In the law of the United States, the Code of Laws of the United States of America[1] (variously abbreviated to Code of Laws of the United States, United States Code, U.S. Code, U.S.C., or USC) is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes.[2] It contains 53 titles (Titles 1–54, excepting Title 53, which is reserved for a proposed title on small business).[3][4] The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.[2][5][6] The official version of these laws appears in the United States Statutes at Large, a chronological, uncodified compilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code
In the law of the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the codification of the general and permanent regulations promulgated by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation.
The CFR annual edition is published as a special issue of the Federal Register by the Office of the Federal Register (part of the National Archives and Records Administration) and the Government Publishing Office.[1] In addition to this annual edition, the CFR is published online on the Electronic CFR (eCFR) website, which is updated daily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food. It aims to meet the needs of commercial farming and livestock food production, promotes agricultural trade and production, works to assure food safety, protects natural resources, fosters rural communities and works to end hunger in the United States and internationally. It is headed by the Secretary of Agriculture, who reports directly to the President of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who has served since February 24, 2021.[2]
Approximately 80% of the USDA's $141 billion budget goes to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program. The largest component of the FNS budget is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the 'Food Stamp' program), which is the cornerstone of USDA's nutrition assistance.[3] The United States Forest Service is the largest agency within the department, which administers national forests and national grasslands that together comprise about 25% of federal lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture
The United States federal executive departments are the principal units of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States. They are analogous to ministries common in parliamentary or semi-presidential systems but (the United States being a presidential system) they are led by a head of government who is also the head of state. The executive departments are the administrative arms of the President of the United States. There are currently 15 executive departments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departments
Federal lands are lands in the United States owned by the federal government. Pursuant to the Property Clause of the United States Constitution (Article 4, section 3, clause 2), Congress has the power to retain, buy, sell, and regulate federal lands, such as by limiting cattle grazing on them. These powers have been recognized in a long line of United States Supreme Court decisions.[1][2]
The only mention in the United States Constitution of the specific types of land the federal government is authorized to own outside Washington D.C., in Article 1, Section 8, refers to "Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards, and other needful Buildings."
The federal government owns about 640 million acres (2.6 million km2) of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres (9.2 million km2).[3][4] The majority of federal lands (610.1 million acres (2.469 million km2) or 95 percent area in 2015) are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), or United States Forest Service (USFS). BLM, FWS, and NPS are part of the United States Department of the Interior, while the Forest Service is part of the United States Department of Agriculture. An additional 11.4 million acres (46 thousand km2) of land (about 2% of all federal land) is owned by the United States Department of Defense (DOD).[4] The majority of federal lands are located in Alaska and the Western states.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fish_and_Wildlife_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785
The Federal Reserve System (often shortened to the Federal Reserve, or simply the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics (particularly the panic of 1907) led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises.[list 1] Over the years, events such as the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession during the 2000s have led to the expansion of the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System.[6][11]
Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates.[12] The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.[13] Its duties have expanded over the years, and currently also include supervising and regulating banks, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.[14] The Fed also conducts research into the economy and provides numerous publications, such as the Beige Book and the FRED database.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_policy
The Department of the Treasury (USDT)[2] is the national treasury and finance department of the federal government of the United States, where it serves as an executive department.[3] The department oversees the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint. These two agencies are responsible for printing all paper currency and minting coins, while the treasury executes currency circulation in the domestic fiscal system. The USDT collects all federal taxes through the Internal Revenue Service; manages U.S. government debt instruments; licenses and supervises banks and thrift institutions; and advises the legislative and executive branches on matters of fiscal policy. The department is administered by the secretary of the treasury, who is a member of the Cabinet. The treasurer of the United States has limited statutory duties, but advises the Secretary on various matters such as coinage and currency production.[4] Signatures of both officials appear on all Federal Reserve notes.[5]
The department was established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue.[6] The first secretary of the treasury was Alexander Hamilton, who was sworn into office on September 11, 1789.[7] Hamilton was appointed by President George Washington on the recommendation of Robert Morris, Washington's first choice for the position, who had declined the appointment.[8] Hamilton established the nation's early financial system and for several years was a major presence in Washington's administration.[9] The department is customarily referred to as "Treasury", solely, without any preceding article, as a remnant of the country's transition from British to American English during the late 18th century. Hamilton's portrait appears on the obverse of the ten-dollar bill, while the Treasury Department building is depicted on the reverse.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury
The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government or U.S. government)[a] is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based.
The U.S. federal government, sometimes simply referred to as Washington, is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president, and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the national government and state governments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Park_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_governments_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
In the United States, federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and toward the national government. The progression of federalism includes dual, cooperative, and new federalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
In the United States, a state is a constituent political entity, of which there are 50. Bound together in a political union, each state holds governmental jurisdiction over a separate and defined geographic territory where it shares its sovereignty with the federal government. Due to this shared sovereignty, Americans are citizens both of the federal republic and of the state in which they reside.[3] State citizenship and residency are flexible, and no government approval is required to move between states, except for persons restricted by certain types of court orders (such as paroled convicts and children of divorced spouses who share child custody).
State governments in the U.S. are allocated power by the people (of each respective state) through their individual state constitutions. All are grounded in republican principles (this being required by the federal constitution), and each provides for a government, consisting of three branches, each with separate and independent powers: executive, legislative, and judicial.[4] States are divided into counties or county-equivalents, which may be assigned some local governmental authority but are not sovereign. County or county-equivalent structure varies widely by state, and states also create other local governments.
States, unlike U.S. territories, possess many powers and rights under the United States Constitution. States and their citizens are represented in the United States Congress, a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state is also entitled to select a number of electors (equal to the total number of representatives and senators from that state) to vote in the Electoral College, the body that directly elects the president of the United States. Additionally, each state has the opportunity to ratify constitutional amendments, and, with the consent of Congress, two or more states may enter into interstate compacts with one another. The police power of each state is also recognized.
Historically, the tasks of local law enforcement, public education, public health, intrastate commerce regulation, and local transportation and infrastructure, in addition to local, state, and federal elections, have generally been considered primarily state responsibilities, although all of these now have significant federal funding and regulation as well. Over time, the Constitution has been amended, and the interpretation and application of its provisions have changed. The general tendency has been toward centralization and incorporation, with the federal government playing a much larger role than it once did. There is a continuing debate over states' rights, which concerns the extent and nature of the states' powers and sovereignty in relation to the federal government and the rights of individuals.
The Constitution grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union. Since the establishment of the United States in 1776 by the Thirteen Colonies, the number of states has expanded from the original 13 to 50. Each new state has been admitted on an equal footing with the existing states.[5] While the Constitution does not explicitly discuss the issue of whether states have the power to secede from the Union, shortly after the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, held that a state cannot unilaterally do so.[6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state
The United States of America (U.S.A. or USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It consists of 50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, nine Minor Outlying Islands,[i] and 326 Indian reservations. The United States is the world's third-largest country by both land and total area.[c] It shares land borders with Canada to its north and with Mexico to its south and has maritime borders with the Bahamas, Cuba, Russia, and other nations.[j] With a population of over 333 million,[k] it is the most populous country in the Americas and the third most populous in the world. The national capital of the United States is Washington, D.C., and its most populous city and principal financial center is New York City.
Indigenous peoples have inhabited the Americas for thousands of years. Beginning in 1607, British colonization led to the establishment of the Thirteen Colonies in what is now the Eastern United States. They quarreled with the British Crown over taxation and political representation, leading to the American Revolution and proceeding Revolutionary War. The United States declared independence on July 4, 1776, becoming the first nation-state founded on Enlightenment principles of unalienable natural rights, consent of the governed, and liberal democracy. During the nineteenth century, the United States political philosophy was informed by the concept of manifest destiny, as the country expanded across the continent in a number of wars, land purchases, and treaties, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean by the middle of the century. Sectional division surrounding slavery in the Southern United States led to the secession of the Confederate States of America, which fought the remaining states of the Union during the American Civil War (1861–1865). With the Union's victory and preservation, slavery was abolished nationally by the Thirteenth Amendment.
By 1900, the United States had established itself as a world power, becoming the world's largest economy. After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. entered World War II on the Allied side. The aftermath of the war left the United States and the Soviet Union as the world's two superpowers and led to the Cold War. During the Cold War, both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance but avoided direct military conflict. They also competed in the Space Race, which culminated in the 1969 landing of Apollo 11, making the U.S. the first and only nation to ever land humans on the Moon. With the Soviet Union's collapse and the subsequent end of the Cold War in 1991, the United States emerged as the world's sole superpower.
The United States government is a federal republic and a representative democracy with three separate branches of government. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Many policy issues are decentralized, with widely differing laws by jurisdiction. The U.S. ranks highly in international measures of quality of life, income and wealth, economic competitiveness, human rights, innovation, and education; it has low levels of perceived corruption and the highest median income per person of any polity in the world. It has high levels of incarceration and inequality and lacks universal health care. As a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, the U.S. has been shaped by the world's largest immigrant population.
A developed country, the American economy accounts for approximately a quarter of global GDP and is the world's largest by GDP at market exchange rates. The United States is the world's largest importer and second-largest exporter. The United States is a founding member of the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organization of American States, NATO, and is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. is the foremost military power in the world and a dominant political, cultural, and scientific force internationally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States
A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government.[1] At its core, the literal meaning of the word republic when used to reference a form of government means: "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a monarch".
In a federal republic, a division of powers exists between the federal government and the government of the individual subdivisions. While each federal republic manages this division of powers differently, common matters relating to security and defense, and monetary policy are usually handled at the federal level, while matters such as infrastructure maintenance and education policy are usually handled at the regional or local level. However, views differ on what issues should be a federal competence, and subdivisions usually have sovereignty in some matters where the federal government does not have jurisdiction. A federal republic is thus best defined in contrast to a unitary republic, whereby the central government has complete sovereignty over all aspects of political life. This more decentralized structure helps to explain the tendency for more populous countries to operate as federal republics.[2] Most federal republics codify the division of powers between orders of government in a written constitutional document.
The political differences between a federal republic and other federal states, especially federal monarchies under a parliamentary system of government, are largely a matter of legal form rather than political substance, as most federal states are democratic in structure if not practice with checks and balances. However, some federal monarchies, such as the United Arab Emirates are based upon principles other than democracy.
Otherwise, federal states primarily contrast with unitary states, where the central government retains many of the powers that are delegated to the subdivisions in federal republics. While there are exceptions, the overall tendency is for federal republics to be larger, more populous, and more internally heterogeneous than unitary states, with such larger size and internal heterogeneity being more manageable in a federal system than in a unitary one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic
A federated state (which may also be referred to as a state, a province, a region, a canton, a land, a governorate, an oblast, an emirate, or a country) is a territorial and constitutional community forming part of a federation.[1] Such states differ from fully sovereign states, in that they do not have full sovereign powers, as the sovereign powers have been divided between the federated states and the central or federal government. Importantly, federated states do not have standing as entities of international law. Instead, the federal union as a single entity is the sovereign state for purposes of international law.[2] Depending on the constitutional structure of a particular federation, a federated state can hold various degrees of legislative, judicial, and administrative jurisdiction over a defined geographic territory and is a form of regional government.
In some cases, a federation is created from the union of political entities that are either independent or dependent territories of another sovereign entity (most commonly a colonial power).[A] In other cases, federated states have been created out of the administrative divisions of previously unitary states.[B] Once a federal constitution is formed, the rules governing the relationship between federal and regional powers become part of the country's constitutional law and not international law.
In countries with federal constitutions, there is a division of power between the central government and the component states. These entities – states, provinces, counties, cantons, Länder, etc. - are partially self-governing and are afforded a degree of constitutionally guaranteed autonomy that varies substantially from one federation to another.[C] Depending on the form the decentralization of powers takes, a federated state's legislative powers may or may not be overruled or vetoed by the federal government. Laws governing the relationship between federal and regional powers can be amended through the national or federal constitution, and, if they exist, state constitutions as well.
In terms of internal politics, federated states can have republican or monarchical forms of government. Those of republican form (federated republics) are usually called states (like states of the USA) or republics (like republics in the former USSR).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_state
The Soviet Union,[n] officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[o] (USSR),[p] was a transcontinental country that spanned much of Eurasia from 1922 to 1991. A flagship communist state, it was nominally a federal union of fifteen national republics;[q] in practice, both its government and its economy were highly centralized until its final years. It was a one-party state governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with the city of Moscow serving as its capital as well as that of its largest and most populous republic: the Russian SFSR. Other major cities included Leningrad (Russian SFSR), Kiev (Ukrainian SSR), Minsk (Byelorussian SSR), Tashkent (Uzbek SSR), Alma-Ata (Kazakh SSR), and Novosibirsk (Russian SFSR). It was the largest country in the world, covering over 22,402,200 square kilometres (8,649,500 sq mi) and spanning eleven time zones.
The country's roots lay in the October Revolution of 1917, which saw the Bolsheviks overthrow the Russian Provisional Government that formed earlier that year following the February Revolution and the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, marking the end of the Russian Empire. Following the coup, the Bolsheviks lead by Vladimir Lenin established the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR), the world's first constitutionally guaranteed socialist state.[r] Persisting internal tensions escalated into the brutal Russian Civil War. As the war progressed in the Bolsheviks' favor, the RSFSR began to incorporate land conquered from the war into nominally independent states, which were unified into the Soviet Union in December 1922. Following Lenin's death in 1924, Joseph Stalin came to power. Stalin inaugurated a period of rapid industrialization and forced collectivization that led to significant economic growth, but also contributed to a famine in 1930–1933 that killed millions. The forced labour camp system of the Gulag was also expanded in this period. Stalin conducted the Great Purge to remove his actual and perceived opponents. After the outbreak of World War II, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The combined Soviet civilian and military casualty count—estimated to be around 20 million people—accounted for the majority of losses of Allied forces. In the aftermath of World War II, the territory occupied by the Red Army formed various Soviet satellite states.
The beginning of the Cold War saw the Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Union confront the Western Bloc of the United States, with the latter grouping becoming largely united in 1949 under NATO and the former grouping becoming largely united in 1955 under the Warsaw Pact. As the Soviet Union already had an armed presence and political domination all over its eastern satellite states by 1955, the pact has been long considered "superfluous", and because of the rushed way in which it was conceived, NATO officials labeled it a "cardboard castle". There was no direct military confrontation between the two organizations; instead, the conflict was fought on an ideological basis and through proxy wars. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact led to the expansion of military forces and their integration into the respective blocs. The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagement was the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, its own member state, in August 1968 (with the participation of all pact nations except Albania and Romania), which, in part, resulted in Albania withdrawing from the pact less than one month later. Following Stalin's death in 1953, a period known as de-Stalinization occurred under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviets took an early lead in the Space Race with the first artificial satellite, the first human spaceflight, and the first probe to land on another planet (Venus).
In the 1970s, there was a brief détente in the Soviet Union's relationship with the United States, but tensions resumed following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In the mid-1980s, the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to reform the country through his policies of glasnost and perestroika. In 1989, during the closing stages of the Cold War, various countries of the Warsaw Pact overthrew their Marxist–Leninist regimes, which was accompanied by the outbreak of strong nationalist and separatist movements across the entire Soviet Union. In 1991, Gorbachev initiated a national referendum—boycotted by the Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova—that resulted in the majority of participating citizens voting in favour of preserving the country as a renewed federation. In August 1991, hardline members of the Communist Party staged a coup d'état against Gorbachev; the attempt failed, with Boris Yeltsin playing a high-profile role in facing down the unrest, and the Communist Party was subsequently banned. The Russian Federation became the Soviet Union's successor state, while all of the other republics emerged from the USSR's collapse as fully independent post-Soviet states.
The Soviet Union produced many significant social and technological achievements and innovations. It had the world's second-largest economy, and the Soviet Armed Forces comprised the largest standing military in the world. An NPT-designated state, it possessed the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. It was a founding member of the United Nations as well as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Before the dissolution, the country had maintained its status as one of the world's two superpowers through its hegemony in Eastern Europe, military and economic strengths and scientific research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
A polity is an identifiable political entity – a group of people with a collective identity, who are organized by some form of institutionalized social relations, and have a capacity to mobilize resources.[1] A polity can be any other group of people organized for governance (such as a corporate board), the government of a country, or of a country subdivision. A polity may be a republic administered by an elected representative, or the realm of a hereditary monarch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity
In geopolitics, a polity can be manifested in different forms such as a state, an empire, an international organization, a political organization and other identifiable, resource-manipulating organizational structures. A polity like a state does not need to be a sovereign unit. The most preeminent polities today are Westphalian states and nation-states, commonly referred to as countries and also incorrectly referred to by the term nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity
An empire is a political unit made up of several territories and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries".[1] The center of the empire (sometimes referred to as the metropole) exercises political control over the peripheries.[2] Within an empire, different populations have different sets of rights and are governed differently.[3] Narrowly defined, an empire is a sovereign state whose head of state is an emperor; but not all states with aggregate territory under the rule of supreme authorities are called empires or ruled by an emperor; nor have all self-described empires been accepted as such by contemporaries and historians (the Central African Empire, and some Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in early England being examples).
There have been "ancient and modern, centralized and decentralized, ultra-brutal and relatively benign" Empires.[4] An important distinction has been between land empires made up solely of contiguous territories, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Russian Empire; and those created by sea-power, which include territories that are far remote from the 'home' country of the empire, such as the Carthaginian Empire and British Empire.[4] Aside from the more formal usage, the word empire can also refer colloquially to a large-scale business enterprise (e.g. a transnational corporation), a political organization controlled by a single individual (a political boss), or a group (political bosses).[5] The concept of empire is associated with other such concepts as imperialism, colonialism, and globalization, with imperialism referring to the creation and maintenance of unequal relationships between nations and not necessarily the policy of a state headed by an emperor or empress. Empire is often used as a term to describe displeasure to overpowering situations.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire
Sovereignty can generally be defined as supreme authority.[1] Sovereignty entails hierarchy within the state, as well as external autonomy for states.[2] In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body, or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change existing laws.[3] In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity.[4] In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to do so. This can become an issue of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and reside within the same organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
A nation-state is a political unit where the state and nation are congruent.[1][2][3][4] It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant ethnic group.
A nation, in the sense of a common ethnicity, may include a diaspora or refugees who live outside the nation-state; some nations of this sense do not have a state where that ethnicity predominates. In a more general sense, a nation-state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory. A nation-state may be contrasted with:
- A multinational state, where no one ethnic group dominates (such a state may also be considered a multicultural state depending on the degree of cultural assimilation of various groups).
- A city-state, which is both smaller than a "nation" in the sense of a "large sovereign country" and which may or may not be dominated by all or part of a single "nation" in the sense of a common ethnicity.[5][6][7]
- An empire, which is composed of many countries (possibly non-sovereign states) and nations under a single monarch or ruling state government.
- A confederation, a league of sovereign states, which might or might not include nation-states.
- A federated state, which may or may not be a nation-state, and which is only partially self-governing within a larger federation (for example, the state boundaries of Bosnia and Herzegovina are drawn along ethnic lines, but those of the United States are not).
This article mainly discusses the more specific definition of a nation-state as a typically sovereign country dominated by a particular ethnicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state
A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or society. A nation is thus the collective identity of a group of people understood as defined by those features. Some nations are equated with ethnic groups (see ethnic nationalism) and some are equated with affiliation to a social and political constitution (see civic nationalism and multiculturalism).[1] A nation is generally more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2][3] A nation has also been defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.[4]
The consensus among scholars is that nations are socially constructed and historically contingent.[5] Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, territorial authorities and their homeland, but nationalism – the belief that state and nation should align as a nation state – did not become a prominent ideology until the end of the 18th century.[6] There are three notable perspectives on how nations developed. Primordialism (perennialism), which reflects popular conceptions of nationalism but has largely fallen out of favour among academics,[7] proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolving phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernization theory, which has superseded primordialism as the dominant explanation of nationalism,[8] adopts a constructivist approach and proposes that nationalism emerged due to processes of modernization, such as industrialization, urbanization, and mass education, which made national consciousness possible.[5][9]
Proponents of modernization theory describe nations as "imagined communities", a term coined by Benedict Anderson.[10] A nation is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections and that it is objectively impersonal, even if each individual in the nation experiences themselves as subjectively part of an embodied unity with others. For the most part, members of a nation remain strangers to each other and will likely never meet.[11] Nationalism is consequently seen an "invented tradition" in which shared sentiment provides a form of collective identity and binds individuals together in political solidarity. A nation's foundational "story" may be built around a combination of ethnic attributes, values and principles, and may be closely connected to narratives of belonging.[5][12][13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
The Westphalian system is the political order in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory and are the monopolists of the ability to conduct warfare.[1] The principle developed in Europe after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, based on the state theory of Jean Bodin and the natural law teachings of Hugo Grotius. It underlies the modern international system of sovereign states and is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which states that "nothing ... shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."[2]
According to the principle, every state, no matter how large or small, has an equal right to sovereignty.[3] Political scientists have traced the concept to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) and Eighty Years' War (1568–1648). The principle of non-interference was further developed in the 18th century. The Westphalian system reached its peak in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it has faced recent challenges from advocates of humanitarian intervention.[4] Efforts to curtail absolute sovereignty have met with substantial resistance by sovereigntist movements in multiple countries who seek to "take back control" from such transnational governance groups and agreements, restoring the world to pre World War II norms of sovereignty.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_system
A territory is an area of land, sea, or space, belonging or connected to a particular country, person, or animal.[1]
In international politics, a territory is either the total area from which a state may extract power resources[2] or else an administrative division, i.e. an area that is under the jurisdiction of a sovereign state.
As a subdivision, a territory in most countries is an organized division of an area that is controlled by a country but is not formally developed into,[1] or incorporated into, a political unit of that country, which political units are of equal status to one another and are often referred to by words such as "provinces", "regions", or "states". In its narrower sense, it is "a geographic region, such as a colonial possession, that is dependent on an external government."[3]
Types
Examples for different types of territory include the following:
- Capital territory
- Dependent territory
- Disputed territory, a geographic area claimed by two or more rival governments. For example, the territory of Kashmir is claimed by the governments of both India and Pakistan; for each country involved in the dispute, the whole territory is claimed as a part of the existing state. Another example is the Republic of China (commonly labeled "Taiwan"), whose sovereignty status is disputed by and territory claimed by the People's Republic of China.
- Federal territory
- Maritime territory
- Occupied territory, a region that is under the military control of an outside power that has not gained universal recognition from the international community. Current examples are Crimea, occupied by the Russian Federation; East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank, occupied by the State of Israel; Western Sahara, partially occupied by the Kingdom of Morocco. Other examples of occupied territory include the country of Kuwait after it was briefly invaded by Iraq in 1990, Iraq after the American invasion of 2003, Germany after World War II, and Kosovo after 1999.
- Overseas territory
- Unorganized territory, a region of land without a "normally" constituted system of government. This does not mean that the territory has no government at all or that it is an unclaimed territory. In practice, such territories are always sparsely populated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory
The roots of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) are basic parts of words that carry a lexical meaning, so-called morphemes. PIE roots usually have verbal meaning like "to eat" or "to run". Roots never occurred alone in the language. Complete inflected verbs, nouns, and adjectives were formed by adding further morphemes to a root and potentially changing the root's vowel in a process called ablaut.
A root consists of a central vowel that is preceded and followed by at least one consonant each. A number of rules have been determined that specify which consonants can occur together, and in which order. The modern understanding of these rules is that the consonants with the highest sonority (*l, *r, *y, *n[a]) are nearest to the vowel, and the ones with the lowest sonority such as plosives are furthest away. There are some exceptions to these rules such as thorn clusters.
Sometimes new roots were created in PIE or its early descendants by various processes such as root extensions (adding a sound to the end of an existing root) or metathesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_root
The Aryan race is an obsolete historical race concept that emerged in the late-19th century to describe people of Proto-Indo-European heritage as a racial grouping.[1][2] The terminology derives from the historical usage of Aryan, used by modern Indo-Iranians as an epithet of "noble". Anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence does not support the validity of this concept.[3][4]
The concept derives from the notion that the original speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were distinct progenitors of a superior specimen of humankind,[5][6] and that their descendants up to the present day constitute either a distinctive race or a sub-race of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race and the Hamitic race.[7] This taxonomic approach to categorizing human population groups is now considered to be misguided and biologically meaningless due to the close genetic similarity and complex interrelationships between these groups.[8][9][10] The isomorphism of race, culture, and language has been rejected as an erroneous conception by modern scholars.[11]
The term was adopted by various racist and antisemitic writers during the 19th century, including Arthur de Gobineau, Richard Wagner, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain,[12] whose scientific racism influenced later Nazi racial ideology.[13] By the 1930s, the concept had been associated with both Nazism and Nordicism,[14] and used to support the white supremacist ideology of Aryanism that portrayed the Aryan race as a "master race",[15] with non-Aryans regarded as racially inferior (Untermensch, lit. 'subhuman') and an existential threat that was to be exterminated.[16] In Nazi Germany, these ideas formed an essential part of the state ideology that led to the Holocaust.[17][18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
Subhuman and inferior races in Nazi Germany
The racial policies of Nazi Germany, the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, and the racist doctrines of Adolf Hitler considered Jews, Roma and Slavs, including Poles, Czechs, Russians and Serbs, "racially inferior sub-humans" (German: Untermensch, lit. 'sub-human');[84][17][85][86][87][88][89][90] the term was also applied to mixed race and black people.[91][90]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racial_theories
In Nazi German terminology, Volksdeutsche (German pronunciation: [ˈfɔlksˌdɔʏtʃə]) were "people whose language and culture had German origins but who did not hold German citizenship".[1] The term is the nominalised plural of volksdeutsch, with Volksdeutsche denoting a singular female, and Volksdeutsche(r), a singular male. The words Volk and völkisch conveyed the meanings of "folk".[2]
The Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans at the time) shed their identity as Auslandsdeutsche (Germans abroad) and morphed into the Volksdeutsche in a process of self-radicalisation.[3] This process gave the Nazi regime the nucleus around which the new Volksgemeinschaft was established across the German borders.[3]
Volksdeutsche were further divided into "racial" groups—minorities within a state minority—based on special cultural, social, and historic criteria elaborated by the Nazis.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksdeutsche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_European_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jersey#Anglicisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians
Supremacism is the belief that a certain group of people is superior to all others.[1] The supposed superior people can be defined by age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, social class, ideology, nationality, culture, or belong to any other part of a particular population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism
Dehumanization is the denial of full humanness in others along with the cruelty and suffering that accompany it.[1][2][3] A practical definition refers to it as the viewing and the treatment of other people as though they lack the mental capacities that are commonly attributed to human beings.[4] In this definition, every act or thought that regards a person as "less than" human is dehumanization.[5]
Dehumanization is one form of incitement to genocide.[6] It has also been used to justify war, judicial and extrajudicial killing, slavery, the confiscation of property, denial of suffrage and other rights, and to attack enemies or political opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
Behaviorally, dehumanization describes a disposition towards others that debases the others' individuality by either portraying it as an "individual" species or by portraying it as an "individual" object (e.g., someone who acts inhumanely towards humans). As a process, dehumanization may be understood as the opposite of personification, a figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities; dehumanization then is the disendowment of these same qualities or a reduction to abstraction.[7]
In almost all contexts, dehumanization is used pejoratively along with a disruption of social norms, with the former applying to the actor(s) of behavioral dehumanization and the latter applying to the action(s) or processes of dehumanization. For instance, there is dehumanization for those who are perceived as lacking in culture or civility, which are concepts that are believed to distinguish humans from animals.[8] Social norms define humane behavior and reflexively define what is outside of humane behavior or inhumane. Dehumanization differs from inhumane behaviors or processes in its breadth to propose competing social norms. It is an action of dehumanization as the old norms are depreciated to the competing new norms, which then redefine the action of dehumanization. If the new norms lose acceptance, then the action remains one of dehumanization. The definition of dehumanization remains in a reflexive state of a type-token ambiguity relative to both individual and societal scales.
In biological terms, dehumanization can be described as an introduced species marginalizing the human species, or an introduced person/process that debases other people inhumanely.[9]
In political science and jurisprudence, the act of dehumanization is the inferential alienation of human rights or denaturalization of natural rights, a definition contingent upon presiding international law rather than social norms limited by human geography. In this context, a specialty within species does not need to constitute global citizenship or its inalienable rights; the human genome inherits both.
It is theorized that dehumanization takes on two forms: animalistic dehumanization, which is employed on a mostly intergroup basis; and mechanistic dehumanization, which is employed on a mostly interpersonal basis.[10] Dehumanization can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that likens individual human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically (e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact). Dehumanization often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the creative and exciting aspects of their personality) and can hinder one from feeling empathy or correctly understanding a stigmatized group.[11]
Dehumanization may be carried out by a social institution (such as a state, school, or family), interpersonally, or even within oneself. Dehumanization can be unintentional, especially upon individuals, as with some types of de facto racism. State-organized dehumanization has historically been directed against perceived political, racial, ethnic, national, or religious minority groups. Other minoritized and marginalized individuals and groups (based on sexual orientation, gender, disability, class, or some other organizing principle) are also susceptible to various forms of dehumanization. The concept of dehumanization has received empirical attention in the psychological literature.[12][13] It is conceptually related to infrahumanization,[14] delegitimization,[15] moral exclusion,[16] and objectification.[17] Dehumanization occurs across several domains; it is facilitated by status, power, and social connection; and results in behaviors like exclusion, violence, and support for violence against others.
"Dehumanisation is viewed as a central component to intergroup violence because it is frequently the most important precursor to moral exclusion, the process by which stigmatized groups are placed outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply."[18]
David Livingstone Smith, director and founder of The Human Nature Project at the University of New England, argues that historically, human beings have been dehumanizing one another for thousands of years.[19] In his work "The Paradoxes of Dehumanization", Smith proposes that dehumanization simultaneously regards people as human and subhuman. This paradox comes to light, as Smith identifies, because the reason people are dehumanized is so their human attributes can be taken advantage of.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_distance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergroup_relations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_content_model
The Congress of the Confederation, or the Confederation Congress, formally referred to as the United States in Congress Assembled, was the governing body of the United States from March 1, 1781, until March 3, 1789, during the Confederation period. A unicameral body with legislative and executive function, it was composed of delegates appointed by the legislatures of the several states. Each state delegation had one vote. It was preceded by the Second Continental Congress (1775–1781) and was created by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union in 1781.
The Congress continued to refer itself as the Continental Congress throughout its eight-year history, although modern historians separate it from the two earlier congresses, which operated under slightly different rules and procedures until the later part of American Revolutionary War.[1] The membership of the Second Continental Congress automatically carried over to the Congress of the Confederation when the latter was created by the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and had the same secretary as the Second Continental Congress, Charles Thomson.
The Congress of the Confederation was succeeded by the Congress of the United States as provided for in the new United States Constitution, proposed September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia and adopted by the United States in 1788.[2]
History
On March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by delegates of Maryland at a meeting of the Second Continental Congress, which then declared the Articles ratified. As historian Edmund Burnett wrote, "There was no new organization of any kind, not even the election of a new President." The Congress still called itself the Continental Congress. Nevertheless, despite its being generally the same exact governing body, with some changes in membership over the years as delegates came and went individually according to their own personal reasons and upon instructions of their state governments, some modern historians would later refer to the Continental Congress after the ratification of the Articles as the Congress of the Confederation or the Confederation Congress.
The Congress of the Confederation opened in the last stages of the American Revolution. Combat ended in October 1781, with the surrender of the British after the Siege and Battle of Yorktown. The British, however, continued to occupy New York City, while the American delegates in Paris, named by the Congress, negotiated the terms of peace with Great Britain.[3] Based on preliminary articles with the British negotiators made on November 30, 1782, and approved by the "Congress of the Confederation" on April 15, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was further signed on September 3, 1783, and ratified by the Confederation Congress then sitting at the Maryland State House in Annapolis on January 14, 1784. This formally ended the American Revolutionary War between Great Britain and the thirteen former colonies, which on July 4, 1776, had declared independence. In December 1783, General George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, journeyed to Annapolis after saying farewell to his officers (at Fraunces Tavern) and men who had just reoccupied New York City after the departing British Army. On December 23, at the Maryland State House, where the Congress met in the Old Senate Chamber, he addressed the civilian leaders and delegates of Congress and returned to them the signed commission they had voted him back in June 1775, at the beginning of the conflict. With that simple gesture of acknowledging the first civilian power over the military, he took his leave and returned by horseback the next day to his home and family at Mount Vernon near the colonial river port city on the Potomac River at Alexandria in Virginia.
Congress had little power, and without the external threat of a war against the British, it became quite difficult to get enough delegates to meet to form a quorum. Nonetheless, the Congress still managed to pass important laws, most notably the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
The country incurred a massive debt as a result of the War of Independence. In 1784, the total Confederation debt was nearly $40 million. Of that sum, $8 million was owed to the French and Dutch. Of the domestic debt, government bonds, known as loan-office certificates, composed $11.5 million, certificates on interest indebtedness $3.1 million, and continental certificates $16.7 million.
The certificates were non-interest bearing notes issued for supplies purchased or impressed, and to pay soldiers and officers. To pay the interest and principal of the debt, Congress had twice proposed an amendment to the Articles granting them the power to lay a 5% duty on imports, but amendments to the Articles required the consent of all thirteen states: the 1781 impost plan had been rejected by Rhode Island and Virginia, while the revised plan, discussed in 1783, was rejected by New York.
Without revenue, except for meager voluntary state requisitions, Congress could not even pay the interest on its outstanding debt. Meanwhile, the states regularly failed or refused to meet the requisitions requested of them by Congress.[4]
To that end, in September 1786, after resolving a series of disputes regarding their common border along the Potomac River, delegates of Maryland and Virginia called for a larger assembly to discuss various situations and governing problems to meet at the Maryland state capital on the Chesapeake Bay. The later Annapolis Convention with some additional state representatives joining in the sessions first attempted to look into improving the earlier original Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. There were enough problems to bear further discussion and deliberation that the Convention called for a wider meeting to recommend changes and meet the next year in the late Spring of 1787 in Philadelphia. The Confederation Congress itself endorsed the Call and issued one on its own further inviting the states to send delegates. After meeting in secret all summer in the Old Pennsylvania State House now having acquired the nickname and new title of Independence Hall, from the famous action here eleven years earlier. The Philadelphia Convention, under the presidency of former General George Washington instead of a series of amendments, or altering the old charter, issued a proposed new Constitution for the United States to replace the 1776–1778 Articles. The Confederation Congress received and submitted the new Constitution document to the states, and the Constitution was later ratified by enough states (nine were required) to become operative in June 1788. On September 13, 1788, the Confederation Congress set the date for choosing the new Electors in the Electoral College that was set up for choosing a President as January 7, 1789, the date for the Electors to vote for the President as on February 4, 1789, and the date for the Constitution to become operative as March 4, 1789, when the new Congress of the United States should convene, and that they at a later date set the time and place for the Inauguration of the new first President of the United States.
The Congress of the Confederation continued to conduct business for another month after setting the various dates. On October 10, 1788, Congress formed a quorum for the last time; afterward, although delegates would occasionally appear, there were never enough to officially conduct business. The last meeting of the Continental Congress was held March 2, 1789, two days before the new Constitutional government took over; only one member was present at said meeting, Philip Pell, an ardent Anti-Federalist and opponent of the Constitution, who was accompanied by the Congressional secretary. Pell oversaw the meeting and adjourned the Congress sine die.
Presiding officer
The Continental Congress was presided over by a president (referred to in many official records as President of the United States in Congress Assembled), who was a member of Congress elected by the other delegates to serve as a neutral discussion moderator during meetings. Elected to a non-renewable one-year term, this person also chaired the Committee of the States when Congress was in recess and performed other administrative functions. He was not, however, an executive in the way the later President of the United States is a chief executive since all of the functions he executed were under the direct control of Congress.[5] There were 10 presidents of Congress under the Articles. The first, Samuel Huntington, had been serving as president of the Continental Congress since September 28, 1779.
Meeting sites
The Second Continental Congress was meeting at the Old Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall), in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the time the Articles of Confederation entered into force on March 1, 1781, but left after an anti-government protest by several hundred soldiers of the Continental Army in June 1783. Congress moved its meeting site successively to Princeton, New Jersey; Annapolis, Maryland; Trenton, New Jersey, and then in January 1785 New York City, which remained the seat of government for several years.[6]
List of sessions
| First Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| March 2, 1781[a] – November 3, 1781 |
Pennsylvania State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 
|
| Second Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 5, 1781 – November 2, 1782 |
Pennsylvania State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
|
President: John Hanson
| ||
| Third Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 4, 1782 – November 1, 1783 |
Pennsylvania State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (until June 21, 1783) |
|
| Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey (from June 30, 1783) |
| |
President: Elias Boudinot
| ||
| Fourth Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 3, 1783 – June 3, 1784 |
Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey (until November 4, 1783) |
|
| Maryland State House, Annapolis, Maryland (from November 26, 1783) |
| |
President: Thomas Mifflin
| ||
| Fifth Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 1, 1784 – November 6, 1785 |
French Arms Tavern, Trenton, New Jersey (until December 24, 1784) |
|
| City Hall, New York, New York (from January 11, 1785) |
| |
President: Richard Henry Lee (from November 30, 1784)
| ||
| Sixth Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 7, 1785 – November 2, 1786 |
City Hall, New York, New York |
|
President: John Hancock (from November 23, 1785, until June 5, 1786)
Nathaniel Gorham (from June 6, 1786) | ||
| Seventh Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 6, 1786 – November 4, 1787 |
City Hall, New York, New York |
|
President: Arthur St. Clair (from February 2, 1787)
| ||
| Eighth Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 5, 1787 – October 31, 1788 |
City Hall, New York, New York (until October 6, 1788) |
|
| Walter Livingston House, New York, New York (from October 8, 1788) |
 | |
President: Cyrus Griffin (from January 22, 1788)
| ||
| Ninth Congress | ||
|---|---|---|
| November 3, 1788[c] – March 3, 1789[d] |
Walter Livingston House, New York, New York | |
See also
- Committee of the States
- Founding Fathers of the United States
- History of the United States (1776–1789)
- List of delegates to the Continental Congress
Notes
- As Congress could not transact official business due to the lack of a quorum, a president could not be elected for the 1788–89 Congressional Year. As a result, Cyrus Griffin, who had been elected to the office January 22, 1788, remained the de jure president of Congress until he resigned on November 15, 1788.[7]
References
- Jillson, Calvin C.; Wilson, Rick K. (1994). Congressional Dynamics: Structure, Coordination, and Choice in the First American Congress, 1774–1789. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press. p. 88. ISBN 0-8047-2293-5. OCLC 28963682. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
Bibliography
- Burnett, Edmund C. (1975). The Continental Congress. Greenwood Publishing. ISBN 0-8371-8386-3.
- Henderson, H. James (1987). Party Politics in the Continental Congress. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8191-6525-5.
- Jensen, Merrill (1950). New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781–1789. New York: Knopf.
- McLaughlin, Andrew C. (1935). A Constitutional History of the United States. ISBN 978-1-931313-31-5.
- Montross, Lynn (1970). The Reluctant Rebels; the Story of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789. New York: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-389-03973-X.
- Morris, Richard B. (1987). The Forging of the Union, 1781–1789. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-091424-6.
- Morris, Richard B. (1956). "The Confederation Period and the American Historian". William and Mary Quarterly. 13 (2): 139–156. doi:10.2307/1920529. JSTOR 1920529.
- Rakove, Jack N. (1979). The Beginnings of National Politics: An Interpretive History of the Continental Congress. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0-394-42370-4.
External links
- Major documents from the Congress, including journals, letters, debates, via Library of Congress
- Journals of the Continental Congress 1774–1789
- Continental Congress
- History of the government of the United States
- 1780s in the United States
- 1781 establishments in the United States
- 1789 disestablishments in the United States
- Defunct unicameral legislatures
- History of New York City
- History of Philadelphia
- History of Trenton, New Jersey
- Pennsylvania in the American Revolution
United States in Congress Assembled | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Type | |||
| Type | |||
Term limits | 3 years in 6 year period | ||
| History | |||
| Established | March 1, 1781 | ||
| Disbanded | March 3, 1789 | ||
| Preceded by | Continental Congress | ||
| Succeeded by | United States Congress | ||
| Leadership | |||
Secretary | |||
| Structure | |||
| Seats | Variable, ~50 | ||
| Committees | Committee of the States | ||
| Committees | Committee of the Whole | ||
Length of term | 1 year | ||
| Salary | None | ||
| Elections | |||
Last election | 1788 | ||
| Meeting place | |||
| Pennsylvania State House (present-day Independence Hall), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (first) City Hall (present-day Federal Hall) New York, New York (last) | |||
| Constitution | |||
| Articles of Confederation | |||
| Footnotes | |||
| Though there were about 50 members of the Congress at any given time, each state delegation voted en bloc, with each state having a single vote. | |||
| This article is part of a series on the |
| United States Continental Congress |
|---|
|
| Predecessors |
| First Continental Congress |
| Second Continental Congress |
| Congress of the Confederation |
| Members |
| Related |
 United States portal |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Confederation
The Continental Congress was a series of legislative bodies, with some executive function, for the thirteen colonies of Great Britain in North America, and the newly declared United States before, during, and after the American Revolutionary War. The Continental Congress refers to both the First and Second Congresses of 1774–1781 which, at the time, also described the Congress of the Confederation of 1781–1789, which operated as the first national government until being replaced following ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Continental Congress represented the 13 colonies and then the new United States from 1774 until 1789. The Congress met predominantly at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, though it was relocated temporarily on several occasions during the Revolutionary War and the fall of Philadelphia.
The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774 in response to escalating tensions between the colonies and the British, which culminated in passage of the Intolerable Acts by the British Parliament following the Boston Tea Party. The First Congress met for approximately six weeks during which it predominantly set about attempting to repair the fraying relationship between Britain and the colonies while asserting the rights of colonists, proclaiming and passing the Continental Association, which was a unified trade embargo against Britain, and successfully building consensus for establishment of a second congress. The Second Continental Congress convened the following year, in 1775, in the wake of the breakout of hostilities in Massachusetts. Soon after meeting, the Second Congress sent the Olive Branch Petition to King George III, established the Continental Army, and elected George Washington commander of the new army. Concluding that peace with Britain was not forthcoming, the Second Congress drafted and adopted the Independence resolution on July 2, 1776 and the Declaration of Independence two days later, on July 4, 1776, proclaiming that the former colonies were now independent sovereign states.
The Second Continental Congress served as the provisional government of the U.S. during most of the Revolutionary War. In March 1781, the nation's first Frame of Government, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, came into force, at which time the body became what later was called the Congress of the Confederation. This unicameral governing body would convene in eight sessions before adjourning in 1789, when the 1st United States Congress under the new Constitution of the United States took over the role as the nation's legislative branch of government.
Both the First and Second Continental Congresses convened in Philadelphia, though with the city's capture during the Revolutionary War, the Second Congress was forced to meet in other locations for a time. The Congress of Confederation was also established in Philadelphia and later moved to New York City which served as the U.S. capital from 1785 to 1790.
Much of what is known today about the daily activities of these congresses comes from the journals kept by the secretary for all three congresses, Charles Thomson. Printed contemporaneously, the Journals of the Continental Congress contain the official congressional papers, letters, treaties, reports and records. The delegates to the Continental and Confederation congresses had extensive experience in deliberative bodies, with "a cumulative total of nearly 500 years of experience in their Colonial assemblies, and fully a dozen of them had served as speakers of the houses of their legislatures."[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress
A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as a single entity in which the central government is the supreme authority. The central government may create (or abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units).[1] Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to regional or local governments by statute, the central government may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers.
Unitary states stand in contrast to federations, also known as federal states. A large majority of the world's sovereign states (166 of the 193 UN member states) have a unitary system of government.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
Federalism is a combined and compound mode of government that combines a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial, or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two. Federalism in the modern era was first adopted in the unions of states during the Old Swiss Confederacy.[1]
Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[2] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation, bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[3][4]
Examples of a federation or federal province or state include Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Some characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the "federal union of states".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
Etymology
The terms "federalism" and "confederalism" share a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning "treaty, pact or covenant". Their common early meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based on a treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
Foederati (/ˌfɛdəˈreɪtaɪ/, singular: foederatus /ˌfɛdəˈreɪtəs/) were peoples and cities bound by a treaty, known as foedus, with Rome. During the Roman Republic, the term identified the socii, but during the Roman Empire, it was used to describe foreign states, client kingdoms or barbarian tribes to which the empire provided benefits in exchange for military assistance. The term was also used, especially under the empire, for groups of "barbarian" mercenaries of various sizes who were typically allowed to settle within the empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati
A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement between actors in international law. It is usually made by and between sovereign states,[1] but can include international organizations, individuals, business entities, and other legal persons.[2][3] A treaty may also be known as an international agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. However, only documents that are legally binding on the parties are considered treaties under international law.[4] Treaties vary on the basis of obligations (the extent to which states are bound to the rules), precision (the extent to which the rules are unambiguous), and delegation (the extent to which third parties have authority to interpret, apply and make rules).[1][5]
Treaties are among the earliest manifestations of international relations, with the first known example being a border agreement between the Sumerian city-states of Lagash and Umma around 3100 BC.[6] International agreements were used in some form by most major civilizations, growing in both sophistication and number during the early modern era.[7] The early 19th century saw developments in diplomacy, foreign policy, and international law reflected by the widespread use of treaties. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codified these practices, setting forth guidelines and rules for creating, amending, interpreting, and terminating treaties and for resolving disputes and alleged breaches.[8][9]
Treaties are roughly analogous to contracts in that they establish the rights and binding obligations of the parties.[10][11] They vary significantly in form, substance, and complexity and govern a wide variety of matters, such as security, trade, environment, and human rights. Treaties may be bilateral (between two countries) or multilateral (involving more than two countries). They may also be used to establish international institutions, such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations, for which they often provide a governing framework. Treaties serve as primary sources of international law and have codified or established most international legal principles since the early 20th century.[12]
Notwithstanding the Law of Treaties and customary international law, treaties are not required to follow any standard form.[12] Nevertheless, all valid treaties must comply with the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda (Latin: "agreements must be kept"), under which parties are committed to perform their duties and honor their agreements in good faith. A treaty may also be invalidated, and thus rendered unenforceable, if it violates a preemptory norm (jus cogens), such as permitting a war of aggression or crimes against humanity.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
Jus cogens
A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens, Latin for "compelling law") is a fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted (non-derogable). These norms are rooted in natural law principles,[8] and any laws conflicting with it should be considered null and void.[9] Examples include various international crimes; a state violates customary international law if it permits or engages in slavery, torture, genocide, war of aggression, or crimes against humanity.[10]
Jus cogens and customary international law are not interchangeable. All jus cogens are customary international law through their adoption by states, but not all customary international laws rise to the level of peremptory norms. States can deviate from customary international law by enacting treaties and conflicting laws, but jus cogens are non-derogable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law#Jus_cogens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_according_to_higher_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution
The Old Swiss Confederacy or Swiss Confederacy[6] was a loose confederation of independent small states (cantons, German Orte or Stände[7]), initially within the Holy Roman Empire. It is the precursor of the modern state of Switzerland.
It formed during the 14th century, from a nucleus in what is now Central Switzerland, expanding to include the cities of Zürich and Bern by the middle of the century. This formed a rare union of rural and urban communes, all of which enjoyed imperial immediacy in the Holy Roman Empire.
This confederation of eight cantons (Acht Orte) was politically and militarily successful for more than a century, culminating in the Burgundy Wars of the 1470s which established it as a power in the complicated political landscape dominated by France and the Habsburgs. Its success resulted in the addition of more confederates, increasing the number of cantons to thirteen (Dreizehn Orte) by 1513. The confederacy pledged neutrality in 1647 (under the threat of the Thirty Years' War), although many Swiss served privately as mercenaries in the Italian Wars and during the early modern period.
After the Swabian War of 1499 the confederacy was a de facto independent state throughout the early modern period, although still nominally part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years' War. The Swiss Reformation divided the confederates into Reformed and Catholic parties, resulting in internal conflict from the 16th to the 18th centuries; as a result, the federal diet (Tagsatzung) was often paralysed by hostility between the factions. The Swiss Confederacy fell to invasion by the French Revolutionary Army in 1798, after which it became the short-lived Helvetic Republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy
Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.[1]
According to Amnesty International, a proponent of universal jurisdiction, certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the international community as a whole that states have a logical and moral duty to prosecute an individual responsible; therefore, no place should be a safe haven for those who have committed genocide,[2] crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture, or forced disappearances.[3]
Opponents such as Henry Kissinger, who himself was called to give testimony about the US Government's Operation Condor in a Spanish court,[4] argue that universal jurisdiction is a breach of each state's sovereignty: all states being equal in sovereignty, as affirmed by the United Nations Charter, "[w]idespread agreement that human rights violations and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted has hindered active consideration of the proper role of international courts. Universal jurisdiction risks creating universal tyranny – that of judges."[5][6] According to Kissinger, as a logistical matter, since any number of states could set up such universal jurisdiction tribunals, the process could quickly degenerate into politically driven show trials to attempt to place a quasi-judicial stamp on a state's enemies or opponents.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" and commits the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.[7][8] All For
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law#Jus_cogens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_international_law#General_principles_of_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
In ancient Greece, the concept of autochthones (from Ancient Greek αὐτός autos "self," and χθών chthon "soil"; i.e. "people sprung from earth itself") means the indigenous inhabitants of a country, including mythological figures, as opposed to settlers, and those of their descendants who kept themselves free from an admixture of colonizing entities.
In mythology, autochthones are those mortals who have sprung from the soil, rocks and trees. They are rooted and belong to the land eternally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autochthon_(ancient_Greece)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
Cartels (“Cartells”, “Cartelle” or “Kartell-Konventionen” in other languages) were a special kind of treaty within the international law of the 17th to 19th centuries.[30][31][32][33] Their purpose was to regulate specific activities of common interest among contracting states that otherwise remained rivals in other areas. They were typically implemented on an administrative level. Similar to the ‘’cartels’’ for duels and tournaments, these intergovernmental accords represented fairness agreements or gentlemen’s agreements between states.
In the United States, cartels governed humanitarian actions typically carried out by cartel ships were dispatched for missions, such as to carry communications or prisoners between belligerents.[34]
From the European history, a broader range of purposes is known. These ‘cartels’ often reflected the cohesion of authoritarian ruling classes against their own unruly citizens. Generally, the European governments concluded - while curbing their mutual rivalries partially - cooperation agreements, which should apply generally or only in case of war:[35]
- Deserters, escaped serfs and criminals were to be mutually extradited.
- Prisoners of war should be handed out according to rank in different exchange ratios.
- The maintenance of postal and commercial traffic including the entry and exit of couriers should be guaranteed in the fields of communication and transport.
- ‘Customs cartels' (“Zollkartelle”) and 'coin cartels' (“Münzkartelle”) were 'regulatory' agreements between Continental-European states in the 19th century.
- Against smugglers and counterfeiters, a joint action approach was adopted by the governments contracting on international trade treaties. The latter often contained the relevant ‘cartel’ regulations in their annexes.
The measures against criminals and unruly citizens were to be conducted regardless of the nationality and origin of the relevant persons. If necessary, national borders could be crossed by police forces of the respective neighboring country for capture and arrest. In the course of the 19th century, the term ‘cartel’ (or 'Cartell') gradually disappeared for intergovernmental agreements under international law. Instead, the term "convention" was used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_discrimination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_(legislation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_tractatuum
Jus tractatuum (or sometimes jus tractandi) is a Legal Latin term commonly used in public international law and constitutional law that refers to the right to conclude treaties. It is usually referred to in English as treaty-making power. As defined in article 6 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, every state possesses the capacity to conclude treaties. International organizations as well as subnational entities of federal states may have treaty-making power as well. Jus tractatuum is linked to the concept of international legal personality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_tractatuum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmentalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Land_Office
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_equity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolaw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_formalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenforced_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparation_(legal)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_international_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_criminal_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_regulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_obligations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_civil_law_(common_law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Register
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_instrument
Monetary sovereignty is the power of the state to exercise exclusive legal control over its currency, broadly defined, by exercise of the following powers:
- Legal tender – the exclusive authority to designate the legal tender forms of payment.[1]
- Issuance and retirement – the exclusive authority to control the issuance and retirement of the legal tender.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_sovereignty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monetary_reform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_loan_company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_reform_in_Russia,_1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_asset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Financial_Reporting_Standards#List_of_IFRS_statements_with_full_text_link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset
Ownership is the state or fact of legal possession and control over property, which may be any asset, tangible or intangible. Ownership can involve multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties.
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer, and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as a gift, inherit it, find it, receive it as damages, earn it by doing work or performing services, make it, or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure, or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_(property_law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/condition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/constraint
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/limitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_on_alienation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_on_alienation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deeds_registration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicquid_plantatur_solo,_solo_cedit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_loci#Lex_loci_rei_sitae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_offence#United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_(criminal_law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_manslaughter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compounding_a_felony
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usurper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_smuggling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpractice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detinue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_tort_laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrahazardous_activity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_entrustment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_conspiracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_reportage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Defense_of_others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_turpi_causa_non_oritur_actio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_turpi_causa_non_oritur_actio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_bad_faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(tort)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transferred_intent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_and_testament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracing_(law)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_tort_laws
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.[1] Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others.[2][a] Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tort_law
A mass tort is a civil action involving numerous plaintiffs against one or a few defendants in state or federal court. The lawsuits arise out of the defendants causing numerous injuries through the same or similar act of harm (e.g. a prescription drug, a medical device, a defective product, a train accident, a plane crash, pollution, or a construction disaster).
Law firms sometimes use mass media to reach potential plaintiffs.
The main categories of mass torts include:
- Medical device injuries
- Motor vehicle defects[1]
- Prescription drug injuries
- Product liability injuries
- Toxic contamination
In U.S. federal courts, mass tort claims are often consolidated as multidistrict litigation. In some cases, mass torts are addressed through a class action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Federal_government_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_civil_service
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation#Federal_governments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smuggling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
The company Materialytics claims that it can trace the origin of virtually any diamond using Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy.[55] However, there is no way to know whether a diamond purchased online is blood free or not.[56]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_diamond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Diamond_mines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Resource_extraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aftermath_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethically_disputed_business_practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_mining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Smuggling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Organized_crime_activity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Funding_of_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Luxury_brands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Blood_diamonds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
Austin Long defines insurgency as "the use of political and military means by irregular forces to change an existing political order. These forces typically mingle with civilians in order to hide from the forces defending the political order."[11] According to Matthew Adam Kocher, Thomas Pepinsky and Stathis Kalyvas, a central objective in insurgencies is to achieve control over civilians.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
Tactics
Insurgencies differ in their use of tactics and methods. In a 2004 article, Robert R. Tomes spoke of four elements that "typically encompass an insurgency":[15]
- cell-networks that maintain secrecy
- terrorism used to foster insecurity among the population and drive them to the insurgents for protection
- multifaceted attempts to cultivate support in the general population, often by undermining the new regime
- attacks against the government
Tomes' is an example of a definition that does not cover all insurgencies. For example, the French Revolution had no cell system, and in the American Revolution, little to no attempt was made to terrorize civilians.[citation needed] In consecutive coups in 1977 and 1999 in Pakistan, the initial actions focused internally on the government rather than on seeking broad support. While Tomes' definition fits well with Mao's Phase I,[16] it does not deal well with larger civil wars. Mao does assume terrorism is usually part of the early phases, but it is not always present in revolutionary insurgency.
Tomes offers an indirect definition of insurgency, drawn from Trinquier's definition of counterinsurgency: "an interlocking system of actions—political, economic, psychological, military—that aims at the [insurgents' intended] overthrow of the established authority in a country and its replacement by another regime."[17]
Steven Metz[18] observes that past models of insurgency do not perfectly fit modern insurgency, in that current instances are far more likely to have a multinational or transnational character than those of the past. Several insurgencies may belong to more complex conflicts, involving "third forces (armed groups which affect the outcome, such as militias) and fourth forces (unarmed groups which affect the outcome, such as international media), who may be distinct from the core insurgents and the recognized government. While overt state sponsorship becomes less common, sponsorship by transnational groups is more common. "The nesting of insurgency within complex conflicts associated with state weakness or failure..." (See the discussion of failed states below.) Metz suggests that contemporary insurgencies have far more complex and shifting participation than traditional wars, where discrete belligerents seek a clear strategic victory.
Terrorism
Many insurgencies include terrorism. While there is no accepted definition of terrorism in international law, United Nations-sponsored working definitions include one drafted by Alex P. Schmid for the Policy Working Group on the United Nations and Terrorism. Reporting to the Secretary-General in 2002, the Working Group stated the following:
Without attempting a comprehensive definition of terrorism, it would be useful to delineate some broad characteristics of the phenomenon. Terrorism is, in most cases, essentially a political act. It is meant to inflict dramatic and deadly injury on civilians and to create an atmosphere of fear, generally for a political or ideological (whether secular or religious) purpose. Terrorism is a criminal act, but it is more than mere criminality. To overcome the problem of terrorism it is necessary to understand its political nature as well as its basic criminality and psychology. The United Nations needs to address both sides of this equation.[19]
Yet another conflict of definitions involves insurgency versus terrorism. The winning essay of the 24th Annual United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Essay Contest, by Michael F. Morris, said [A pure terrorist group] "may pursue political, even revolutionary, goals, but their violence replaces rather than complements a political program."[20] Morris made the point that the use, or non-use, of terrorism does not define insurgency, "but that organizational traits have traditionally provided another means to tell the two apart. Insurgencies normally field fighting forces orders of magnitude larger than those of terrorist organizations." Insurgencies have a political purpose, and may provide social services and have an overt, even legal, political wing. Their covert wing carries out attacks on military forces with tactics such as raids and ambushes, as well as acts of terror such as attacks that cause deliberate civilian casualties.
Mao considered terrorism a basic part of his first part of the three phases of revolutionary warfare.[16] Several insurgency models recognize that completed acts of terrorism widen the security gap; the Marxist guerrilla theoretician Carlos Marighella specifically recommended acts of terror, as a means of accomplishing something that fits the concept of opening the security gap.[21] Mao considered terrorism to be part of forming a guerilla movement.
Subversion
While not every insurgency involves terror, most involve an equally hard to define tactic, subversion. "When a country is being subverted it is not being outfought; it is being out-administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front."[22] The exceptional cases of insurgency without subversion are those where there is no accepted government that is providing administrative services.
While the term "subversion" is less commonly used by current U.S. spokesmen, that may be due to the hyperbolic way it was used in the past, in a specifically anticommunist context. U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk did in April 1962, when he declared that urgent action was required before the "enemy's subversive politico-military teams find fertile spawning grounds for their fish eggs."[23]
In a Western context, Rosenau cites a British Secret Intelligence Service definition as "a generalized intention to (emphasis added) "overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means." While insurgents do not necessarily use terror, it is hard to imagine any insurgency meeting its goals without undermining aspects of the legitimacy or power of the government or faction it opposes. Rosenau mentions a more recent definition that suggests subversion includes measures short of violence, which still serve the purposes of insurgents.[23] Rarely, subversion alone can change a government; this arguably happened in the liberalization of Eastern Europe.[citation needed] To the Communist government of Poland, Solidarity appeared subversive but not violent.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
Fukuyama stressed that the US and its allies need to focus on specific radical groups rather than clash with global Islam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
While it may be reasonable to consider transnational insurgency, Anthony Cordesman points out some of the myths in trying to have a worldwide view of terror:[28]
- Cooperation can be based on trust and common values: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
- A definition of terrorism exists that can be accepted by all.
- Intelligence can be freely shared.
- Other states can be counted on to keep information secure and use it to mutual advantage.
- International institutions are secure and trustworthy.
- Internal instability and security issues do not require compartmentation and secrecy at national level.
- The "war on terrorism" creates common priorities and needs for action.
- Global and regional cooperation is the natural basis for international action.
- Legal systems are compatible enough for cooperation.
- Human rights and rule of law differences do not limit cooperation.
- Most needs are identical.
- Co-operation can be separated from financial needs and resources.
Social scientists, soldiers, and sources of change have been modeling insurgency for nearly a century if one starts with Mao.[16] Counterinsurgency models, not mutually exclusive from one another, come from Kilcullen, McCormick, Barnett and Eizenstat. Kilcullen describes the "pillars" of a stable society, while Eizenstat addresses the "gaps" that form cracks in societal stability. McCormick's model shows the interplay among the actors: insurgents, government, population and external organizations. Barnett discusses the relationship of the country with the outside world, and Cordesman focuses on the specifics of providing security.
Recent studies have tried to model the conceptual architecture of insurgent warfare using computational and mathematical modelling. A recent study by Juan Camilo Bohorquez, Sean Gourley, Alexander R. Dixon, Michael Spagat, and Neil F. Johnson entitled "Common Ecology Quantifies Human Insurgency", suggests a common structure for 9 contemporary insurgent wars, supported on statistical data of more than 50,000 insurgent attacks.[29] The model explains the recurrent statistical pattern found in the distribution of deaths in insurgent and terrorist events.[30]
Kilcullen's pillars
Kilcullen describes a framework for counterinsurgency. He gives a visual overview[31] of the actors in his model of conflicts, which he represents as a box containing an "ecosystem" defined by geographic, ethnic, economic, social, cultural, and religious characteristics. Inside the box are, among others, governments, counterinsurgent forces, insurgent leaders, insurgent forces, and the general population, which is made up of three groups:
- those committed to the insurgents;
- those committed to the counterinsurgents;
- those who simply wish to get on with their lives.
Often, but not always, states or groups that aid one side or the other are outside the box. Outside-the-box intervention has dynamics of its own.[32]
The counterinsurgency strategy can be described as efforts to end the insurgency by a campaign developed in balance along three "pillars": security, political, and economical.
"Obviously enough, you cannot command what you do not control. Therefore, unity of command (between agencies or among government and non-government actors) means little in this environment." Unity of command is one of the axioms of military doctrine[33] that change with the use of swarming:.[34] In Edwards' swarming model, as in Kilcullen's mode, unity of command becomes "unity of effort at best, and collaboration or deconfliction at least."[31]
As in swarming, in Kilcullen's view unity of effort "depends less on a shared command and control hierarchy, and more on a shared diagnosis of the problem (i.e., the distributed knowledge of swarms), platforms for collaboration, information sharing and deconfliction. Each player must understand the others' strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and objectives, and inter-agency teams must be structured for versatility (the ability to perform a wide variety of tasks) and agility (the ability to transition rapidly and smoothly between tasks)."
Eizenstat and closing gaps
Insurgencies, according to Stuart Eizenstat grow out of "gaps".[35] To be viable, a state must be able to close three "gaps", of which the first is most important:
- Security: protection "... against internal and external threats, and preserving sovereignty over territory. If a government cannot ensure security, rebellious armed groups or criminal nonstate actors may use violence to exploit this security gap—as in Haiti, Nepal, and Somalia."
- Capacity: the survival needs of water, electrical power, food and public health, closely followed by education, communications and a working economic system.[36] "An inability to do so creates a capacity gap, which can lead to a loss of public confidence and then perhaps political upheaval. In most environments, a capacity gap coexists with—or even grows out of—a security gap. In Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, segments of the population are cut off from their governments because of endemic insecurity. And in postconflict Iraq, critical capacity gaps exist despite the country's relative wealth and strategic importance."[37]
- Legitimacy: closing the legitimacy gap is more than an incantation of "democracy" and "elections", but a government that is perceived to exist by the consent of the governed, has minimal corruption, and has a working law enforcement and judicial system that enforce human rights.
Note the similarity between Eizenstat's gaps and Kilcullen's three pillars.[31] In the table below, do not assume that a problematic state is unable to assist less developed states while closing its own gaps.
| State type | Needs | Representative examples |
|---|---|---|
| Militarily strong but weak in other institutions | Lower tensions before working on gaps | Cuba, North Korea |
| Good performers | Continuing development of working institutions. Focused private investment | El Salvador, Ghana, Mongolia, Senegal, Nicaragua, Uganda |
| Weak states | Close one or two gaps | Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Philippines, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe |
| Failed states | Close all gaps | Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Liberia, Palestine, Somalia |
McCormick Magic Diamond
McCormick's model[38] is designed as a tool for counterinsurgency (COIN), but develops a symmetrical view of the required actions for both the Insurgent and COIN forces to achieve success. In this way the counterinsurgency model can demonstrate how both the insurgent and COIN forces succeed or fail. The model's strategies and principle apply to both forces, therefore the degree the forces follow the model should have a direct correlation to the success or failure of either the Insurgent or COIN force.
The model depicts four key elements or players:
- Insurgent force
- Counterinsurgency force (i.e., the government)
- Population
- International community
All of these interact, and the different elements have to assess their best options in a set of actions:
- Gaining support of the population
- Disrupt opponent's control over the population
- Direct action against opponent
- Disrupt opponent's relations with the international community
- Establish relationships with the international community
Barnett and connecting to the core
In Thomas Barnett's paradigm,[39] the world is divided into a "connected core" of nations enjoying a high level of communications among their organizations and individuals, and those nations that are disconnected internally and externally. In a reasonably peaceful situation, he describes a "system administrator" force, often multinational, which does what some call "nation-building", but, most importantly, connects the nation to the core and empowers the natives to communicate—that communication can be likened to swarm coordination. If the state is occupied, or in civil war, another paradigm comes into play: the leviathan, a first-world military force that takes down the opposition regular forces. Leviathan is not constituted to fight local insurgencies, but major forces. Leviathan may use extensive swarming at the tactical level, but its dispatch is a strategic decision that may be made unilaterally, or by an established group of the core such as NATO or ASEAN.
Cordesman and security
Other than brief "Leviathan" takedowns, security building appears to need to be regional, with logistical and other technical support from more developed countries and alliances (e.g., ASEAN, NATO). Noncombat military assistance in closing the security gap begins with training, sometimes in specialized areas such as intelligence. More direct, but still noncombat support, includes intelligence, planning, logistics and communications.
Anthony Cordesman notes that security requirements differ by region and state in region. Writing on the Middle East, he identified different security needs for specific areas, as well as the US interest in security in those areas.[28]
- In North Africa, the US focus should be on security cooperation in achieving regional stability and in counterterrorism.
- In the Levant, the US must largely compartment security cooperation with Israel and cooperation with friendly Arab states like Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, but can improve security cooperation with all these states.
- In the Persian Gulf, the US must deal with the strategic importance of a region whose petroleum and growing gas exports fuel key elements of the global economy.
It is well to understand that counterterrorism, as used by Cordesman, does not mean using terrorism against the terrorism, but an entire spectrum of activities, nonviolent and violent, to disrupt an opposing terrorist organization. The French general, Joseph Gallieni, observed, while a colonial administrator in 1898,
A country is not conquered and pacified when a military operation has decimated its inhabitants and made all heads bow in terror; the ferments of revolt will germinate in the mass and the rancours accumulated by the brutal action of force will make them grow again[40]
Both Kilcullen and Eizenstat define a more abstract goal than does Cordesman. Kilcullen's security pillar is roughly equivalent to Eizenstat's security gap:
- Military security (securing the population from attack or intimidation by guerrillas, bandits, terrorists or other armed groups)
- Police security (community policing, police intelligence or "Special Branch" activities, and paramilitary police field forces).
- Human security, building a framework of human rights, civil institutions and individual protections, public safety (fire, ambulance, sanitation, civil defense) and population security.
This pillar most engages military commanders' attention, but of course military means are applied across the model, not just in the security domain, while civilian activity is critically important in the security pillar also ... all three pillars must develop in parallel and stay in balance, while being firmly based in an effective information campaign.[31]
Anthony Cordesman, while speaking of the specific situation in Iraq, makes some points that can be generalized to other nations in turmoil.[41] Cordesman recognizes some value in the groupings in Samuel P. Huntington's idea of the clash of civilizations,[24] but, rather assuming the civilizations must clash, these civilizations simply can be recognized as actors in a multinational world. In the case of Iraq, Cordesman observes that the burden is on the Islamic civilization, not unilaterally the West, if for no other reason that the civilization to which the problematic nation belongs will have cultural and linguistic context that Western civilization cannot hope to equal.
The heart of strengthening weak nations must come from within, and that heart will fail if they deny that the real issue is the future of their civilization, if they tolerate religious, cultural or separatist violence and terrorism when it strikes at unpopular targets, or if they continue to try to export the blame for their own failures to other nations, religions, and cultures.
Asymmetric and irregular conflicts
Asymmetric conflicts (or irregular conflicts), as the emerging type of insurgencies in recent history, is described by Berman and Matanock in their review as conflicts where "the government forces have a clear advantage over rebels in coercive capacity."[42] In this kind of conflicts, rebel groups can reintegrate into the civilian population after an attack if the civilians are willing to silently accept them. Some of the most recent examples include the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.[43] As the western countries intervenes in the conflicts, creating asymmetry between the government forces and rebels, asymmetric conflict is the most common form of subnational conflicts and the most civil conflicts where the western countries are likely to be involved. Such interventions and their impacts can be seen in the NATO operation in Libya in 2011 and the French-led intervention in Mali in 2013.[42]
Berman and Matanock suggested an information-centric framework to describe asymmetric conflicts on a local level.[42] Three parties are involved in framework: government forces, rebels and civilians. Government forces and rebels attack each other and may inadvertently harm civilians whereas civilians can anonymously share local information with government forces, which would allow government forces to effectively use their asymmetric advantage to target rebels. Taking the role of civilians in this framework into consideration, the government and rebels will divert resources to provide services to civilians so as to influence their decision about sharing information with the government.
The framework is based on several assumptions:
- The consequential action of civilians is information sharing.
- Information can be shared anonymously without endangering the civilians who do so and civilians are assumed to respond to incentives.
- Neither side of government forces and rebels will actively target civilians with coercion or intimidation.
This framework leads to five major implications for counterinsurgency strategies:
- The government and rebels have an incentive to provide services to civilians, which increases with the value of the information shared.
- Rebel violence may be reduced by service provision from the government.
- Projects that address the needs of the civilians in the local communities and conditioned on information sharing by the community are more effective in reducing rebel violence. In practice, these may be smaller projects that are developed through consultation with local communities, which are also more easily revoked when information is not shared.
- Innovations that increase the value of projects to local civilians, such as including development professionals in project design and implementation, will enhance the effect of violence-reducing.
- Security provided by the government and service provision (i.e. development spending) are complementary activities.
- If either side of the government forces or rebels causes casualties among civilians, civilians will reduce their support for that side.
- Innovations that make anonymous tips to the government easier, of which are often technical, can reduce rebel violence.
These implications are tested by empirical evidences from conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other subnational conflicts. Further research on governance, rule of law, attitudes, dynamics and agency between allies are needed to better understand asymmetric conflicts and to have better informed decisions made at the tactical, strategic and public policy levels.
Counter-insurgency
Before one counters an insurgency, one must understand what one is countering. Typically the most successful counter-insurgencies have been the British in the Malay Emergency[44] and the Filipino government's countering of the Huk Rebellion. In the Philippine–American War, U.S. forces successfully quelled the Filipino insurgents by 1902, albeit with tactics considered unacceptable by the majority of modern populations.
See also
- Asymmetric warfare
- Fourth generation warfare
- Insurrectionary anarchism
- Irregular warfare
- Political warfare
- Revolutionary warfare
- Violent non-state actor
- COIN (board game)
National doctrines
- Foreign internal defense
- Reagan Doctrine
- Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine)
Case studies
Notes
- Alignments during the heaviest fighting years of the Iraq War were very complex, with some militias supporting the new Iraq government-US coalition, and some receiving third-state state sponsorship such as Saudi-supported Sunni group the Islamic State in Iraq.
References
- Thomas Willis, "Lessons from the past: successful British counterinsurgency operations in Malaya 1948–1960", July–August 2005, Infantry Magazine
External links
Media related to Insurgency at Wikimedia Commons- How Insurgencies End by Ben Connable, Martin C. Libicki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Insurgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-interest_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor
A non-state actor (NSA) are organizations and/or individuals that are not affiliated with, directed by, or funded by any government.[1]
The interests, structure, and influence of NSAs vary widely. For example, among NSAs are non-profit organizations, labor unions, non-governmental organizations, banks, corporations, media organizations, business magnates, people's liberation movements, lobby groups, religious groups, aid agencies, and violent non-state actors such as paramilitary forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor
Counterinsurgency (COIN, NATO spelling Counter-insurgency[1]) is "the totality of actions aimed at defeating irregular forces".[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines counterinsurgency as any "military or political action taken against the activities of guerrillas or revolutionaries"[3] and can be considered war by a state against a non-state adversary.[4] Insurgency and counterinsurgency campaigns have been waged since ancient history. However, modern thinking on counterinsurgency was developed during decolonization.[4] Within the military sciences, counterinsurgency is one of the main operational approaches of irregular warfare.[5]
During insurgency and counterinsurgency, the distinction between civilians and combatants is often blurred.[6] Counterinsurgency may involve attempting to win the hearts and minds of populations supporting the insurgency.[7][8] Alternatively, it may be waged in an attempt to intimidate[4][9] or eliminate civilian populations suspected of loyalty to the insurgency through indiscriminate violence.[4][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Goods_Produced_by_Child_Labor_or_Forced_Labor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(market)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-induced_breakdown_spectroscopy
David Galula
David Galula gained his practical experience in counterinsurgency as a French Army officer in the Algerian War. His theory of counterinsurgency is not primarily military, but a combination of military, political and social actions under the strong control of a single authority.
Galula proposes four "laws" for counterinsurgency:[22]
- The aim of the war is to gain the support of the population rather than control of territory.
- Most of the population will be neutral in the conflict; support of the masses can be obtained with the help of an active friendly minority.
- Support of the population may be lost. The population must be efficiently protected to allow it to cooperate without fear of retribution by the opposite party.
- Order enforcement should be done progressively by removing or driving away armed opponents, then gaining the support of the population, and eventually strengthening positions by building infrastructure and setting long-term relationships with the population. This must be done area by area, using a pacified territory as a basis of operation to conquer a neighboring area.
Galula contends that:
A victory [in a counterinsurgency] is not the destruction in a given area of the insurgent's forces and his political organization. ... A victory is that plus the permanent isolation of the insurgent from the population, isolation not enforced upon the population, but maintained by and with the population. ... In conventional warfare, strength is assessed according to military or other tangible criteria, such as the number of divisions, the position they hold, the industrial resources, etc. In revolutionary warfare, strength must be assessed by the extent of support from the population as measured in terms of political organization at the grassroots. The counterinsurgent reaches a position of strength when his power is embedded in a political organization issuing from, and firmly supported by, the population.[23]
With his four principles in mind, Galula goes on to describe a general military and political strategy to put them into operation in an area that is under full insurgent control:
In a Selected Area
1. Concentrate enough armed forces to destroy or to expel the main body of armed insurgents.
2. Detach for the area sufficient troops to oppose an insurgent come back in strength, install these troops in the hamlets, villages, and towns where the population lives.
3. Establish contact with the population, control its movements in order to cut off its links with the guerrillas.
4. Destroy the local insurgent political organization.
5. Set up, by means of elections, new provisional local authorities.
6. Test those authorities by assigning them various concrete tasks. Replace the softs and the incompetents, give full support to the active leaders. Organize self-defense units.
7. Group and educate the leaders in a national political movement.
8. Win over or suppress the last insurgent remnants.[23]
According to Galula, some of these steps can be skipped in areas that are only partially under insurgent control, and most of them are unnecessary in areas already controlled by the government.[23] Thus the essence of counterinsurgency warfare is summed up by Galula as "Build (or rebuild) a political machine from the population upward."[24]
Robert Thompson
Robert Grainger Ker Thompson wrote Defeating Communist Insurgency[25] in 1966, wherein he argued that a successful counterinsurgency effort must be proactive in seizing the initiative from insurgents. Thompson outlines five basic principles for a successful counterinsurgency:
- The government must have a clear political aim: to establish and maintain a free, independent and united country that is politically and economically stable and viable;
- The government must function in accordance with the law;
- The government must have an overall plan;
- The government must give priority to defeating political subversion, not the guerrilla fighters;
- In the guerrilla phase of an insurgency, a government must secure its base areas first.[26][27]
Van Creveld condenses al-Assad's strategy into five rules while noting that they could easily have been written by Niccolò Machiavelli:[34]
- There are situations in which cruelty is necessary, and refusing to apply necessary cruelty is a betrayal of the people who put you into power. When pressed to cruelty, never threaten your opponent but disguise your intention and feign weakness until you strike.
- Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough. If another strike is needed, it reduces the impact of the first strike. Repeated strikes will also endanger the morale of the counterinsurgent troops; soldiers forced to commit repeated atrocities will likely begin to resort to alcohol or drugs to force themselves to carry out orders and will inevitably lose their military edge, eventually turning into a danger to their commanders.
- Act as soon as possible. More lives will be saved by decisive action early, than by prolonging the insurgency. The longer you wait, the more inured the population will be to bloodshed, and the more barbaric your action will have to be to make an impression.
- Strike openly. Do not apologize, make excuses about "collateral damage", express regret, or promise investigations. Afterwards, make sure that as many people as possible know of your strike; the media is useful for this purpose, but be careful not to let them interview survivors and arouse sympathy.
- Do not command the strike yourself, in case it doesn't work for some reason and you need to disown your commander and try another strategy. If it does work, present your commander to the world, explain what you have done and make certain that everyone understands that you are ready to strike again.[35]
Air operations
Air power can play an important role in counterinsurgency, capable of carrying out a wide range of operations:
- Transportation in support of combatants and civilians alike, including casualty evacuations;
- Intelligence gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
- Psychological operations, through leaflet drops, loudspeakers, and radio broadcasts;
- Air-to-ground attack against 'soft' targets.[69]
One of France's most influential theorists was Roger Trinquier. The Modern Warfare counterinsurgency strategy, described by Trinquier, who had led anti-communist guerrillas in Indochina, was a strong influence on French efforts in Algeria.
Trinquier suggested three principles:
- separate the guerrilla from the population that supports it;
- occupy the zones from which the guerrillas previously operated, make the area dangerous for the insurgents and turn the people against the guerrilla movement; and
- co-ordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that the guerrilla is denied access to the population centres that could support him.
Russia and Soviet Union
The most familiar Russian counterinsurgency is the War in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. However, throughout the history of the Russian Empire, the Russians fought many counterinsurgencies as new Caucasian and Central Asian territory were occupied.[95] It was in those conflicts that the Russians developed the following counterinsurgency tactics:[95]
- Deploy a significant number of troops
- Isolate the area from outside assistance
- Establish tight control of major cities and towns
- Build lines of forts to restrict insurgent movement
- Destroy the springs of resistance through destruction of settlements, livestock, crops etc.
Those tactics, generally speaking, were carried over into Soviet use following the 1917 revolution for the most part except for the integration of political-military command.[96] This tactical blueprint saw use following the First and Second World Wars in Dagestan, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Siberia, Lithuania and Ukraine.[95] That doctrine was ultimately shown to be inadequate in the Soviet War in Afghanistan, mostly because of insufficient troop commitment, and in the Wars in Chechnya.[95]
United States
The United States has conducted counterinsurgency campaigns during the Philippine–American War, the Vietnam War, the post-2001 War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in increased interest in counterinsurgency within the American military, which was exemplified by the 2006 publication of a new joint Army Field Manual 3-24/Marine Corps Warfighting Publication No. 3-33.5, Counterinsurgency, which replaced the documents separately published by the Army and Marine Corps 20–25 years prior.[97] Views of the doctrine contained in the manual have been mixed.[98] The 2014 version of FM 3-24/MCWP 3–33.5 acquired a new title, Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies, it consists of three main parts,
Part one provides strategic and operational context, part two provides the doctrine for understanding insurgencies, and part three provides doctrine for defeating an insurgency. In short, FM 3-24/MCWP 3–33.5 is organized to provide the context of a problem, the problem, and possible solutions.[99]
William B. Caldwell IV wrote:
The law of armed conflict requires that, to use force, "combatants" must distinguish individuals presenting a threat from innocent civilians. This basic principle is accepted by all disciplined militaries. In the counterinsurgency, disciplined application of force is even more critical because our enemies camouflage themselves in the civilian population. Our success in Iraq depends on our ability to treat the civilian population with humanity and dignity, even as we remain ready to immediately defend ourselves or Iraqi civilians when a threat is detected.[100]
In the recent conflicts the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) has been increasingly involved conducting special operations especially the training and development of other states' military and security forces.[101][102] This is known in the special operations community as foreign internal defense. It was announced 14 January 2016 that 1,800 soldiers from the 101st's Headquarters and its 2nd Brigade Combat Team will deploy soon on regular rotations to Baghdad and Erbil to train and advise Iraqi Army and Kurdish Peshmerga forces who are expected in the coming months to move toward Mosul, the Islamic State's de facto headquarters in Iraq.[103][unreliable source?]
The 101st Airborne Division will serve an integral role in preparing Iraqi ground troops to expel the Islamic State group from Mosul, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the division's soldiers during a January 2016 visit to Fort Campbell, Kentucky.[102] Defense Secretary Ash Carter told the 101st Airborne Division that "The Iraqi and Peshmerga forces you will train, advise and assist have proven their determination, their resiliency, and increasingly, their capability, but they need you to continue building on that success, preparing them for the fight today and the long hard fight for their future. They need your skill. They need your experience."[102]
Foreign internal defense policymaking has subsequently aided in Iraqi successes in reclaiming Tikrit, Baiji, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Recent evaluations of U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan have yielded mixed results. A comprehensive study by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction concluded that "the U.S. government greatly overestimated its ability" to use COIN and stabilization tactics for long-term success.[104] The report found that "successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops and civilians." These findings are corroborated by scholarly studies of U.S. counterinsurgency activities in Afghanistan, which determined that backlashes by insurgents and the local population were common.[105][106][107]
See also
General:
- Civilian casualty ratio
- Collective punishment
- Death squad
- Divide and rule
- Eizenstat and closing gaps
- False flag
- Foreign internal defence
- Fourth generation warfare
- Gladio
- Guerrilla warfare
- Grey-zone (international relations)
- Human rights violations
- Internally displaced people
- Irregular Warfare
- Kilcullen's Pillars
- Logical line of operation
- Low intensity conflict
- Counter-IED efforts
- COIN (board game)
Specific:
- Anti-partisan operations in World War II
- Bandenbekämpfung
- Clear and hold
- Counter Insurgency Force
- Counter-insurgency operations during the Second Chechen War
- Pacification of Manchukuo
- Strategic Hamlet
- Fireforce
U.S. specific:
- SEAL Team Six
- Special Forces
- Special Activities Division
- Delta Force
- 24th Special Tactics Squadron
- COINTELPRO
Police adaptations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterinsurgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Warfare_by_type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_line_of_operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-intensity_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Human_rights_violations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internally_displaced_person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency#Eizenstat_and_closing_gaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_hold
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireforce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandenbek%C3%A4mpfung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Warfare_by_type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mercenary_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mine_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mountain_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proxy_wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Siege_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Space_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Operations_involving_special_forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Land_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jungle_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Expeditionary_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rebellions_by_type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aerial_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airborne_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Attrition_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biological_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemical_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(term)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold-weather_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-front_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeclared_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petty_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_annihilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_extremism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_war
Free war (Swedish: Fria kriget) is a form of guerrilla warfare that is conducted with cut-off smaller military units in enemy occupied territory. The largest difference between free war and guerrilla warfare is that free war is conducted by regular military forces, instead of paramilitary organizations or irregular military forces.
The term is most often associated with the Swedish military,[citation needed] primarily during the Cold War era. Though Sweden no longer has free war in their official doctrine, there are still military manuals that mention and deal with this subject.
During the Cold War, conducting free war was to some degree a part of the military training curriculum in Sweden, where the purpose was to enable every conscript soldier to conduct free war in the case of enemy occupation of Sweden.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay-behind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Urban_guerrilla_warfare_tactics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunnel_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andong_Tunnel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tunnel_warfare_in_World_War_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beihai_Tunnel_(Beigan)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northern_Shield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_tunnel_warfare_in_the_Gaza_Strip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festungsfront_Oder-Warthe-Bogen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_Units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence,_surveillance,_target_acquisition,_and_reconnaissance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200_days_of_dread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_cell_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_guard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-range_reconnaissance_patrol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_redoubt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_run_(terrorism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia#Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_bomb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law#Mala_in_se_v._mala_prohibita
Mala in se v. mala prohibita
While crimes are typically broken into degrees or classes to punish appropriately, all offenses can be divided into 'mala in se' and 'mala prohibita' laws. Both are Latin legal terms, mala in se meaning crimes that are thought to be inherently evil or morally wrong, and thus will be widely regarded as crimes regardless of jurisdiction. Mala in se offenses are felonies, property crimes, immoral acts and corrupt acts by public officials. Mala prohibita, on the other hand, refers to offenses that do not have wrongfulness associated with them. Parking in a restricted area, driving the wrong way down a one-way street, jaywalking or unlicensed fishing are examples of acts that are prohibited by statute, but without which are not considered wrong. Mala prohibita statutes are usually imposed strictly, as there does not need to be mens rea component for punishment under those offenses, just the act itself. For this reason, it can be argued that offenses that are mala prohibita are not really crimes at all.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law#Mala_in_se_v._mala_prohibita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_in_Islam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive
General criteria
Terrorism has been described[by whom?] as:[citation needed]
- The use of violence or of the threat of violence in the pursuit of political, religious, ideological or social objectives
- Acts committed by non-state actors (or by undercover personnel serving on the behalf of their respective governments)
- Acts reaching more than the immediate target victims and also directed at targets consisting of a larger spectrum of society
- Both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_squad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_cell_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_corruption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Code_of_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Criminal_Code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Political_corruption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_fund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bond
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_stacking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonesty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_fund
Discovery in tort litigation
Discovery (or disclosure), a concept unique to common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can open-endedly demand evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_torts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_economic_loss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_of_deceit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform#Cost_of_discovery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_playing_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform#Cost_of_discovery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fees)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_motion_to_strike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_insurance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_and_suffering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_tort_law
Ultrahazardous activity – An activity so dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, regardless of whether or not reasonable precautions were taken to prevent others from being injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_tort_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_outlines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_tort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contamination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_contamination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contaminated_cell_lines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodrug
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geochemistry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeochemical_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_component
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_flour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperity_(materials_science)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_contact_stiffness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body
Rebellion, uprising, or insurrection is a refusal of obedience or order.[1] It refers to the open resistance against the orders of an established authority.[citation needed]
A rebellion originates from a sentiment of indignation and disapproval of a situation and then manifests itself by the refusal to submit or to obey the authority responsible for this situation.[citation needed] Rebellion can be individual or collective, peaceful (civil disobedience, civil resistance, and nonviolent resistance) or violent (terrorism and guerrilla warfare).
Rebellion and revolt are often distinguished by their different aims. While rebellion generally seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws. The goal of rebellion is resistance while a revolt seeks a revolution.[citation needed] As power shifts relative to the external adversary, or power shifts within a mixed coalition, or positions harden or soften on either side, an insurrection may seesaw between the two forms.[citation needed]
Classification
An armed but limited rebellion is an insurrection,[2] and if the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency.[3] In a larger conflict the rebels may be recognized as belligerents without their government being recognized by the established government, in which case the conflict becomes a civil war.[a]
Civil resistance movements have often aimed at, and brought about, the fall of a government or head of state, and in these cases could be considered a form of rebellion. In many of these cases, the opposition movement saw itself not only as nonviolent, but also as upholding their country's constitutional system against a government that was unlawful, for example, if it had refused to acknowledge its defeat in an election. Thus the term rebel does not always capture the element in some of these movements of acting to defend the rule of law and constitutionalism.[5]
There are a number of terms that are associated with rebel and rebellion. They range from those with positive connotations to those with pejorative connotations. Examples include:
- Boycott, similar to civil disobedience, but it simply means a separation, primarily financial, from the system that is being rebelled against. This entails refusing to participate in the monetary system, limiting consumption, or ignoring notions of property rights (AKA squatting, simple living).
- Civil resistance, civil disobedience, and nonviolent resistance which do not include violence or paramilitary force.[citation needed]
- Coup d'etat, an illegal overthrow of a government, usually carried out by the military or other politicians.
- Mutiny, which is carried out by military or security forces against their commanders[citation needed]
- Armed resistance movement, which is carried out by "freedom fighters", often against an occupying foreign power[citation needed]
- Revolt, a term that is sometimes used for more localized rebellions rather than a general uprising[citation needed]
- Revolution, which is mostly carried out by radicals and frustrated citizens, usually meant to overthrow the current government[citation needed]
- Riot, a form of civil disorder involving violent public disturbance
- Subversion, which are covert attempts at sabotaging a government, carried out by spies or other subversives[citation needed]
- Terrorism, which is the use of intentional violence by non-state actors, typically against civilians, to affect political, social, cultural, religious and/or economic change.[6]
Causes
Macro approach
The following theories broadly build on the Marxist interpretation of rebellion. Rebellion is studied, in Theda Skocpol's words, by analyzing "objective relationships and conflicts among variously situated groups and nations, rather than the interests, outlooks, or ideologies of particular actors in revolutions".[7]
Marxist view
Karl Marx's analysis of revolutions sees such expression of political violence not as anomic, episodic outbursts of discontents but rather the symptomatic expression of a particular set of objective but fundamentally contradicting class-based relations of power. The central tenet of Marxist philosophy, as expressed in Das Kapital, is the analysis of society's mode of production (societal organization of technology and labor) and the relationships between people and their material conditions. Marx writes about "the hidden structure of society" that must be elucidated through an examination of "the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers". The conflict that arises from producers being dispossessed of the means of production, and therefore subject to the possessors who may appropriate their products, is at the origin of the revolution.[8] The inner imbalance within these modes of production is derived from the conflicting modes of organization, such as capitalism emerging within feudalism, or more contemporarily socialism arising within capitalism. The dynamics engineered by these class frictions help class consciousness root itself in the collective imaginary. For example, the development of the bourgeoisie class went from an oppressed merchant class to urban independence, eventually gaining enough power to represent the state as a whole. Social movements, thus, are determined by an exogenous set of circumstances. The proletariat must also, according to Marx, go through the same process of self-determination which can only be achieved by friction against the bourgeoisie. In Marx's theory, revolutions are the "locomotives of history" because revolution ultimately leads to the overthrow of a parasitic ruling class and its antiquated mode of production. Later, rebellion attempts to replace it with a new system of political economy, one that is better suited to the new ruling class, thus enabling societal progress. The cycle of revolution, thus, replaces one mode of production with another through the constant class friction.[9]
Ted Gurr: Roots of political violence
In his book Why Men Rebel, Ted Gurr looks at the roots of political violence itself applied to a rebellion framework. He defines political violence as: "all collective attacks within a political community against the political regime, its actors [...] or its policies. The concept represents a set of events, a common property of which is the actual or threatened use of violence".[10] Gurr sees in violence a voice of anger that manifests itself against the established order. More precisely, individuals become angry when they feel what Gurr labels as relative deprivation, meaning the feeling of getting less than one is entitled to. He labels it formally as the "perceived discrepancy between value expectations and value capabilities".[11] Gurr differentiates between three types of relative deprivation:
- Decremental deprivation: one's capacities decrease when expectations remain high. One example of this is the proliferation and thus depreciation of the value of higher education.[12]
- Aspirational Deprivation: one's capacities stay the same when expectations rise. An example would be a first-generation college student lacking the contacts and network to obtain a higher paying job while watching her better-prepared colleagues bypass her.[13]
- Progressive deprivation: expectation and capabilities increase but the former cannot keep up. A good example would be an automotive worker being increasingly marginalized by the automatization of the assembly line.[14]
Anger is thus comparative. One of his key insights is that "The potential for collective violence varies strongly with the intensity and scope of relative deprivation among members of a collectivity".[15] This means that different individuals within society will have different propensities to rebel based on the particular internalization of their situation. As such, Gurr differentiates between three types of political violence:[16]
- Turmoil when only the mass population encounters relative deprivation;
- Conspiracy when the population but especially the elite encounters relative deprivation;
- Internal War, which includes revolution. In this case, the degree of organization is much higher than turmoil, and the revolution is intrinsically spread to all sections of society, unlike the conspiracy.
Charles Tilly: Centrality of collective action
In From Mobilization to Revolution, Charles Tilly argues that political violence is a normal and endogenous reaction to competition for power between different groups within society. "Collective violence", Tilly writes, "is the product of just normal processes of competition among groups in order to obtain the power and implicitly to fulfill their desires".[17] He proposes two models to analyze political violence:
- The polity model takes into account government and groups jockeying for control over power. Thus, both the organizations holding power and the ones challenging them are included.[18] Tilly labels those two groups "members" and "challengers".
- The mobilization model aims to describe the behavior of one single party to the political struggle for power. Tilly further divides the model into two sub-categories, one that deals with the internal dynamics of the group, and the other that is concerned with the "external relations" of the entity with other organizations and/or the government. According to Tilly, the cohesiveness of a group mainly relies on the strength of common interests and the degree of organization. Thus, to answer Gurr, anger alone does not automatically create political violence. Political action is contingent on the capacity to organize and unite. It is far from irrational and spontaneous.
Revolutions are included in this theory, although they remain for Tilly particularly extreme since the challenger(s) aim for nothing less than full control over power.[19] The "revolutionary moment occurs when the population needs to choose to obey either the government or an alternative body who is engaged with the government in a zero-sum game. This is what Tilly calls "multiple sovereignty".[20] The success of a revolutionary movement hinges on "the formation of coalitions between members of the polity and the contenders advancing exclusive alternative claims to control over Government.".[20]
Chalmers Johnson and societal values
For Chalmers Johnson, rebellions are not so much the product of political violence or collective action but in "the analysis of viable, functioning societies".[21] In a quasi-biological manner, Johnson sees revolutions as symptoms of pathologies within the societal fabric. A healthy society, meaning a "value-coordinated social system"[22] does not experience political violence. Johnson's equilibrium is at the intersection between the need for society to adapt to changes but at the same time firmly grounded in selective fundamental values. The legitimacy of political order, he posits, relies exclusively on its compliance with these societal values and in its capacity to integrate and adapt to any change. Rigidity is, in other words, inadmissible. Johnson writes "to make a revolution is to accept violence for the purpose of causing the system to change; more exactly, it is the purposive implementation of a strategy of violence in order to effect a change in social structure".[23] The aim of a revolution is to re-align a political order on new societal values introduced by an externality that the system itself has not been able to process. Rebellions automatically must face a certain amount of coercion because by becoming "de-synchronized", the now illegitimate political order will have to use coercion to maintain its position. A simplified example would be the French Revolution when the Parisian Bourgeoisie did not recognize the core values and outlook of the King as synchronized with its own orientations. More than the King itself, what really sparked the violence was the uncompromising intransigence of the ruling class. Johnson emphasizes "the necessity of investigating a system's value structure and its problems in order to conceptualize the revolutionary situation in any meaningful way".[24]
Theda Skocpol and the autonomy of the state
Skocpol introduces the concept of the social revolution, to be contrasted with a political revolution. While the latter aims to change the polity, the former is "rapid, basic transformations of a society's state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below".[25] Social revolutions are a grassroots movement by nature because they do more than change the modalities of power, they aim to transform the fundamental social structure of society. As a corollary, this means that some "revolutions" may cosmetically change the organization of the monopoly over power without engineering any true change in the social fabric of society. Her analysis is limited to studying the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Skocpol identifies three stages of the revolution in these cases (which she believes can be extrapolated and generalized), each accordingly accompanied by specific structural factors which in turn influence the social results of the political action.
- The Collapse of the Old-Regime State: this is an automatic consequence of certain structural conditions. She highlights the importance of international military and economic competition as well as the pressure of the misfunctioning of domestic affairs. More precisely, she sees the breakdown of the governing structures of society influenced by two theoretical actors, the "landed upper class" and the "imperial state".[26] Both could be considered as "partners in exploitation" but in reality competed for resources: the state (monarchs) seek to build up military and economic power to ascertain their geopolitical influence. The upper class works in a logic of profit maximization, meaning preventing as much as possible the state to extract resources. All three revolutions occurred, Skocpol argues, because states failed to be able to "mobilize extraordinary resources from the society and implement in the process reforms requiring structural transformations".[27] The apparently contradicting policies were mandated by a unique set of geopolitical competition and modernization. "Revolutionary political crises occurred because of the unsuccessful attempts of the Bourbon, Romanov, and Manchu regimes to cope with foreign pressures."[27] Skocpol further concludes "the upshot was the disintegration of centralized administrative and military machinery that had theretofore provided the solely unified bulwark of social and political order".[28]
- Peasant Uprisings: more than simply a challenge by the landed upper class in a difficult context, the state needs to be challenged by mass peasant uprisings in order to fall. These uprisings must be aimed not at the political structures per se but at the upper class itself so that the political revolution becomes a social one as well. Skocpol quotes Barrington Moore who famously wrote: "peasants [...] provided the dynamite to bring down the old building".[29] Peasant uprisings are more effective depending on two given structural socioeconomic conditions: the level of autonomy (from both an economic and political point of view) peasant communities enjoy, and the degree of direct control the upper class on local politics. In other words, peasants must be able to have some degree of agency in order to be able to rebel. If the coercive structures of the state and/or the landowners keep a very close check on peasant activity, then there is no space to foment dissent.
- Societal Transformation: this is the third and decisive step after the state organization has been seriously weakened and peasant revolts become widespread against landlords. The paradox of the three revolutions Skocpol studies is that stronger centralized and bureaucratic states emerge after the revolts.[30] The exact parameters depend, again, on structural factors as opposed to voluntarist factors: in Russia, the new state found most support in the industrial base, rooting itself in cities. In China, most of the support for the revolt had been in the countryside, thus the new polity was grounded in rural areas. In France, the peasantry was not organized enough, and the urban centers not potent enough so that the new state was not firmly grounded in anything, partially explaining its artificiality.
Here is a summary of the causes and consequences of social revolutions in these three countries, according to Skocpol:[31]
| Conditions for political crises (A) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Power structure | State of agrarian economy | International pressures |
| France | Landed-commercial upper class has moderate influence on the absolutist monarchy via bureaucracy | Moderate growth | Moderate, pressure from England |
| Russia | Landed nobility has no influence in absolutist state | Extensive growth, geographically unbalanced | Extreme, string of defeats culminating with World War I |
| China | Landed-commercial upper class has moderate influence on absolutist state via bureaucracy | Slow growth | Strong, imperialist intrusions |
| Conditions for peasant insurrections (B) | |||
|
|
Organization of agrarian communities | Autonomy of agrarian communities | |
| France | Peasants own 30–40% of the land and must pay tribute to the feudal landlord | Relatively autonomous, distant control from royal officials | |
| Russia | Peasants own 60% of the land, pay rent to landowners that are part of the community | Sovereign, supervised by the bureaucracy | |
| China | Peasants own 50% of the land and pay rent to the landowners, work exclusively on small plots, no real peasant community | Landlords dominate local politics under the supervision of Imperial officials | |
|
|
Societal transformations (A + B) | ||
| France | Breakdown of absolutist state, important peasant revolts against feudal system | ||
| Russia | Failure of top-down bureaucratic reforms, eventual dissolution of the state and widespread peasant revolts against all privately owned land | ||
| China | Breakdown of absolutist state, disorganized peasant upheavals but no autonomous revolts against landowners | ||
Microfoundational evidence on causes
The following theories are all based on Mancur Olson's work in The Logic of Collective Action, a 1965 book that conceptualizes the inherent problem with an activity that has concentrated costs and diffuse benefits. In this case, the benefits of rebellion are seen as a public good, meaning one that is non-excludable and non-rivalrous.[32] Indeed, the political benefits are generally shared by all in society if a rebellion is successful, not just the individuals that have partaken in the rebellion itself. Olson thus challenges the assumption that simple interests in common are all that is necessary for collective action. In fact, he argues the "free rider" possibility, a term that means to reap the benefits without paying the price, will deter rational individuals from collective action. That is, unless there is a clear benefit, a rebellion will not happen en masse. Thus, Olson shows that "selective incentives", only made accessible to individuals participating in the collective effort, can solve the free rider problem.[33]
The Rational Peasant
Samuel L. Popkin builds on Olson's argument in The Rational Peasant: The Political Economy of Rural Society in Vietnam. His theory is based on the figure of a hyper rational peasant that bases his decision to join (or not) a rebellion uniquely on a cost-benefit analysis. This formalist view of the collective action problem stresses the importance of individual economic rationality and self-interest: a peasant, according to Popkin, will disregard the ideological dimension of a social movement and focus instead on whether or not it will bring any practical benefit to him. According to Popkin, peasant society is based on a precarious structure of economic instability. Social norms, he writes, are "malleable, renegotiated, and shifting in accord with considerations of power and strategic interaction among individuals"[34] Indeed, the constant insecurity and inherent risk to the peasant condition, due to the peculiar nature of the patron-client relationship that binds the peasant to his landowner, forces the peasant to look inwards when he has a choice to make. Popkin argues that peasants rely on their "private, family investment for their long run security and that they will be interested in short term gain vis-à-vis the village. They will attempt to improve their long-run security by moving to a position with higher income and less variance".[35] Popkin stresses this "investor logic" that one may not expect in agrarian societies, usually seen as pre-capitalist communities where traditional social and power structures prevent the accumulation of capital. Yet, the selfish determinants of collective action are, according to Popkin, a direct product of the inherent instability of peasant life. The goal of a laborer, for example, will be to move to a tenant position, then smallholder, then landlord; where there is less variance and more income. Voluntarism is thus non-existent in such communities.
Popkin singles out four variables that impact individual participation:
- Contribution to the expenditure of resources: collective action has a cost in terms of contribution, and especially if it fails (an important consideration with regards to rebellion)
- Rewards : the direct (more income) and indirect (less oppressive central state) rewards for collective action
- Marginal impact of the peasant's contribution to the success of collective action
- Leadership "viability and trust" : to what extent the resources pooled will be effectively used.
Without any moral commitment to the community, this situation will engineer free riders. Popkin argues that selective incentives are necessary to overcome this problem.[36]
Opportunity cost of rebellion
Political Scientist Christopher Blattman and World Bank economist Laura Ralston identify rebellious activity as an "occupational choice".[37] They draw a parallel between criminal activity and rebellion, arguing that the risks and potential payoffs an individual must calculate when making the decision to join such a movement remains similar between the two activities. In both cases, only a selected few reap important benefits, while most of the members of the group do not receive similar payoffs.[38] The choice to rebel is inherently linked with its opportunity cost, namely what an individual is ready to give up in order to rebel. Thus, the available options beside rebellious or criminal activity matter just as much as the rebellion itself when the individual makes the decision. Blattman and Ralston, however, recognize that "a poor person's best strategy" might be both rebellion illicit and legitimate activities at the same time.[38] Individuals, they argue, can often have a varied "portofolio" of activities, suggesting that they all operate on a rational, profit maximizing logic. The authors conclude that the best way to fight rebellion is to increase its opportunity cost, both by more enforcement but also by minimizing the potential material gains of a rebellion.[38]
Selective incentives based on group membership
The decision to join a rebellion can be based on the prestige and social status associated with membership in the rebellious group. More than material incentives for the individual, rebellions offer their members club goods, public goods that are reserved only for the members inside that group. Economist Eli Berman and Political Scientist David D. Laitin's study of radical religious groups show that the appeal of club goods can help explain individual membership. Berman and Laitin discuss suicide operations, meaning acts that have the highest cost for an individual. They find that in such a framework, the real danger to an organization is not volunteering but preventing defection. Furthermore, the decision to enroll in such high stakes organization can be rationalized.[39] Berman and Laitin show that religious organizations supplant the state when it fails to provide an acceptable quality of public goods such a public safety, basic infrastructure, access to utilities, or schooling.[40] Suicide operations "can be explained as a costly signal of "commitment" to the community".[41] They further note "Groups less adept at extracting signals of commitment (sacrifices) may not be able to consistently enforce incentive compatibility."[42] Thus, rebellious groups can organize themselves to ask of members proof of commitment to the cause. Club goods serve not so much to coax individuals into joining but to prevent defection.
Greed vs grievance model
World Bank economists Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler compare two dimensions of incentives:
- Greed rebellion: "motivated by predation of the rents from primary commodity exports, subject to an economic calculus of costs and a military survival constraint".[43]
- Grievance rebellion: "motivated by hatreds which might be intrinsic to ethnic and religious differences, or reflected objective resentments such as domination by an ethnic majority, political repression, or economic inequality".[43] The two main sources of grievance are political exclusion and inequality.
Vollier and Hoeffler find that the model based on grievance variables systematically fails to predict past conflicts, while the model based on greed performs well. The authors posit that the high cost of risk to society is not taken into account seriously by the grievance model: individuals are fundamentally risk-averse. However, they allow that conflicts create grievances, which in turn can become risk factors. Contrary to established beliefs, they also find that a multiplicity of ethnic communities make society safer, since individuals will be automatically more cautious, at the opposite of the grievance model predictions.[43] Finally, the authors also note that the grievances expressed by members of the diaspora of a community in turmoil has an important on the continuation of violence.[44] Both greed and grievance thus need to be included in the reflection.
The Moral Economy of the Peasant
Spearheaded by political scientist and anthropologist James C. Scott in his book The Moral Economy of the Peasant, the moral economy school considers moral variables such as social norms, moral values, interpretation of justice, and conception of duty to the community as the prime influencers of the decision to rebel. This perspective still adheres to Olson's framework, but it considers different variables to enter the cost/benefit analysis: the individual is still believed to be rational, albeit not on material but moral grounds.[45]
Early conceptualization: E. P. Thompson and bread riots in England
British historian E.P. Thompson is often cited as being the first to use the term "moral economy", he said in his 1991 publication that the term had been in use since the 18th century.[46][47] In his 1971 Past & Present journal article, Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century, he discussed English bread riots, and other localized form of rebellion by English peasants throughout the 18th century. He said that these events have been routinely dismissed as "riotous", with the connotation of being disorganized, spontaneous, undirected, and undisciplined. He wrote that, on the contrary, such riots involved a coordinated peasant action, from the pillaging of food convoys to the seizure of grain shops. A scholar such as Popkin has argued that peasants were trying to gain material benefits, such as more food. Thompson sees a legitimization factor, meaning "a belief that [the peasants] were defending traditional rights and customs". Thompson goes on to write: "[the riots were] legitimized by the assumptions of an older moral economy, which taught the immorality of any unfair method of forcing up the price of provisions by profiteering upon the necessities of the people". In 1991, twenty years after his original publication, Thompson said that his, "object of analysis was the mentalité, or, as [he] would prefer, the political culture, the expectations, traditions, and indeed, superstitions of the working population most frequently involved in actions in the market".[46] The opposition between a traditional, paternalist, and the communitarian set of values clashing with the inverse liberal, capitalist, and market-derived ethics is central to explain rebellion.
James C. Scott and the formalization of the moral economy argument
In his 1976 book The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia, James C. Scott looks at the impact of exogenous economic and political shocks on peasant communities in Southeast Asia. Scott finds that peasants are mostly in the business of surviving and producing enough to subsist.[48] Therefore, any extractive regime needs to respect this careful equilibrium. He labels this phenomenon the "subsistence ethic".[49] A landowner operating in such communities is seen to have the moral duty to prioritize the peasant's subsistence over his constant benefit. According to Scott, the powerful colonial state accompanied by market capitalism did not respect this fundamental hidden law in peasant societies. Rebellious movements occurred as the reaction to an emotional grief, a moral outrage.[50]
Other non-material incentives
Blattman and Ralston recognize the importance of immaterial selective incentives, such as anger, outrage, and injustice ("grievance") in the roots of rebellions. These variables, they argue, are far from being irrational, as they are sometimes presented. They identify three main types of grievance arguments:
- Intrinsic incentives holds that "injustice or perceived transgression generates an intrinsic willingness to punish or seek retribution".[51] More than material rewards, individuals are naturally and automatically prompted to fight for justice if they feel they have been wronged. The ultimatum game is an excellent illustration: player one receives $10 and must split it with another player who doesn't get the chance to determine how much he receives, but only if the deal is made or not (if he refuses, everyone loses their money). Rationally, player 2 should take whatever the deal is because it is better in absolute term ($1 more remains $1 more). However, player 2 is most likely unwilling to accept less than 2 or 2 dollars, meaning that they are willing to pay a-$2 for justice to be respected. This game, according to Blattman and Ralston, represents "the expressive pleasure people gain from punishing an injustice".[51]
- Loss aversion holds that "people tend to evaluate their satisfaction relative to a reference point, and that they are 'loss adverse".[52] Individuals prefer not losing over the risky strategy of making gains. There is a substantial subjective part to this, however, as some may realize alone and decide that they are comparatively less well off than a neighbor, for example. To "fix" this gap, individuals will in turn be ready to take great risks so as to not enshrine a loss.[52]
- Frustration-aggression: this model holds that the immediate emotional reactions to highly stressful environments do not obey to any "direct utility benefit but rather a more impulsive and emotional response to a threat".[52] There are limits to this theory: violent action is to a large extent a product of goals by an individual which are in turn determined by a set of preferences.[53] Yet, this approach shows that contextual elements like economic precarity have a non-negligible impact on the conditions of the decisions to rebel at minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Causes_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Peace_and_conflict_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_war
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_77/October_1910/The_Moral_Equivalent_of_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinhibition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit-experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressive_desublimation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_ancient_Roman_religion#vitium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_funerary_practices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor
Appius Claudius Caecus | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | Appius Claudius Crassus |
| Nationality | Roman |
| Office | Censor (312–307 BC) Consul (307, 296 BC) Praetor (295 BC) Dictator (c. 285 BC) |
| Children | 9 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appius_Claudius_Caecus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpents_in_the_Bible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablets_of_Stone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_(number)#In_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(constellation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_calendar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Dynasty_of_Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Nammu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms
Communal laments
Communal laments are psalms in which the nation laments some communal disaster.[20] Both communal and individual laments typically but not always include the following elements:
- address to God,
- description of suffering,
- cursing of the party responsible for suffering,
- protestation of innocence or admission of guilt,
- petition for divine assistance,
- faith in God's receipt of prayer,
- anticipation of divine response, and
- a song of thanksgiving.[21][22]
In general, the individual and communal subtypes can be distinguished by the use of the singular "I" or the plural "we". However, the "I" could also be characterising an individual's personal experience that was reflective of the entire community.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zechariah_(Hebrew_prophet)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sayings_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible
Category:Sayings of Jesus
Subcategories
This category has the following 2 subcategories, out of 2 total.
A
B
- Beatitudes (12 P)
Pages in category "Sayings of Jesus"
The following 43 pages are in this category, out of 43 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.
L
S
T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sayings_of_Jesus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_and_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_sword
No comments:
Post a Comment