Attitudes are influenced by culture and moral beliefs about how to respond to harm and violations of the law. Thus attitudes about punishment are relevant in understanding how the public thinks about the problem of crime, as how people think and feel about crime influences what they think and feel should be done about it.


2008 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott A. Beaulier ◽  
William J. Boyes ◽  
William S. Mounts

One of John Maynard Keynes's most quoted statements (1935, p. 383) is: … the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. The number of economists per capita in the United States has risen in the past few decades. At the same time, the public has become more comfortable with big government. This raises intriguing questions regarding just how economists are influencing public opinion; we are left wondering whether economists are instilling a desire in the public for more government or whether, in opposition to Keynes's statement, economists are losing influence. In this paper, we provide some answers. We find that the increased role of economists in society and in policymaking has led to an increase in favorable attitudes toward government intervention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document