Search

Begin New Search Topic History

401. Hegel, Dünya Tarihi ve Özgürlük Mücadelesi Olarak Uluslararası İlişkiler

Author:
Faruk Yalvaç
Publication Date:
05-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Abstract:
This article attempts to evaluate Hegel's theory of international relations in the context of his general philosophy of history. Hegel defines history as a struggle for freedom for mutual recognition. This is true for individuals as well as for states. The struggle for recognition and freedom is a constant feature of social life. Therefore, it would be wrong to interpret Hegel's philosophy as implying that the struggle for freedom has been completed in the modern nation state and that history has come to an end. However, according to Hegel it would be impossible to predict the future shape of the international society and the form which the struggle for freedom will take as “it is just as foolish to fancy that any philosophy can transcend its present world, as that an individual could leap out of his time or jump over Rhodes. ”
Topic:
Political Theory and History
Political Geography:
Global Focus

402. Sırp İsyanının Uluslararası Boyutu (1804–1813)

Author:
Selim Aslantaş
Publication Date:
05-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Abstract:
The Serbian uprising (1804-1813), which played a very critical role in the disintegration of Ottoman regime in the Balkans, is one of the most important events in the modern history. It broke out against Dayis who captured the Semendire sanjak (territorial core of 19th century's Serbia) and established an oppressive regime over the Serbians. In the initial phase, the uprising had only a local dimension. When the Ottoman government regarded the uprising as an opportunity to eliminate the Dayis' regime, it supported the rebels. But in a short time, it went well beyond its local character and became an international question. Up to its end in 1813, it preserved this character. In this study we try to answer the following questions: why and how did Serbian uprising become an international question? What were the basic dynamics of the international dimension of Serbian uprising? What were the policies of Ottoman Empire and Great Powers toward the uprising? Which factors were important to the changing of these policies?
Topic:
Government and History
Political Geography:
Serbia and Balkans

404. Kasra Naji, Ahmadinejad: The Secret History of Iran's Radical Leader

Author:
Arshin Adib-Moghaddam
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Insight Turkey
Institution:
SETA Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research
Abstract:
California, University of California Press, 2008, 298 pp., ISBN: 978-0-520-25663-7.
Topic:
History
Political Geography:
Iran

405. Embracing Chinese Global Security Ambitions

Author:
Jonathan Holslag
Publication Date:
07-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Washington Quarterly
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
Three warships sailed through the Straits of Malacca in December last year, en route to a milestone in recent Chinese military history. Joining the United Nations-backed international naval force in the Gulf of Aden, China sought to protect its global economic interests with military power for the first time. It is not, however, Beijing's only step toward a more proactive security policy beyond the Strait of Taiwan. China is gradually paving the way for a more prominent presence as a global military player by strategizing, training, and modernizing its military hardware.
Topic:
Economics and History
Political Geography:
China and Taiwan

406. The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here

Author:
Michael Dahlen
Publication Date:
10-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Objective Standard
Institution:
The Objective Standard
Abstract:
Nineteenth-century America was the closest thing to capitalism-a system in which government is limited to protecting individual rights-that has ever existed. There was no welfare state, no central bank, no fiat money, no deficit spending to speak of, no income tax for most of the century, and no federal regulatory agencies or antitrust laws until the end of the century. Consequently, total (federal, state, and local) government spending averaged a mere 3.26 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Constitution's protection of individual rights and limitation on the power of government gave rise to an economy in which individuals were free to pursue their own interests, to start new businesses, and to create as much wealth as their ability and ambition allowed. This near laissez-faire politico-economic system led to the freest, most innovative, and wealthiest nation in history. Since the beginning of the 20th century, however, capitalism and freedom have been undermined by an explosion in the size and power of government: Total government spending has increased from 6.61 percent of GDP in 1907 to a projected 45.19 percent of GDP in 2009; the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value due to the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies; top marginal income tax rates have been as high as 94 percent; entitlement programs now constitute more than half of the federal budget; and businesses are hampered and hog-tied by more than eighty thousand pages of regulations in the Federal Register. What happened? How did America shift from a predominantly free-market economy to a heavily regulated mixed economy; from capitalism to welfare state; from limited government to big government? This article will survey the progression of laws, acts, programs, and interventions that brought America to its present state-and show their economic impact. Let us begin our survey by taking a closer look at the state of the country in the 19th century. Total (Federal, State, and Local) Government Spending America's Former Free Market The Constitution established the political framework necessary for a free market. It provided for the protection of private property (the Fifth Amendment) including intellectual property (Article I, Section 8), the enforcement of private contracts (Article 1, Section 10), and the establishment of sound (gold or silver) money (Article I, Sections 8 and 10). It prohibited the states from erecting trade barriers (Article I, Section 9), thereby establishing the whole nation as one large free-trade zone. It permitted direct taxes such as the income tax only if apportioned among the states on the basis of population (Article 1, Sections 2 and 9), which made them very difficult to levy. Finally, it specifically enumerated and therefore limited Congress's powers (Article I, Section 8), severely constraining the government's power to intervene in the marketplace. Federal regulatory agencies dictating how goods could be produced and traded did not exist. Rather than being forced to accept the questionable judgments of agencies such as the FDA, FTC, and USDA, participants in the marketplace were governed by the free-market principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). As historian Larry Schweikart points out: merchants stood ready to provide customers with as much information as they desired. . . . In contrast to the modern view of consumers as incompetent to judge the quality or safety of a product, caveat emptor treated consumers with respect, assuming that a person could spot shoddy workmanship. Along with caveat emptor went clear laws permitting suits for damage incurred by flawed goods. To be sure, 19th-century America was not a fully free market. Besides the temporary suspension of the gold standard and the income tax levied during the Civil War, the major exceptions to the free market in the 19th century were tariffs, national banking, and subsidies for "internal improvements" such as canals and railroads. These exceptions, however, were limited in scope and were accompanied by considerable debate about whether they should exist at all. Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln supported such interventions; Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and John Tyler generally opposed them. These interventions (except for tariffs) were, as Jefferson, Jackson, and Tyler pointed out, unconstitutional. But history shows that they were also impractical. Tariffs were initially implemented, beginning with the Tariff Act of 1789, as a source of revenue-the main source in the 19th century-for the federal government. Pressure from northern manufacturers, however, to implement tariffs for purposes of protection led to the "Tariff of Abominations" (1828), which was scaled back by 1833 due to heavy opposition from the South. Tariff rates then remained relatively low-about 15 percent-until the Civil War. By 1864, average tariff rates had risen to 47.09 percent for protectionist reasons and remained elevated for the remainder of the century. As to national banking, the Second Bank of the United States' charter expired in 1836, thereby paving the way for the free banking era-which lasted until a national bank was reinstituted during the Civil War. By virtually every measure of bank health, this free banking era was the soundest in American history. In terms of capital adequacy, asset quality, liquidity, profitability, and prudent management, national banking proved to be inferior to free banking. As to subsidies for internal improvements, although private entrepreneurs financed and built most roads and many canals, state governments intervened in the 1820s to subsidize canal building-amending their constitutions to do so. However, most state-funded canals either went unfinished, generated little to no income, or went bankrupt. As a result, by 1860 most state constitutions were amended again to prohibit such subsidies. After the Civil War, federal subsidies for the transcontinental railroads caused similar problems-as well as corruption. Further, they were proven to be a hindrance to rather than a precondition of a thriving railroad industry: James Jerome Hill's Great Northern was the most successful of the transcontinental railroads, yet was built without any subsidies or land grants. The foregoing interventions, though impractical, were motivated in part by a desire to help promote the development of business and industry. But lurking in the periphery, growing in popularity, and poised to fuel further government interference in the marketplace, was the ideology of collectivism-the notion that the individual must be subordinated to the collective or the "common good." This idea was stated by economist Daniel Raymond in his 1820 textbook: "it is the duty of every citizen to forgo his own private advantage for the public good." And as the 19th century progressed, this idea was increasingly cited as a justification for government intervention. One of the most important instances of this was the Supreme Court's decision in Munn v. Illinois (1876). In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Morrison Waite declared: Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence. . . . When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good. . . . Although the case applied only to the states, Munn undermined the sanctity of private property rights by establishing the precedent that property "clothed with a public interest" (i.e., any property related to business) is subject to government regulation and control. As a result, Munn helped pave the way for the two major assertions of federal control over the economy-the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act-that would come in the Gilded Age.
Topic:
Government and History
Political Geography:
America

407. Homeros'dan Hobbes ve Ötesine: "Güvenlik" Kavramının Avrupa Geleneğindeki Boyutları

Author:
J. Frederik M. Arends
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Abstract:
This article examines the historical development of the concept of security in two phases. In the first phase, the word coined by the Romans as 'securitas' and accompanied from the beginning by ambivalence and religious connotations had conceded most of its territory to 'certitudo' at the end of the Middle Ages. In the second phase starting in the times of Thomas Hobbes, it became one of the paradigmatic 'great words' of the modern state. In this phase, 'security' became associated with the genesis of the authoritarian 'super state' committed to the prevention of civil war. This article starts by elaborating the connection between Thomas Hobbes and the ancient Greek historian Thucydides and proceeds by examining the usages of the concept by several contemporary authors.
Topic:
Political Theory and History
Political Geography:
Europe

408. The Vicissitudes of the 1948 Historiography of Israel

Author:
Ilan Pappe
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Palestine Studies
Institution:
Institute for Palestine Studies
Abstract:
Arguing that history writing is a dialectical process fusing ideological agenda and political developments with historical evidence, the author analyzes the two major transitions experienced by the Israeli historiography of the 1948 war: from the classical Zionist narrative to the “New History” of the late 1980s, and from the latter to the emergence of a “neo-Zionist” trend as of 2000. While describing the characteristics of these trends, the author shows how they are linked to concurrent political developments. Most of the article is devoted to an examination of the neo-Zionist historians who have emerged in recent years, based on their previously untranslated Hebrew works.
Topic:
Development and History
Political Geography:
Israel

409. Pulling the Stops on Genocide: The State or the Individual?

Author:
Amabelle C. Asuncion
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
The International Court of Justice's decision on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) has exposed the unforeseen irony in the international consensus on the singular distinction of genocide as the crime of crimes. Defying expectations, this classification coupled with the conception of a 'civil genocide' has magically transformed into a legal shield which protects states from responsibility even as individual convictions are being handed down. Yet, the history of the Genocide Convention easily recalls the objective of preventing the commission of genocide by states and individuals alike. This article thus ponders on the virtue of seeking recourse under the Genocide Convention – whether against the state or the individual. In traversing this inquiry, it embarks on a comparative analysis of selected case law from the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, and the International Court of Justice. As it uncovers a counterintuitive clash of jurisprudential outcome and a widening gap between the ideal and the real, the article identifies the legal bolts which need to be adjusted so that the genocide stops can be pulled in the right direction.
Topic:
History
Political Geography:
Yugoslavia and Rwanda

410. Abraham Lincoln: Leadership and Democratic Statesmanship in Wartime

Author:
Mackubin Thomas Owens
Publication Date:
01-2009
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Foreign Policy Research Institute
Abstract:
No president in American history has faced a greater crisis than Abraham Lincoln confronted in 1861. Although sections of the country had threatened disunion many times in the past, the emergency had always passed as some compromise was found. But in 1861, Lincoln, who had won the election of 1860 because of a split in the Democratic Party, faced a rebellion “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” By the time of his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven states had declared their separation from the Union and had set up a separate provisional government called the Confederate States of America. A little over five weeks later, at 4:30 am on April 12, 1861, rebel gunners opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. In response, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers to serve ninety days. Denouncing the president’s policy of “coercion,” four more states left the Union. The ensuing war, the most costly in American history, would last for four agonizing years. When it was over, some 600,000 Americans had died and the states of the South had suffered economic losses in the billions of dollars when measured in terms of today’s currency
Topic:
Civil War, Politics, History, and Elections
Political Geography:
United States