It would be very interesting, what the professor says to the russian war against ucrain in 2022 and the answer of the eu on this topic. Putin brought Europe together in an never expected time of some hours or days. And Russia is making exact the errors the professor criticized a few years ago at the ideology of liberal western countrys. The professor should offer his insights to Mr.Lawrow or Mr.Putin, because the must have misunderstood him.
Do not worry, we will be fine here. He has been so wrong so often. As it in general tends to be in history. If I would have suggested that Russia has a military disaster in Ukraine, everyone would have laughed. Everyone would habe laughed when I said 20 years ago, that the final days of american hegemony were here. (America will not fall, as most predict, just will get driven back to its continent). I remember reading in example the book: usa the only ever world power, and reading there, China can only be a regional power. All of that did not come true. Same as the doom prophet Chris Hedges who predicts americas fall within 10 years. History will always change, and when it does, it does so rapidly. You cannot accurately predict geopolitics. Turns out history is changing really fast today. To the EU: I would definetly not ignore the supportiveness of the young people. Sure the old people are somewhat concerned, but once the younger generation takes over, it will look differently. Just a remainder, that the british empire laughed at a united america, and said that could never happen. If America will decline will depend and what will happen at key moments in the future. They have the possibility to change for the better or decline, which in my opnion is set by the policies today. But maybe, maybe they will change its policies and the us will still be there. China may rise or may fall. Or maybe neither and stagnate as a world power. The EU is even more uncertain. There is so much to be determined. A major crisis could destroy it, or more likely make it decline. On the other hand it could even unite the EU or even result in a single european nation. We do not know that today, and we do not know when it will happen or if it will happen. Dont listen to those guys. Every politics guy has its own opnion. This opinions will be reflected in such talks. Sure they do understand more than Joe Average, but it still is in most cases still to littler for accurate prediction. Pce ou
Berlin wall ... when the Berlin wall fell, was it seen as a terrible situation? Is the EU, the EU, or not the EU? Wasn't the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007, with the EU becoming a legal entity, an institution of (27?) states, amalgamating the European Community, Common Foreign and Security Policy, and, Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal matters. The European Union, doesn't sound like a Commonwealth, or a type of Federation, or United States of sorts, not unlike that of a country? Aren't France, Germany, Poland, e.t.c., like states in the European Union, sort of like South Australia, Victoria, News are states in the Commonwealth of Australia? ... Or, perhaps, aren't Poland and Germany, like states in the European Union, sort of like South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales are states in the Commonwealth of Australia? ... Does it seem like the EU is acting as a group of nations, that has voted en bloc? Wouldn't there be an EU Minister counterpart, equivalent, available to communicate with a British (or is it UK) Minister in a similar role? Example, an EU Foreign Affairs Minister to meet with a British (UK) Foreign Affairs Minister? EU Trade and Commerce Minister to meet with a British (UK) Minister in a Trade and Commerce type role, e.t.c. ...? Does the EU not have a EU Defence Force? ... Something similar to how Australia has the Australian Defence Force (ADF), made up of the Australian Army, Australian Navy, and Australian Airforce? and or, an EU Border Force (Frontex?), sort of like the Australian Border Force (ABF)? It seems like many don't like NATO and would be ok if it didn't exist anymore. ... What if, NATO became, Navy Airspace Technology or Training Organisation ... something like that? If NATO become the Naval ground in the world, and more specifically training home, for any person in the EU wanting to join the EU navy,? ... if there was an EU military department/building - separate and different to NATO, and NATO remained in Belgium, would it really be a bad thing? I really don't know. I'm asking ...
Does the EU have a constitution? Short version: Significance of the US Constitution: in the US; outside the US. Significance of other parts of the world having their own constitution: to that part of the world; to the US. Significance of a Constitution in cohesion, flexibility, peace, competition, being kept accountable: from an internal point of view; from an external point of view. Examples: - an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" - framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. -"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, ... "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention." - if EU invested in coming up with their own Constitution. - the ability to converse with others based on their own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (your) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. - the ability to converse with others based on your own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (our) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c. Crimea doesn't sort of look like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth? .................... Example: Part of a conversation on fb: A reply: Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science! , "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"! That ain't rocket science!" ... that came from? The reply: Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere. Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it! People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples! A reply: Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish! "end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination" , that hasn't happened in history? ... how do people spread killer viruses? A reply: "Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!" , not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs? , almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist? ... also, seems a bit authoritarian. ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) and, ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter V: The States Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion") "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Australian Parliament House, website) (While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... )
Belief in the separation of powers was a significant influence on the framers of the Constitution of the USA, and is attributed to the philosopher and jurist, Montesquieu (French) who had studied Locke (English), a philosopher who put forward the idea that government was formed by popular consent and not divine right. The framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. There is a close analogy between Australian Constitution Chapter III and Article III of the US Constitution: Judicial Independence, and, a general parallel, in the structure between the Australian Constitution Chapter II and Article II of the US Constitution: Executive power, and, the Australian 'Constitution Chapter I and Article I of the US Constitution: Legislative power, however, in Australia, there is a partial fusion or overlap of powers and the separation of powers is implied in the structure of the constitution. Also, when the Australian Constitution was drafted, was the influence of a Westminster-style system, and, the doctrine of responsible government was seen as the best protection of human rights more so than checks and balances and a bill of rights, and, so there is no bill or charter of rights. (Construed from various sources ... Society/University orations/public lectures, dictionaries, Australian Government websites e.t.c.) In addition, "some elements of the Canadian constitution were adopted ... ", and "The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, including those of Switzerland, Germany, and South Africa." "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention." (exhibitions senate gov au pogg origins drafting constitution website) exhibitions.senate.gov.au/pogg/origins/drafting_con.htm What sort of influence did the US have? ... What sort of influence does the US have? ... While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament. Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and, (xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" (Australian Parliament House, website) and, Chapter V: The States Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion") "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Australian Parliament House, website) ... this is part of the Australian Constitution .... Section 92 of the Australian Constitution provides: "On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free." Section 98 of the Australian Constitution provides: "98. Trade and commerce includes navigation and State railways The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State." Section 99 of the Australian Constitution provides: The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation af trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof. Section 109 of the Australian Constitution provides: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. Section 101 of the Australian Constitution provides: There shall be an Inter-State Commission. with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. (Australian Parliament House, website) .......... "5. And since peace depends in large measure on inhibiting the differences ... " ... 'never split the difference'? "9. We also promise to one another that in going to the appointed election, and being at the place, and upon returning to home, we shall do no violence to the people or amongst ourselves, whatsoever. 10. All of these things we promise to one another, and for our descendants, to be enduringly preserved, and kept ... " "among the leading candidates to the vacant throne was the son of the French king, Henry (de Valois) ... " "were to remain binding indefinitely, rather than only during the interregnum and Henry’s reign." polishfreedom document the-warsaw-confederation "The Polish History Museum in Warsaw has created this English-language website (...) above all for university lecturers, students, and history buffs as a means to present ... " "The Confederation of Warsaw of 28th of January 1573: Religious tolerance guaranteed I United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural “Certainly, the wording and substance of the declaration of the Confederation of Warsaw of 28th January 1573 were extraordinary with regards to prevailing conditions elsewhere in Europe; and they governed the principles of religious life in the Republic for over two hundred years.” (Norman Davies)'." '2016 Selden Society lecture - Emeritus Professor Wilfrid Prest on Sir William Blackstone' (Supreme Court Library Queensland ... Australia) "Sir William Blackstone (1723-80) wrote the most famous and influential treatise on Anglo-American-Australian common law-the four volume Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69)-but he was also a major figure in 18th century public, academic and cultural life." ... translations ... 35:45 min ... American. 43:14 min ... French, German, Polish, Russian. 45:02 min... Japanese. 48:31 min ... Adelaide, Toronto, Iowa. ......................... Blackstone Ratio? .... Blackstone ratio or Blackstone's principle: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. From (written in) a comment section elsewhere: (yes, an Aussie in Australia). In remembrance, of who we are, for where we've come from, and for where we are going, as a democracy, because this is Australia, and with respect, we are Australians, and because: Anzacs or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for the erosion of democracy and the separation of powers between the legislature(parliament), executive(administration and enforcement), and judiciary(due process), would they; and, Stolen generation(s) or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for a sort of generation stolen to be happening on current generations, would they; and so too, WWII survivors or their offspring wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for current generations to either end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination, or to be told all generations the same and then all individually tested and told where their differences make them best placed to be positioned for the betterment, sake and showcase of all being the same, would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, .... , would they; and so too, etc. Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia
How about, the role of the internet? Where does it begin, where does it end? Is it discretely subdivided or continuous? Is it more part of admiralty, or space, or international, national, corporate, private, public, a utility, catalogue, publisher, telecommunications, distribution network, e.t.c.? ... international relations aren't, international? ... international politics isn't, international? ... Is it, that what is being sought, is national theories of international politics? Does it make as much sense, or more sense, or less sense, than international theories of national politics? It seems that, international politics, could be another national category: national politics of international politics, equivalent to saying, national politics of US politics, or, national politics of China politics, or, national politics of Turkish politics, or, e.t.c. ? Therefore, theories of international politics, by definition, would be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of the international nation? Either, the US, and China, and Turkey, and, e.t.c., together form, a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, or, they don't, and, distinct from, say, being a union of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states? "China and Academia, what they want, John Mearsheimer" (International Relations & Politics) It sounds like, within IR theory: As part of Mearsheimer's 5 Assumptions: In an IR field, nations' internal national politics - are not significant and can also be significant: a) for the most part can be treated as having a negligible effect. b) under certain circumstances treated as having a non-negligible effect. A dispute, occurring under different circumstances: in the middle of international waters, or, in extending an economic exclusion zone into either another economic exclusion zone or into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not). In a dispute that occurs in the middle of international waters, internal national politics of a nation, would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible. In a dispute extending an economic exclusion zone into another another economic exclusion zone, then, internal national politics of nations involved would appear not to be significant and also significant, negligible and non-negligible - an additional nation, whose economic exclusion zone not affected, although, changes might alter agreements for passage, that additional nation's national politics would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible - or, if into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not), internal national politics of nations involved might be not dissimilar to that of additional nation. It looks like, in all those scenarios, it possible to simultaneously act as a part of nation and as part of an international nation. If all nations were in a union, then, it seems like, in that situation, there might not be an international nation to be a part of, as all nations would belong to the same overall nation, governed by the same rules. Although, it might seem like it is not possible for an international nation to form, distinct from other nations and distinct from a union of nations, from within a union of nations, it might not be impossible. Let's say that, there is a union called, Earth Nation, and every and all nations belong to it - it is all of the planet earth. Any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all nations. For example, Earth Nation might be responsible for deciding, if the moon is part of Earth Nation (or not), and if so, also assuming the moon is colonised and it wants to mooxit from Earth Nation, any negotiations for that mooxit. Now, let's say Earth Nation is responsible for the internet and any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all for the internet. As an example, a rule might be that, all will be identified on Earth Nation internet, in the same way they are within the union that is Earth Nation, by each individual nation they are a citizen of. Another rule, might be the recognition of an international nation and each individual nation on Earth Nation internet, and, all individuals of Earth Nation on the internet, not to be restricted from being able to participate in more than a nation, and, their citizenship and or where they are resident to be publicly displayed in any individual nation as a rule. Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for an individual nation of the internet, would be determined by that individual nation and be applicable in that individual nation but not necessarily in each and every individual nation or the international nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated. Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for the international nation of the internet, would be determined together by any individual nation participating and be applicable in the international nation, but not necessarily in each and every individual nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated. So, if a US citizen, entered the UK nation on the internet, no matter where they lived, it would not be obvious, whether they were a UK citizen or not and or resident or not, but, would have to follow UK rules there and US rules would not apply - if in the UK nation on the internet, then it taken to be as if in the UK. If that same US citizen entered the International nation on the internet, then, it might show that it is a US citizen belonging to the US nation that they are participating, together with others, in forming the composition of that international nation, however, again, US rules would not apply, and would have to follow international rules. Now, take a mainstream media video and comment section: it could be accessed in UK nation or International nation, but, it would be accessed from different places and the rules may or may not be different. Say for example, a rule of the international nation, that comment sections are to be treated as a town square. It wouldn't matter which nation a person was a citizen of or resident. When commenting in a comment section of a mainstream media video in the international nation, no matter where a person physically in the world, if in the international nation internet section, and the rule, comment sections are to be treated as a town square, and they choose to comment there, then, it is to be taken that commening there is as if doing so in a town square. On the other hand, when commenting in a comment section of that same mainstream media video in the UK nation, the rule might be that it is to be treated as a private function at a venue. The choice, the risk, the benefits, upto individual internet users. If an individual does not feel comfortable with or familiar with rules on the internet of a nation they live in, then, they might choose not to comment in that nation's corresponding internet nation. Some individuals might feel comfortable the most, where they are actually a citizen, while others might find they spend most of their time in the international nation. It doesn't sort of look like, it is not impossible for there to be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of an international nation? ... a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, and, distinct from, say, being a union of nations, of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states? Don't mind me, I should be sleeping proper in the now ... I'll have to check what I've written later ... Stay well. Peace. Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski South Australia New comments won't stay ... they disappear, on yt ... and my linkedin posts ... I can't access them ... Fb was ... maybe ... see if I can share this there ...
![[China Lecture Series] 32강 중국의 부상과 한미관계의 미래 : 존 미어샤이머 (John J. Mearsheimer)](/img/n.gif)
I want to read his book "why leaders lie"
It would be very interesting, what the professor says to the russian war against ucrain in 2022 and the answer of the eu on this topic. Putin brought Europe together in an never expected time of some hours or days. And Russia is making exact the errors the professor criticized a few years ago at the ideology of liberal western countrys. The professor should offer his insights to Mr.Lawrow or Mr.Putin, because the must have misunderstood him.
Do not worry, we will be fine here. He has been so wrong so often.
As it in general tends to be in history. If I would have suggested that Russia has a military disaster in Ukraine, everyone would have laughed.
Everyone would habe laughed when I said 20 years ago, that the final days of american hegemony were here. (America will not fall, as most predict, just will get driven back to its continent). I remember reading in example the book: usa the only ever world power, and reading there, China can only be a regional power. All of that did not come true.
Same as the doom prophet Chris Hedges who predicts americas fall within 10 years.
History will always change, and when it does, it does so rapidly. You cannot accurately predict geopolitics.
Turns out history is changing really fast today. To the EU: I would definetly not ignore the supportiveness of the young people. Sure the old people are somewhat concerned, but once the younger generation takes over, it will look differently.
Just a remainder, that the british empire laughed at a united america, and said that could never happen.
If America will decline will depend and what will happen at key moments in the future. They have the possibility to change for the better or decline, which in my opnion is set by the policies today. But maybe, maybe they will change its policies and the us will still be there.
China may rise or may fall. Or maybe neither and stagnate as a world power.
The EU is even more uncertain. There is so much to be determined. A major crisis could destroy it, or more likely make it decline. On the other hand it could even unite the EU or even result in a single european nation. We do not know that today, and we do not know when it will happen or if it will happen.
Dont listen to those guys. Every politics guy has its own opnion. This opinions will be reflected in such talks. Sure they do understand more than Joe Average, but it still is in most cases still to littler for accurate prediction.
Pce ou
Berlin wall ... when the Berlin wall fell, was it seen as a terrible situation?
Is the EU, the EU, or not the EU?
Wasn't the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007, with the EU becoming a legal entity, an institution of (27?) states, amalgamating the European Community, Common Foreign and Security Policy, and, Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal matters. The European Union, doesn't sound like a Commonwealth, or a type of Federation, or United States of sorts, not unlike that of a country?
Aren't France, Germany, Poland, e.t.c., like states in the European Union, sort of like South Australia, Victoria, News are states in the Commonwealth of Australia? ...
Or, perhaps, aren't Poland and Germany, like states in the European Union, sort of like South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales are states in the Commonwealth of Australia? ...
Does it seem like the EU is acting as a group of nations, that has voted en bloc?
Wouldn't there be an EU Minister counterpart, equivalent, available to communicate with a British (or is it UK) Minister in a similar role? Example, an EU Foreign Affairs Minister to meet with a British (UK) Foreign Affairs Minister? EU Trade and Commerce Minister to meet with a British (UK) Minister in a Trade and Commerce type role, e.t.c. ...?
Does the EU not have a EU Defence Force? ... Something similar to how Australia has the Australian Defence Force (ADF), made up of the Australian Army, Australian Navy, and Australian Airforce? and or, an EU Border Force (Frontex?), sort of like the Australian Border Force (ABF)?
It seems like many don't like NATO and would be ok if it didn't exist anymore. ...
What if, NATO became, Navy Airspace Technology or Training Organisation ... something like that?
If NATO become the Naval ground in the world, and more specifically training home, for any person in the EU wanting to join the EU navy,?
... if there was an EU military department/building - separate and different to NATO, and NATO remained in Belgium, would it really be a bad thing?
I really don't know. I'm asking ...
Does the EU have a constitution?
Short version:
Significance of the US Constitution: in the US; outside the US.
Significance of other parts of the world having their own constitution: to that part of the world; to the US.
Significance of a Constitution in cohesion, flexibility, peace, competition, being kept accountable: from an internal point of view; from an external point of view.
Examples:
- an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"
- framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA.
-"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, ... "In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention."
- if EU invested in coming up with their own Constitution.
- the ability to converse with others based on their own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (your) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c.
- the ability to converse with others based on your own constitution - it looks like, it seems like, it sounds like, it feels like ... based on the (our) constitution, this is inconsistent or is consistent or ... e.t.c.
Crimea doesn't sort of look like a voice box, entrance to the larynx in a mouth?
....................
Example:
Part of a conversation on fb:
A reply:
Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"!
That ain't rocket science!
, "Rubbish, If you want to live in a society, don't risk being a "typhoid Mary"!
That ain't rocket science!"
... that came from?
The reply:
Eleonora Formato It didn't need to "come from" anywhere.
Society can and must protect itself from those who would intentionally harm it!
People who plant bombs, and people who spread killer viruses are but 2 examples!
A reply:
Eleonora Formato It was a response to just this rubbish!
"end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination"
, that hasn't happened in history?
... how do people spread killer viruses?
A reply:
"Eleonora Formato Not getting vaccinated, not social distancing, not covering their faces when coughing or sneezing ... etc, etc,!"
, not getting vaccinated, is on a similar level to people who plant bombs?
, almost sounds like it is seen or treated as if like terrorism or a terrorist?
... also, seems a bit authoritarian.
... this is part of the Australian Constitution ....
Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament.
Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and,
(xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)"
(Australian Parliament House, website)
and,
... this is part of the Australian Constitution ....
Chapter V: The States
Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion")
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
(Australian Parliament House, website)
(While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution .... )
Belief in the separation of powers was a significant influence on the framers of the Constitution of the USA, and is attributed to the philosopher and jurist, Montesquieu (French) who had studied Locke (English), a philosopher who put forward the idea that government was formed by popular consent and not divine right.
The framers of the Constitution of Australia were influenced significantly by the Constitution of the USA. There is a close analogy between Australian Constitution Chapter III and Article III of the US Constitution: Judicial Independence,
and, a general parallel, in the structure between the Australian Constitution Chapter II and
Article II of the US Constitution: Executive power, and, the Australian 'Constitution Chapter I and Article I of the US Constitution: Legislative power, however, in Australia, there is a partial fusion or overlap of powers and the separation of powers is implied in the structure of the constitution. Also, when the Australian Constitution was drafted, was the influence of a Westminster-style system, and, the doctrine of responsible government was seen as the best protection of human rights more so than checks and balances and a bill of rights, and, so there is no bill or charter of rights.
(Construed from various sources ... Society/University orations/public lectures, dictionaries, Australian Government websites e.t.c.)
In addition, "some elements of the Canadian constitution were adopted ... ", and
"The constitutions of a number of other countries were also considered at the constitutional conventions, including those of Switzerland, Germany, and South Africa."
"In substance, ... , the Australian Constitution was drafted at the 1891 Convention."
(exhibitions senate gov au pogg origins drafting constitution website)
exhibitions.senate.gov.au/pogg/origins/drafting_con.htm
What sort of influence did the US have? ... What sort of influence does the US have? ...
While it isn't the US Constitution, and an oath is taken (by US military) to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States", this is part of the Australian Constitution ....
Chapter 1: The Parliament: Part V: Powers of the Parliament.
Section 51 "... subject to this Constitution, ... to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth ... "; and,
(xxiiiA) "... medical ... (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)"
(Australian Parliament House, website)
and,
Chapter V: The States
Section 116 ("Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion")
"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
(Australian Parliament House, website)
... this is part of the Australian Constitution ....
Section 92 of the Australian Constitution
provides:
"On the imposition of uniform duties of
customs, trade, commerce, and
intercourse among the States,
whether by means of internal carriage or
ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free."
Section 98 of the Australian Constitution
provides:
"98. Trade and commerce includes navigation and State railways
The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State."
Section 99 of the Australian Constitution
provides:
The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation af trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof.
Section 109 of the Australian Constitution
provides:
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former
shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Section 101 of the Australian Constitution
provides:
There shall be an Inter-State Commission. with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems
necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.
(Australian Parliament House, website)
..........
"5. And since peace depends in large measure on inhibiting the differences ... "
... 'never split the difference'?
"9. We also promise to one another that in going to the appointed election, and being at the place, and upon returning to home, we shall do no violence to the people or amongst ourselves, whatsoever.
10. All of these things we promise to one another, and for our descendants, to be enduringly preserved, and kept ... "
"among the leading candidates to the vacant throne was the son of the French king, Henry (de Valois) ... "
"were to remain binding indefinitely, rather than only during the interregnum and Henry’s reign."
polishfreedom document the-warsaw-confederation
"The Polish History Museum in Warsaw has created this English-language website (...) above all for university lecturers, students, and history buffs as a means to present ... "
"The Confederation of Warsaw of 28th of January 1573: Religious
tolerance guaranteed I United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
“Certainly, the wording and substance of the declaration of the Confederation of Warsaw of 28th January 1573 were extraordinary with regards to prevailing conditions elsewhere in Europe; and they governed the principles of religious life in the Republic for over two hundred years.” (Norman Davies)'."
'2016 Selden Society lecture - Emeritus Professor Wilfrid Prest on Sir William Blackstone' (Supreme Court Library Queensland ... Australia)
"Sir William Blackstone (1723-80) wrote the most famous and influential treatise on Anglo-American-Australian common law-the four volume Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-69)-but he was also a major figure in 18th century public, academic and cultural life."
... translations ...
35:45 min ... American.
43:14 min ... French, German, Polish, Russian.
45:02 min... Japanese.
48:31 min ... Adelaide, Toronto, Iowa.
.........................
Blackstone Ratio? ....
Blackstone ratio or Blackstone's principle: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.
From (written in) a comment section elsewhere: (yes, an Aussie in Australia).
In remembrance, of who we are, for where we've come from, and for where we are going, as a democracy, because this is Australia, and with respect, we are Australians, and because:
Anzacs or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for the erosion of democracy and the separation of powers between the legislature(parliament), executive(administration and enforcement), and judiciary(due process), would they; and,
Stolen generation(s) or their offspring, wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for a sort of generation stolen to be happening on current generations, would they; and so too,
WWII survivors or their offspring wouldn't purposefully contribute to creating a climate or environment where it possible for current generations to either end up in camps of enforced medical procedures and being medicated, or to end up in the alternative camp of elimination, or to be told all generations the same and then all individually tested and told where their differences make them best placed to be positioned for the betterment, sake and showcase of all being the same, would they; and so too,
.... , would they; and so too,
.... , would they; and so too,
.... , would they; and so too,
etc.
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
How about, the role of the internet? Where does it begin, where does it end? Is it discretely subdivided or continuous? Is it more part of admiralty, or space, or international, national, corporate, private, public, a utility, catalogue, publisher, telecommunications, distribution network, e.t.c.?
... international relations aren't, international? ... international politics isn't, international? ...
Is it, that what is being sought, is national theories of international politics?
Does it make as much sense, or more sense, or less sense, than international theories of national politics?
It seems that, international politics, could be another national category: national politics of international politics, equivalent to saying, national politics of US politics, or, national politics of China politics, or, national politics of Turkish politics, or, e.t.c. ?
Therefore, theories of international politics, by definition, would be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of the international nation? Either, the US, and China, and Turkey, and, e.t.c., together form, a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, or, they don't, and, distinct from, say, being a union of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states?
"China and Academia, what they want, John Mearsheimer" (International Relations & Politics)
It sounds like, within IR theory:
As part of Mearsheimer's 5 Assumptions:
In an IR field, nations' internal national politics - are not significant and can also be significant:
a) for the most part can be treated as having a negligible effect.
b) under certain circumstances treated as having a non-negligible effect.
A dispute, occurring under different circumstances: in the middle of international waters, or, in extending an economic exclusion zone into either another economic exclusion zone or into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not).
In a dispute that occurs in the middle of international waters, internal national politics of a nation, would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible.
In a dispute extending an economic exclusion zone into another another economic exclusion zone, then, internal national politics of nations involved would appear not to be significant and also significant, negligible and non-negligible - an additional nation, whose economic exclusion zone not affected, although, changes might alter agreements for passage, that additional nation's national politics would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible - or, if into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not), internal national politics of nations involved might be not dissimilar to that of additional nation.
It looks like, in all those scenarios, it possible to simultaneously act as a part of nation and as part of an international nation.
If all nations were in a union, then, it seems like, in that situation, there might not be an international nation to be a part of, as all nations would belong to the same overall nation, governed by the same rules. Although, it might seem like it is not possible for an international nation to form, distinct from other nations and distinct from a union of nations, from within a union of nations, it might not be impossible.
Let's say that, there is a union called, Earth Nation, and every and all nations belong to it - it is all of the planet earth. Any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all nations. For example, Earth Nation might be responsible for deciding, if the moon is part of Earth Nation (or not), and if so, also assuming the moon is colonised and it wants to mooxit from Earth Nation, any negotiations for that mooxit.
Now, let's say Earth Nation is responsible for the internet and any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all for the internet. As an example, a rule might be that, all will be identified on Earth Nation internet, in the same way they are within the union that is Earth Nation, by each individual nation they are a citizen of.
Another rule, might be the recognition of an international nation and each individual nation on Earth Nation internet, and, all individuals of Earth Nation on the internet, not to be restricted from being able to participate in more than a nation, and, their citizenship and or where they are resident to be publicly displayed in any individual nation as a rule.
Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for an individual nation of the internet, would be determined by that individual nation and be applicable in that individual nation but not necessarily in each and every individual nation or the international nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated.
Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for the international nation of the internet, would be determined together by any individual nation participating and be applicable in the international nation, but not necessarily in each and every individual nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated.
So, if a US citizen, entered the UK nation on the internet, no matter where they lived, it would not be obvious, whether they were a UK citizen or not and or resident or not, but, would have to follow UK rules there and US rules would not apply - if in the UK nation on the internet, then it taken to be as if in the UK. If that same US citizen entered the International nation on the internet, then, it might show that it is a US citizen belonging to the US nation that they are participating, together with others, in forming the composition of that international nation, however, again, US rules would not apply, and would have to follow international rules.
Now, take a mainstream media video and comment section: it could be accessed in UK nation or International nation, but, it would be accessed from different places and the rules may or may not be different. Say for example, a rule of the international nation, that comment sections are to be treated as a town square. It wouldn't matter which nation a person was a citizen of or resident. When commenting in a comment section of a mainstream media video in the international nation, no matter where a person physically in the world, if in the international nation internet section, and the rule, comment sections are to be treated as a town square, and they choose to comment there, then, it is to be taken that commening there is as if doing so in a town square. On the other hand, when commenting in a comment section of that same mainstream media video in the UK nation, the rule might be that it is to be treated as a private function at a venue.
The choice, the risk, the benefits, upto individual internet users. If an individual does not feel comfortable with or familiar with rules on the internet of a nation they live in, then, they might choose not to comment in that nation's corresponding internet nation. Some individuals might feel comfortable the most, where they are actually a citizen, while others might find they spend most of their time in the international nation.
It doesn't sort of look like, it is not impossible for there to be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of an international nation? ... a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, and, distinct from, say, being a union of nations, of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states?
Don't mind me, I should be sleeping proper in the now ... I'll have to check what I've written later ...
Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia
New comments won't stay ... they disappear, on yt ... and my linkedin posts ... I can't access them ...
Fb was ... maybe ... see if I can share this there ...
But if EU is dissolved, they pay to get many risk. So they will do best for maintain their the Union. Isn't it right?
Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
The EU is the "Harlot of Babylon" of Rev 17.