From the readings and videos this week, consider the historically amorphous nature of international relations
(IR) over the centuries. The diverse tools of analysis in table 1.2 provide only one clue to why experts disagree
about the precise nature of IR then and now (note the MACAT videos on prominent IR theorists). With such
analytical diversity and disagreement in mind, answer the following three prompts in any manner you choose,
integrated or separately:
Why do most historians of IR view the Treaty of Westphalia as a permanent legacy of modern international
relations? What are its benchmarks?
Consider major IR events in the centuries since Westphalia—the French Revolution & the rise of nationalism,
the Concert of Europe (balance of power) from 1815-1914, the concurrent onset of modern European
colonialism during the same period, the breakdown of peace with WWI & II, the Cold War, and finally, the postCold War present. From this wider horizon, identify at least three key factors / elements that appear to
influence whether the system becomes stable or unstable—Explain.
Finally, historians often trace the decline if not ‘death’ of European Christian civilization to the various crises
mentioned above. Does this view seem justified—could the health or wellbeing of the Church actually depend
upon the behavior of states?
Shylock in Merchant of Venice The character of Sherlock 's individual Shakespeare in a dealer in Venice mirrors the virtue and evil of Sherlock in a vendor in Venice. Sherlock is a detestable, eager for blood elderly person who is arranging the fall of his foe. He is a horrendous harmful dangerous and vindicating character, a merciless and malevolent photo that doesn't tune in to the fascination everything being equal. Sherlock is a straightforward rival, essentially a sort of Antonio, the legend, and it is important to secure Sherlock of "fiend". A few people imagine that Sherlock (Venetian shipper) is a static and detestable Jew. It is equivalent to Jewish characters of different works of those days like Mahlow's "Jewish Jew". A few people accept that Shakespeare has risen above preference in his time and seemed strict resistance through Sherlock's popular discourse: "I am a Jew, are not Jewish eyes?" (3.1.62 - 73). Be that as it may, as Evangeline O'Connor talked articulately, the discourse was insufficient: the main demonstration of the primary demonstration, for example, "not the Jewish eyes" might want Shakespeare to call the insurance agency It is the main spot. At any rate feel sorry for. In every single other scene, his despicability and eagerness were for the most part prohibited from his authentic hatred in his affront to the race. He hates Antonio as having annihilated his own business, not censuring his religion, in the event that he can recover his own coin, he sees his own kid passes on before him I am glad. Sherlock is one of the most strangely provocative characters among William Shakespeare's Sherlock Venetian franchisees. In the five scenes in his play, he was detested, sold out, deserted, rebuffed, mortified by the Christian culture, his little girl, lastly all who required his cash It was. His convictions and methods of getting by are the main explanation Christians have for this treatment, even in distance. Among the Venetian dealers of William Shakespeare, the Jewish Sherlock who acquired cash resembled a terrible individual, and a casualty. He thinks more about his cash and afterward he is worried about his little girl so Sherlock is a scoundrel, he isn't considerate for Sherlock, he is as yet getting 1 pound of meat from Antonio I will. To begin with, Sherlock is a scoundrel. He is more worried about his coin and his little girl Jessica. Sherlock is more worried about his cash than his girl, in light of the fact that Jessica>GET ANSWER