Liberalism

Instead, influential economists tended to emphasize problems of market failure and the need for informed official intervention – with import tariffs or domestic subventions – to overcome economic or technical backwardness. Also, in the sass and sass the centrally planned economies of Eastern European apparently grew exceedingly fast, with the former Soviet Union (FSP) in particular showing impressive overall technical achievements. Thus governments in less developed countries (Olds) throughout Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia were emboldened to intervene quite massively in their domestic economics.

Protectionism in foreign trade, price controls, and subsides in mommies trade and exclusive franchises for pratfalls (State Owned Enterprises) proliferated in all branches of industry. Instead of an open capital market, detailed controls over the flow of money and credit ensured that the repressed financial markets passively served the governments’ own ends. Indeed, in the centrally planned socialist economies, the banking system was completely passive: credit at zero or disequilibrium low rates of interest were provided automatically if necessary to ensure plan fulfillment.

However, in mid of sass, astonishing change occurred in this once dominant ideology of economic development. In the marketplace of ideas in the late sass few could have predicted that the principle of decentralized economic liberalism would by sass triumph so completely over that of centralized of planning and control. Nowhere is this change in economic thinking, although not necessarily in economic practiced, more remarkable than in the centrally planned socialist economies themselves.

What is the meaning of Economic Liberalizing? Economic liberalizing means the process of opening up of the economy to trade and investment with the rest of the world. What is liberalizing? Liberalizing (or Liberation’s) refers to a relaxation of government restrictions, usually in areas of social or economic policy.  What is the meaning of liberalizing? Lib arty goes bliss any kind to economic activity at any time any where in the country without anticipating any kind of so called private or public restrictions.  What is the meaning of globalization?

The process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have became integrated through communication, transportation, and trade. The term is most closely associated with the term economic globalization, as a term, is very often used o refer to economic globalization the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, the spread of technology, and military presence However, globalization and liberalizing of economic convey the same meaning .

In general, liberalizing (or liberation’s) refers to a relaxation of previous government restrictions, usually in areas of social or economic policy. In some contexts this process or concept is often, but not always, referred to as deregulation. Liberalizing of autocratic regimes may recede demagnification (or not, as in the case of the Prague Spring). Deregulation is when government reduces its role and allows industry greater freedom in how it operates.

The Prague Spring (Czech: Prepare Ajar, Slovakia: Paprika Jar) was a period of political liberalizing in Czechoslovakia during the era of its domination by the Soviet Union after World War II. It began on 5 January 1968, when reformist Alexander Dubbed was elected the First Secretary of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and continued until 21 August when the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact invaded the country to halt the reforms. The Prague Spring reforms were an attempt by Dubbed to grant additional rights to the citizens in an act of partial decentralization of the economy and demagnification.

The freedoms granted included a loosening of restrictions on the media, speech and travel. After national discussion of dividing the country into a federation of three republics, Bohemia, Moravia-Sillies and Slovakia, Dubbed oversaw the decision to split into two, the Czech Republic and Slovakia Republic. This was the only change that survived the end of the Prague Spring. The reforms, especially the decentralization of administrative authority, were not received well by the Soviets, who, after failed negotiations, sent thousands of Warsaw Pact troops and tanks to occupy the country.

A large wave of emigration swept the nation. While there were many non-violent protests in the country, including several suicides by self-immolation, there was no military resistance. Czechoslovakia remained occupied until 1990. After the invasion, Czechoslovakia entered a period of normalization: subsequent leaders attempted to restore the political and economic values that had prevailed before Dubbed gained control of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KS). Gustavo Hausa, who replaced Dubbed and also became president, reversed almost all of Dauber’s reforms.

The Prague Spring inspired music and literature such as the work of Baklava Have, Karee Hausa, Karee Karl, and Milan Sander’s novel The Unbearable In the arena of social policy it may refer to a relaxation of laws restricting for example divorce, abortion, or drugs. Most often, the term is used to refer to economic liberalizing, especially trade liberalizing or capital market liberalizing Globalization and Liberation’s have brought new opportunities to the countries in trade, business, services and employment. The atmosphere is vibrant.

The younger generation is educated, talented and ambitious. The opening to international mar test k NAS led to earnest endeavors to improve product quality to secure marketing. Internationalization and appropriation of education has led to updating of curriculum and bring technical manpower that would implement the latest technology in manufacturing and servicing. Globalization should be made an instrument of rapid economic development in a way that its benefits reach all regions of the country and all sections of society.

Economic liberalizing is a very broad term that usually refers to fewer government regulations and restrictions in the economy in exchange for greater participation of private entities; the doctrine is associated with classical liberalism. Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the industrial revolution and arbitration.

Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical verbalism include John Locke, Claude Frederic Bassist, Jean-Baptists Say, Thomas Malthusian and David Richard. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law utilitarianism, and progress. Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

The arguments for economic liberalizing include greater efficiency and effectiveness that would translate to a “bigger pie” for everybody. Thus, liberalizing in short refers to “the removal of controls”, to encourage economic development. Most first-world countries, in order to remain globally competitive, have pursued the path of economic liberalizing: partial or full appropriation of government institutions and assets, greater labor-market flexibility, lower tax rates for businesses, less restriction on both domestic and foreign capital, open markets, etc.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote that: “Success will go to those companies and countries which are swift to adapt, slow to complain, open and ailing to change. The task of modern governments is to ensure that our countries can rise to this challenge. ” In developing countries, economic liberalizing refers more to liberalizing or further “opening up” of their respective economies to foreign capital and investments. Three of the fastest growing developing economies today; Brazil, China and India, have achieved rapid economic growth in the past several years or decades after they have “liberalized” their economies to foreign capital.

Many countries nowadays, particularly those in the third world, arguably eave no choice but to also “liberalize” their economies in order to remain competitive in attracting and retaining both their domestic and foreign investments. In the Philippines for example, the contentious proposals for Charter Change include amending the economically restrictive provisions of their 1987 constitution. The total opposite of a liberalized economy would be North Koreans economy with their closed and “self-sufficient” economic system.

North Korea receives hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid from other countries in exchange for peace and restrictions in their nuclear program. Another example would be oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, which see no need to further open up their economies to foreign capital and investments since their oil reserves already provide them wit n huge export earnings. Although economic lie fertilization is oaten associated with appropriation, the two can be quite separate processes.

For example, the European Union has liberalized gas and electricity markets, instituting a system of competition; but some of the leading European energy companies (such as EDP and Evidential) remain partially or completely in government ownership. Liberalized and privatized public services may be dominated by Just a few big companies particularly in sectors with high capital costs, or high such as water, gas and electricity. In some cases they may remain legal monopoly at least for some part of the market (e. G. Small consumers).

Liberalizing is one of three focal points (the others being appropriation and stabilization) of the Washington Consensus’s trinity strategy for economies in transition. An example of Liberalizing is the “Washington Consensus” which was a set of policies created and used by Argentina. There is also a concept of hybrid liberation’s as, for instance, in Ghana where cocoa crops can be sold to a variety of competing private companies, but there is a minimum price for which it can be sold and all exports are controlled by the state. Liberalizing vs. Demagnification There is a distinct difference between liberalizing and demagnification, which are often thought to be the same concept. Liberalizing can take place without demagnification, and deals with a combination of policy and social change specialized to a certain issue such as the liberalizing of government-held property or private purchase, whereas demagnification is more politically specialized that can arise from a liberalizing, but works in a broader level of government.

Trade and economic growth: the theory: Proponents of trade liberalizing expect that removing trade barriers will lead to short-run or static welfare gains (or higher income levels) and in turn reduce poverty.  The gains from trade result from the fact that different countries are endowed with different resources (natural and acquired); hence, the opportunity cost of producing products varies from country to country.

Opportunity cost is measured by the sacrifice (for example, in the production of one good) to produce one extra unit of another good, given that resources are scarce. Under trade protection, resources are concentrated in inefficient production in economic sectors that have high trade barriers. When barriers are removed, resources shift away from those inefficient sectors in which that country has no comparative advantage to the efficient sectors in which it does have a comparative advantage.

Gains from trade may not be distributed equitably and are determined by several factors, including the international rate of exchange between two goods, what happens to the terms of trade, and whether the full employment of resources is maintained as they are reallocated when countries specialize. The closer the international rate of exchange is to a country’s own internal rate of exchange, the less it will benefit from specialization and the more the other country will benefit.

As Baggage’ (1958) has shown, in extreme circumstances, one country may become absolutely worse off if real resource gains from trade are offset by the decline in the terms of trade, a phenomenon that he called “minimizing growth” (Baggage’, 1958). The problem for many developing countries is that the type to goods in which they will specialize under a tree trade regime namely, primary commodities? is likely to cause the terms of trade to deteriorate and may lead to an industrialization of their resources.

First, primary commodities generally have low prices and the demand for them does not rise as fast as income (low income elasticity of demand). As a result, when their supply increases, prices can drop dramatically, since demand grows only slowly with income growth. Secondly, primary commodity production is land-based and subject to diminishing returns,2 and there s a limit to employment in activities subject to diminishing returns at a reasonable living wage. By contrast, in manufacturing, no fixed factors of production are involved, and production may be subject to increasing returns.

Thus, what is often observed is a secular deterioration of the terms of trade for countries producing primary commodities visa-a-visa countries specializing in manufacturing (Cameo and Parr, 2003). Therefore, in practice, for countries specializing in activities subject to diminishing returns, the real resource gains from specialization may be offset by the real income losses from unemployment. Empirical studies do not point to significant employment generation due to trade liberalizing. Furthermore, according to a World Bank study, more than 70 per cent of gains from complete trade liberalizing will accrue to rich countries, and more than two thirds of static gains to developing countries from complying with the outcomes of the Doth Round will go to big countries such as Argentina, Brazil and India in the case of agriculture and to China and Viet Name in the case of textiles and garments (Anderson and Martin, 2005). According to proponents of trade liberalizing, the major reason for the rapid Roth arising from trade liberalizing is the dynamic gains from trade.

The dynamic gains accrue from augmenting the availability of resources for production by increasing the quantity and productivity of resources. One of the major dynamic benefits of trade is that it widens the market for a country’s producers. If production is subject to increasing returns, export growth becomes a source of continued productivity growth since there is also a close connection between increasing returns and capital accumulation. For a small country with no trade, there is very little scope or large-scale investment in advanced capital equipment, and specialization is limited by the extent of the market.

Other important sources of dynamic benefits from trade include: stimulus to competition, acquisition of new knowledge and ideas and dissemination of technical knowledge, more FAD, and changes in attitudes and institutions. Trade can raise productivity, however, if increasing returns to scale are dominant in the export sectors. If, instead, scale economies are more widespread in import-competing sectors which contract after liberalizing, productivity gains will be limited.

Another possibility is that protection increases inefficiency by drawing too many firms into sectors shielded from foreign competition. Liberalizing brings about rationalization and increased productivity. This will occur, however, only if there is ease of entry and exit into markets. In reality, firms may remain in an industry for a long while after protection is lifted, thus limiting increases in productivity. Finally, if competition for export markets is intense, uncertainty may make firms reluctant to undertake new productivity-enhancing investments. Potential benefits and risks of trade liberalizing Potential benefits to trade liberalizing The service sector is probably the most liberalized of the sectors. Liberalizing offers the opportunity for the sector to compete internationally, contributing to GAP (Gross Domestic Product) growth and generating foreign exchange. As such, service exports are an important part of many developing countries’ growth strategies. The IT services have become globally competitive as many companies have outsourced certain administrative functions to countries where costs are lower.

Furthermore, if service providers in some developing economies are not competitive enough to succeed on world markets, overseas companies will be attracted to invest, bringing with them international best practices and better skills and technologies. The entry of Foreign Service providers is not necessarily a negative development and can lead to better services for domestic consumers, improve the performance and competitiveness of domestic service providers, as well as simply attract FAD (Foreign Direct Investment), foreign capital into the country.

Gross domestic product (GAP) refers to the market value of all officially recognized final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. GAP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country’s standard of living. GAP per capita is not a measure of personal income. It is not to be confused with Gross National Product (GNP) which allocates production based on ownership. Gross domestic product is related to national accounts, a subject in macroeconomics.

Foreign direct investment (FAD) is direct investment by a company in production located in another country either by buying a company in the country or by expanding operations of an existing business in the country. Foreign direct investment is done for many reasons including to take advantage of cheaper wages in the country, special investment privileges such as tax exemptions offered by the country as an incentive for to gain tariff-free access to the markets of the country or the region.

Foreign direct investment is in contrast to portfolio investment which is a passive investment in the securities of another country such as stocks and bonds. * Potential risks of trade liberalizing Yet, trade liberalizing also carries substantial risks that necessitate careful economic management through appropriate regulation by governments. Some argue reign providers crowd out domestic providers and instead of leading to investment and the transfer of skills, it allow foreign providers and shareholders to capture the profits for themselves, taking the money out of the country.

Thus, it is often argued that protection is needed to allow domestic companies the chance to develop before they are exposed to international competition. Other potential risks resulting from liberalizing, include

• Risks of financial sector instability resulting from global contagion
• Risk of brain drain
• Risk of environmental degradation.

However, researchers at thinks tanks such as the Overseas Development Institute argue the risks are outweighed by the benefits and that what is needed is careful regulation.

For instance, there is a risk that private providers will ‘skim off the most profitable clients and cease to serve certain unprofitable groups of consumers or geographical areas. Yet such concerns could be addressed through regulation and by universal service obligations in contracts, or in the licensing, to prevent such a situation from occurring. Of course, this bears the risk that this barrier to entry will issued international competitors trot entering the market (see Deregulation).

Examples of such an approach include South Africans Financial Sector Charter or Indian nurses who promoted the nursing profession within India itself, which has resulted in a rapid growth in demand for nursing education and a related supply response. Economic and social impacts of trade liberalizing Before providing a review of the different country studies, it is useful to present the theoretical arguments underpinning the impact of trade on economic growth and its broader development outcomes.

Trade and growth Most of the economic literature considers that trade liberalizing leads to an increase in welfare derived from an improved allocation of domestic resources. Import restrictions of any kind create an anti-export bias by raising the price of importable goods relative to exportable goods. The removal of this bias through trade liberalizing will encourage a shift of resources from the production of import substitutes to the production of export-oriented goods.

This, in turn, will generate growth in the short to medium term as the country adjusts to a new allocation of sources more in keeping with its comparative advantage (McCullough, winters and Career, 2001). This process is neither smooth nor automatic. On the contrary, it is expected to create adjustment costs, encompassing a wide variety of potentially disadvantageous short-term outcomes. These outcomes may include a reduction in employment and output, the loss of industry- and firm-specific human capital, and macroeconomic instability arising from balance-of-payments difficulties or reductions in government revenue (Mature and Tar, 1999).

The size of the adjustment costs upends on the speed with which resources make the transition from one sector to another. However, trade liberalizing in and of itself has not yet been unambiguously and universally linked to subsequent economic growth. Despite the vast literature looking at this link, numerous empirical studies have not found the evidence conclusive. Rodriguez and Rod (1999) argue that the literature is largely uninformative, and that there is a significant gap between the conclusions derived from theory and the “facts”.

According to the authors, a number of factors explain this gap. In many cases, he indicators of “openness” used by researchers are problematic, as measures of trade barriers are highly correlated with other sources of poor economic performance. In other cases, the empirical strategies used to ascertain the link between trade policy and growth has serious shortcomings, the removal of which results in significantly weaker findings. Moreover, the simultaneous implementation of other far-reaching reforms makes it difficult to disentangle the impact to the trade liberalizing process.

This being said, it is also important to note that although trade openness has not been unequivocally inked to higher growth, it has certainly not been identified as a hindrance. Overall, it may be fair to say that openness, by leading to lower prices, better information and newer technologies, has a useful role to play in promoting growth. But it must be accompanied by appropriate complementary policies (most notably, education, infrastructure, financial and macroeconomic policies) to yield strong growth results. The precise mix of trade and other policies that is needed will strongly depend on the specific circumstances of each country.

The economic liberalizing in India refers to ongoing economic reforms in India that started on 24 July 1991. After Independence in 1947, India adhered to socialist policies. In the sass, Prime Minister Eraser Gandhi initiated some reforms. In 1991, after India faced a balance of payments crisis, it had to pledge 20 tons of gold to Union Bank of Switzerland and 47 tons to Bank of England as part of a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund (MIFF).

In addition, MIFF required India to undertake a series of structural economic reforms. As a result of this requirement, the government of P. V. Maharanis Raw and his finance minister Mammon Sings (the present Prime Minister of India) started breakthrough reforms, although they did not implement many of the reforms MIFF wanted. The new neo-liberal policies included opening for international trade and investment, deregulation, initiation of appropriation, tax reforms, and inflation-controlling measures.

The overall direction of liberalizing has since remained the same, irrespective of the ruling party, although no party has yet tried to take on powerful lobbies such as the trade unions and farmers, or contentious issues such as reforming labor laws and reducing agricultural subsidies. The main objective of the government was to transform the economic system from socialism to capitalism so as to achieve high economic growth ND industrialized the nation for the well-being of Indian citizens. Today India is mainly characterized as a market economy.

As of 2009, about 300 million people? equivalent to the entire population of the United States have escaped extreme poverty. The fruits of liberalizing reached their peak in 2007, when India recorded its highest GAP growth rate of 9%. With this, India became the second-fastest-growing major economy in the world, next only to China. An Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (COED) report states that the average growth rate 7. 5% will double the average income in a decade and more reforms would speed up the pace.

Theory of political realism employs a number of categories among which nation state, national interest, power, sovereignity, etc. According to this theory states exist in international system approximating state of anarchy. Under this condition there are no other means to insure security than accumulate resourses convertable into means of pressure on the rebellious surrounding. The projection of power – the essential category to Political realism, is the only definite measure to achieve a desired goal.

As system is set off to be insecure the ultimate goal to every state is the maximum possible degree of security, in other words, certainty of the other state or group of state being in no position to attack the state either alone or in coalition. The means to this end are of diverse nature but what unites them is the conception of “power’ as central to the understanding “Real Politik”. The apologist of realism Gans Morgenthau has not consicely defined the notion of “Power”, although circumscribed the kinds of Power: military, economic, diplomatique, spiritual (ideological).

Nowdays, structuralism contributed to the emergence of one more kind: structural power. The main feature of the concept is that every other kind of power is tributary with regard to military one and serves its end – the degree to which the particular, say, economic power may enhance military capabilities in time of war is crucial to the idea of convertability of the powers into military might. The major criterion of structurizing the anarchic, by nature, international system was the relative military strength of the states, there being Superpowers, Great States, regional states, middle and small states.

Within political realism the great importance was attributed to the theory of Alliances for it was only alliances that might redress the interantional Power Balance in favor of several, say, Great States when encountered by one Superstate. The post-Westphalian international system was a time for employing the principles of Real Politik when there emerged a number of comparable in power European states which contended the right to moderate the others.

The notion of ‘nation state’ and ‘national interest’ is inseparable from the doctrine of realism: nation are deemed as clearly apprehendind so called ‘National interest’ which is ultimately of interantional implication and compounded as theoretical concept of a set of theorems: to strive for the maximum level of security, to pursuit the extinction or lavishing and debasement of the rival state, to support the weak state in its struggle with the strong one lest it may become even stronger etc.

Apprehending the national interest states consciously project power to achieve a uniform or single goal: to accrue to the level to ones security at the same time imparing the security of the others for security as such is limited – this general postulate was utilized by a theory of Zero Sum Game – a tributary one as to the mainstream realism within which it has developed.

Acoording to the realism, states are but black pool balls – uniform with regard to their strife, composite and solid – the realism did not mind the internal condition of states or their parties and popular claims because the Imperative of interntional system disciplined every participant so as to shut the internal problems from the professional suviving in the anarchy milleu and, yielding to the forces of the ‘survival game’, they bounce and combinate anew within the anarchy framework of international system.

The concept of Liberalism is better seen in contrast with the before mentioned one. In the center of Liberal world stands ‘laissez-faire’ state of the Great Britain’s in the middle of 19st. kind – state prosperious by its trade and mighty enough to protect its lawfull economic interests anywhere in the world by military intervention. The state in liberalism is not immune to internal issues intrusion, it rather balances the needs for internal economic growth with its current foreign policy, the latter is no more an end in itself but rather an instrument to foster internal development.

The concept of Free Trade is intrinsic with liberalism: free trade may contribute any participant and is to be recognized as superior structurizing and orginizing power within this concept. A war has only minor implication on international life – it is reduced to a mere mean of restoring safety of trade routs. The safety of international trade routs and trade turnover determines the economic, thus, social consistency of ‘laissez-faire’ states; they seem to avoid war for the dramatic consequences it may end in.

The safety of the state is virtually equated to the safety of industry and trade routs for suuden delays there might be in shipping or consumption of the export goods due to hostilities are disastrous in effect. This contributes to the major inference of Liberalism that war as being trade impediment is no good, all industrial and trading states should cooperate with a view to prevent the effects of war or if, has started, to localize it to the minimum range to protect main trade zones.

Thus, the natural industrious bent in peoples may provide an effective instrument to eradicate war as such or to swiftly get over with every sparkle of hostilities through interantional military cooperation. The gendered approach to international relations may exist only as a element to the General Critical Theory or Postmodernism. The said theory as such may not be labelled as classical theory, not to say, rival Realism or Liberalism in the domain of methodological apparatus’s thoroughness. It is rather a device to denounce the claimes of the said to as timed or “up-to-date”.

What this concept can successfully do is reveal a serious breaches in the approaches of the classical concepts thus disparaging the onthlogical basis of theirs The failure of Realism and Liberalism to adress specific issues of gender, race, generation and general stiffness of their methodology which seems to be not enough spacious to embrace the new terms and apprpriate them to the old in a way to avoid dissonance are being gradually heeded through thus detected breaches and bye-the-bye address though partially by the Critical Theory.

In the domain of international politics Conservative Party always seemed to adhere to the Real Politik consept. Now that the second Super Power has gone USA has got lucky opportunity to indulge into unrestricted interventions throughout the globe when pursuing particular goal. Although, USA are to be conscious of a great responsibility they have as a single world’s affair moderator.

Senator Kerry when addressing the international legitimization of the war in Iraq clearly demonstrated a refined Liberal vision. The biggest faulter was a failure to draw the international community’s cooperative potential as stated by him pointed at the World Governance, neo-liberal model of cooperative administering of the international issues with a great emphasize upon non-governmental actors and multinational, to dimly twinkle amid his undistinct as to international affairs views.

In the course of debates he criticques the administration’s universal approach as to the war with terrorism for its being very lofty and populist thus breeding entrenched whithin international community frights of USA imposing rigid and reactionary power regime provoking the acts of retaliation from the opressed and resignating groups culturally and politically biased towadrds USA and their self-imposing bearence.

The main issue here is that those acts of retaliation from sneak non-governmental, say, Postmodernismt enemies are probable to fall upon the USA former allies by the Cold War. The intricate and valuable web of military and political unions and coalitions are now susceptible of perishing to substantially diminish the USA structural power – the power to exert the influence on the different levels whithin the structure of international relation system: political, cultural, economical, diplomatic etc.

and what makes it real structural power – to mobilise other agents and shares of their potentials. It was the plead for more reasonable way of administration of those resourses lest be left in the inferior to that prior to real politik measures emplementation position that I saw in senator Kerry speeches and, of course, struggle for the public’s votes was there.

I think its rather hard to tell whether Kerry bends towards neo-Liberal concept but for sure he is right to scoff the ground on which Bush seems to find it appropriate to fight ultimately asymmetric threats with conventional military means suited to fight states rather then clandestine and freemason-like secret organisations though temporaly identified with rebellous states, that is to say to scoff the methods of Realism and have a solid ground on it.

The issue who does emplement more of the gender-heed approach or suits better for the Critical theory cause is easily addressed. Kerry does. Well, what more to say about the men who approves homosexual marriages with regard to gender-sensitive approach or innovative critical of the old stiffen concepts Critical thoery approach. Nothing more. That will suffice. The results of the presidential elections in the USA will have far ranging impact upon the Arab world in whole, Gulf region in particular, set aside Europe.

I think, Great Britain will further cooperate with USA in military aspects whoever be the next president. The position of the current Prime Minister Tiny Blair is unlikely to have staggered if Kerry won – the latter badly needs wide international participation in Iraqi reconstruction and improving the image of USA. The victory of Bush, on the other hand, would facilitate USA-Russia relations around the axis of antiterrorists war and nuclear weapons nonproliferation issue.

In the case with Kerry, I think his stance towards Putin is rather prejudiced but it is characteristic of Democratic party presidents who advocated the democracy in Russia for all times. The critical importance is placed on USA – EU relations in the case of Kerry’s victory: EU may seek instutionalised cooperation with new president of USA in the realm of anti-terrorisms particular actions as, for example, banks responsibility, money-laundering, information sharing and cooperative focused anti-terrorist campaigns.

The critical shifts may occur in Islam state, like Indonesia and Pakistan who hold the radicals doen but may need a qualified support. The perspectives of East European republics, foremost Ukraine might look brighter in eventual NATO participation in the wake of authoritarian tendencies in Russia and the position of Kerry.

Although the First World War played quite a large role in the growth of the labour party there were many other factors that contributed to their rise in popularity. Such as, the split of the coalition, the representation of the peoples act, and finally Clause IV. During the war the party was led by Arthur Henderson who was the first Labour MP to get into parliament and he played a great role in the War-time coalition. After a disagreement with Lloyd George in 1917, Henderson resigned from the War Cabinet. This benefited the Labour party because Henderson was able to focus of reorganising the party.

This included being more efficient, more organised, the funding of the party was split efficiently and they drafted the Labour Constitution. This helped their growth because it gave them a lot of time to plan how they was going to work about gaining more support over the other parties and to be able to be and efficient stable party. However, the split of the coalition led to the unpopularity of other parties because the British public felt that the Liberals and Conservatives were unreliable and not strong enough to run the country.

The split of this coalition resulted mainly because of U-turns, failures and tension between both the parties. One of the examples of a U-turn was the breaking of pledges that the powers of the House of Lords would be strengthened. The last straw for the coalition was the ‘Chanak Crisis’ which seemed likely to end up in a war with Turkey, and by this time many stable conservatives including backbench MP’s say Lloyd George as a liability and the coalition was failing in its basic purpose; preventing the rise of the Labour party.

As a result of their unpopularity, they were actually helping the Labour Party because the electorate was looking for a stable government that wouldn’t go back on their policies and almost cause another war because they didn’t want that. The Representation of the Peoples act of 1918, gave the vote to more working-class people, including women over 40 who owned property, who looked for a ‘worker’s party’ to represent them. This was the Labour party helping them gain more voters because before you had to be a member of the overnment register or pay to vote, money which many working class people didn’t have. So when this act was brought in by Labour the workers saw they were there to help them and they obviously voted them so they had a better chance of improving their lives. The fact that the representation of the peoples act came about, meant that the electorate was a wider range of classes and they were more likely to gain votes from the Working-classes. Clause IV indicated a sense of direction and offered the electorate a doctrine that made them obviously different from other parties.

The main difference between Liberals and Labour was the ‘socialist’ nature of this clause. However, because the party was made up of Trade unionists and the socialists, the vagueness of the clause worked to unite all the members of the party which disagreed on some things. This helped them grow in the sense that it showed they were committed to what they said they was going to do. it also showed the party was stable, due to no disagreements and everyone in the party was taken into consideration, showing a strength, unlike Liberals which were split into two because of different opinions.

Overall, although the War gave Labour plenty of time to reorganise itself and stabilise itself, it didn’t increase its growth or popularity because everyone’s focus was on winning the war and that was why the War-time coalition was made. However the mixture of the Labour Constitution, mainly Clause IV, the Representation of the peoples act and the failure of the Post-War coalition were very large factors in the growth of the Labour party, proving their stability and their aims to help a wider range of people, especially working class.

How successful were the Liberal government in years 1906-1914 in bringing about political and institutional reform?

The Liberal government of 1906-1914 under Bannerman and Asquith is one often recalled for its extensive reform of the welfare system in the United Kingdom. However, it was their political and constitutional reform which caused the most uproar, as they were arguably the most successful government of the 20th century in regards to changing the way Britain was governed.

Their greatest achievement was the 1911 Parliament Act where they managed to get the Lords to sign a bill limiting their own power. When the Liberals came into power in 1906 the Conservatives held a startling majority in the House of Lords due to their representation of the wealthy and the landowners. This meant that if the Liberals wished to put forward and legislation or alter the constitution in which in which the Conservatives disagreed then the Lords could simply veto the decision whether or not the Commons agreed with it.

This angered the Liberals, particularly Lloyd George who at the time needed to obtain 15’000’000 to go towards the welfare reforms and to new warships and planned to from the ‘Peoples budget’, which was tax this money from the rich. He believed this would gain support from the working classes by showing that they didn’t need to vote for socialists to have a say. The taxes were to increase the tax at over 3000 and  5000 and were to impose an inheritance tax of 20%. The Lords did veto this bill and so it led to the first general election of 1910.

The Liberals claimed that the Lords were the selfish rich who weren’t willing to help the country, whereas the Conservatives tried to appeal to the wealthy stating that this would lead to social revolution and that is was the duty of the House of Lords to block controversial policy that the public hadn’t voted on. The Liberals won with a 2 seat majority and the support of the Irish Nationalists who were hoping to obtain Home Rule through the Liberal government which led to the tax being passed.

This Liberal win led to the second constitutional crisis where the Liberals pushed a bill which sought to remove the power of the House of Lords to veto bills and replace it with a power of suspensory veto, to delay a bill for 2 years – yet remove their power entirely to alter ‘money bills’. The Lords rejected this again which led to Asquith going to King Edward VII asking him to create more Liberal peers which he agreed to but died before he could bring this reality.

His son King George V preferred a more consensual agreement between the two parties and this led to the 1910 constitutional conference where the conservatives offered to reform Lords powers, yet the Liberals rejected this and the conference ended in November which led to the second 1910 general election. Both parties obtained the most seats but again the Liberals were able to maintain government through their backing from the Irish Nationalist Party and Labour. The Commons passed the bill of reform in 1911 and it was eventually passed through the Lords when the Liberals and the Conservative ‘rats’ outvoted the ‘ditchers’ by 131 votes to 114.

This limited the Lords powers but prevented the house from being swamped with new Liberal peers. This subject caused such division that Balfour was forced to resign leadership in 1911 which led to the Conservatives almost falling apart. All of this was a great success for the Liberals as it created a much more evenly democratic country as it meant that the elected House of Commons was now the true power of the country whereas the non-elected House of Lords had effectively lost all of its true power. Such was the effectiveness of this change; no attempt to further reform the Lords was made until 1999 by Blair’s Labour.

Another great achievement was the Payment of MPs Act. Until 1910 MPs had no income from government for being an MP and so it was generally only the wealthy gentlemen of leisure that could afford to live in London without having to work that had time for governance. This meant that the working classes had very little representation as they could simply not afford to be an MP. Attempts had been made throughout the 19th century to introduce payment for MPs but had never got through the commons yet in 1910 a vote of 265 to 173 in favour of payment of MPs (largely due to Labour pressure) passed through the Commons and Lords.

This bill paid MPs 400 a year, which is more than most of the lower working class earned anyway and so meant many men could put themselves forward who normally would not have been able to. This led to the rise of the Labour party as they represented the working poor and therefore got their votes. It again was another act by the Liberals to introduce more representation to the governing of the United Kingdom; and this, arguably and ironically, led to their downfall. Their last act before the outbreak of the war was to pass the Third Irish Home Rule bill through the Commons and, due to the reduction of Lords power, the Lords.

This is not a success although some view it was one as it almost leads to a division of the country and a civil war in Ireland. The John Carson set up the Ulster Volunteers to oppose any home rule law and had thousands of Ulsterman sign the Ulster Covenant where they agreed to oppose any home rule by any means necessary – they openly received support from the Conservatives and by the army as was seen at the Curragh mutiny where the army all resigned before they were ordered to attack the Ulstermen.

They also managed to sneak 30000 rifles and ammunition into Ireland – they meant business. The Irish Voulunteers (who were the predecessor of the IRA) set up to oppose the Ulstermen and also gathered arms. Emergency talks were being held at Buckingham palace to resolve this issue but broke down and it looked live civil war and treason was inevitable, yet war broke out at the eleventh hour and the Liberals rectified the issue by sending the patriotic Ulster Volunteers straight to the Western front where they were mostly all killed on the frontline.

Over the period of office leading up to the war the Conservatives did have the two main breakthroughs in that they brought about the payment of MPs and managed to defeat the Lords in several cases and ultimately managed to curb their power and this led to the modern democracy we still enjoy in the United Kingdom today and it is for these reasons that they were successful, they brought about the largest constitutional reform then we saw in the 20th century and it is unlikely that such reform will come about in our state again – unless we are to codify the constitution at some point or abolish the Lords entirely.

The frequency table reveals how many presidential appointees each president made to the Federal Appellate Court bench. This calculated on a per year basis shows that their has been a steady increase, with the exceptions of Ford who showed less and Carter who showed more, in the number of appointees to Federal Appellate Court bench during the last 10 presidencies. Since Federal Court judges are appointed for life terms, under conditions of “good behavior,” I attribute this increase in the number of Federal Appellate Court judges to larger caseloads with more issues to decide.

One of the exceptions noted earlier, Ford, who served only 2 years, appointed an average of Appellate Court judges a year. The other exception, Carter who served 4 years and made 56 appointments, had the greatest impact on the Federal Appellate Court system, averaging 14 appointees a year. A Perspective Look at Bush and Clinton’s Federal Appellate Court Appointees The data illustrates that Bush’s Federal judge appointees were within party lines 91% of the time. In 37 of his awarded Federal judgeships, 34 were Republican, 2 were Democrat, and 1 independent.

In contrast, Clinton also stayed within party lines, but at a lesser rate, 85% going to his party, appointing 41 of 48 Federal judgeships to Democrats. The other appointees made by Clinton consisted of 3 Republicans and 4 Independents. It is apparent that presidents appoint Federal Appellate Court judges who conform to their political ideologies. Republican judges, who are chosen because of their Conservative views, tend to hand down decisions that favor government and large businesses.

This becomes important in litigation involving labor-management conflicts, environmental issues, and personal injury cases when corporate America is the defendant. Democratic presidents, who also appoint Federal judges in conformity with their political ideology, appoint Democrats. These Democratic Federal Appellate court judges, liberals, are less concerned with the rights of government and corporate America and more concerned with the rights of individuals. This becomes evident in issues involving the First Amendment, rights of individuals in criminal cases, and matters involving discrimination of women and minorities.

The statistics show that over the last 10 presidencies, women were appointed to the bench of the Federal Court of Appeals in 39 of the 370 total appointments, or 10% of the time. The appointment of women as Federal Appellate Court judges was never fashionable for either the Republican or Democratic presidents until very liberal Carter, during his term, appointed 11 women to the bench. Although Bush’s percentage of women appointed as Federal Appellate Court justices is only 19% of his total, it is much higher than his closest Republican predecessor, Reagan, with a 5% comparison.

Clinton’s record in regard to female appointees is more balanced, but still skewed. One third of his appointees as Federal Court of Appeals judges in his first 6 years have been a woman. This contrast in difference, Clinton 42% higher than Bush in female appointees, clearly demonstrates their difference in political ideologies. The Democrats with their beliefs in individual rights, reflected in pro-choice decisions, and public policies, such as, protections on the environment by corporations, have attracted many women voters.

The Democrats have also been influential in advocating equal rights for women, especially in sexual harassment litigation. The analysis shows that Bush appointed white Federal Appellate Court judges 90% of the time. In Bush’s 4 years of office, he appointed 4 judges from a minority, 2 African-American judges, and 2 Hipic judges, comprising the other 10%. In Clinton’s 6 years of office, 23% of his Appellate Court appointments have been from a minority group. He has appointed 5 African-American judges, 5 Hipic judges, and for the first time an Asian-American judge.

Cinton’s appointees from a minority group outnumbered Bush’s by over 2 to 1. The appointment of Federal Appellate Court judges compared by race in influenced by the beliefs of the political party. Democrats, who traditionally held support from African-Americans and more recently Hipics, are more favorable toward the ills of the economically depressed, and advocate policies toward equal rights and affirmative action. This being reflected by the percentage of persons of minority being appointed as judges to the Federal Appellate Court by Democrats.

The Republican presidents, 5 of the last 10, have appointed 6 persons of minority to the Federal Appellate Court bench. This is 18% in the overall total of 33 minority judges appointed. This demonstrates less concern for minorities and the knowledge of the Republican Party that their support does not come from this sector of the population. In respect to Bush’s Federal Appellate Court appointments, religion plays an important part in the decision but less than political ideology, gender, and race. 54% of Bush’s appointed judgeships were from the Protestant faith, 24% from the Roman Catholic faith, and 16% from the Jewish faith.

The remaining 6% came from those with no religion. Clinton’s appointments to Federal Appellate Court judgeships show nearly equal distributions between the Protestant and Roman Catholic faiths with 35% and 33% respectively. The Jewish faith under Clinton received 19% of the appointments and those of Unitarian faith and of no religion received 13%. The percentages are consistent with the knowledge that the United States is a mostly Protestant nation. Republicans, over the last 10 presidencies have by an overwhelming majority, awarded Federal Appellate Court appointments to Protestants.

The Democrats, over the same p, have shown more diversity in their appointments. This is in line with the liberal views of the Democrats concerning equal rights and discrimination policy. Overall Patterns of Presidential Appointees to the Federal Appellate Court Bench The statistics revealed by this data indicate that Republican Presidential Appellate Court appointees are predominately white, male, and Protestant. Just during the last 2 Republican presidencies, Reagan and Bush, have the Republicans become a little more diverse in their appointments of Federal Appellate Court judges.

The appointments during the Republican terms of Reagan and Bush consisted of ultra-conservatives who were well accustomed to politics and most likely millionaires. The Democratic presidents, likely more liberals in their beliefs, demonstrated this in their appointments to the Federal Appellate Court judgeships. Although the Democratic presidents appointed primarily Democrats, the data shows an increase in the appointments of women, minorities, and other religious faiths; demonstrating diversity and capturing support from these groups. Changes in Federal Appellate Court Appointments over the last 50 years

The last 50 years, in respect to Federal Appellate Court judicial appointments, saw Republicans and Democrats appoint members from their own party. The Democrats, starting with Truman, began appointing minorities to Federal Appellate Court judgeships. It was not until the 60’s when civil rights and discrimination became issues that Democratic presidents became diverse in their appointments and starting including women and minorities. The Democratic presidents have included religions other than Protestant in their appointments at a higher rate than the Republicans.

During this 50-year period, the Republican presidents have not traditionally appointed women or minorities to the Federal Appellate Court. Not until the 80’s, under Reagan, did a Republican president appoint members to the Appellate Court that included women and minorities. The majority of the appointees under Reagan and Bush remained to be white males. The appointments by Republican presidents from religions other than Protestant remained low in comparison to their Democratic counterparts.

Unilateralism can be described as a new economic direction enforced by US and British leaders after WI. It was touted as the best means to livelihood through freedom of the private sector based on four main pillars; vaporization of utilities, financial deregulation, management and manipulation crisis and state redistribution where wealth was supposedly to trickle down’ to the poor. Harvey assesses how a seemingly utopian idea was actually a way for US global domination and a means to store upper class wealth.

This destructive Capitalist entitlement Is so Ingrained that we are unaware of what an Influential role It plays Into our existence and our seemingly need for new commodities. Who benefits from ‘Individual freedom’ and what role does It play In national education, media, and finances and Internationally through the WTFO and MIFF. Quest for self-liberty through societal movement Is traced back to Incidents in the soviet union, Pans, china and Mexico, to name a few.

In 1970 he first trial of liberalizing was carried out in Chile with a CIA backed coup and further US control, designed by The Chicago Boys’, through vaporization and foreign investment: which is now used as a model for action. After 911 the US embarked on its ‘obligation to spread freedom’ as Pres. Bush put it. The Iraq war and outcome is a modern display of US control through declaration of Unilateralism and its freedom. Continuation of time now allows awareness of materialism, class struggle, indigenous fairness and the global society.

What was revolutionary about the French Revolution? Since the beginning of history itself, several and numerous people, inventions, ideologies or behaviours were immediately attached to a particular and self-explanatory concept such as revolutionary. As the time goes by its outreaching characteristics and meaning remains the same. A revolutionary is an individual who either actively participates in or advocates revolution.

When used as an adjective, the term revolutionary refers to something that has a major, abrupt impact on society or on some aspect of human endeavour. The tern – both as a noun and adjective – is usually applied to the field of politics and is occasionally used in the context of science, invention or art. [1] One of the themes in modern European history which can be directly linked with this concept is the French Revolution.

The main interrogation remains in “What was revolutionary about the French Revolution? ” In order to answer to this question it is necessary to acknowledge the reasons or origins of the revolution, which initiated or motivated this event and finally, which was the impact and importance of it. The French Revolution is considered one of the greatest social and political upheavals in European History and its tremors can still occasionally be felt.

In the popular imagination, the magical figure 1789 conjures up conflicting images of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity alongside the “tricoteuse” and the “guillotine”, of a revolution that offered individual choice and freedom, but that was transformed first into terror and subsequently the caesarism of napoleon. [2] These events continue to fascinate historians and the causes and consequences of the French Revolution continue to be a rich source of debate. The revolution started in 1789 and the exact date of its end it is still uncertain but studies believe it lasted almost ten years. 3]A series of political and social crises led up to it: widespread of popular discontent because of poverty which was highly influenced by the taxation system implement by the king Louis XVI in order to maintain his own luxurious and extravagant lifestyle, the wave of unemployment, the growth of the bourgeoisie , an agricultural crisis which left the population in a state of hunger and resentment, the royal treasure’s state became desperate because of help given to The American revolt against Britain which lead to drastic solutions such as educing the privileges of the aristocracy and clergy producing revolt on their part among several other origins.

The king offered no lead and the result was a government trapped by the Estates General. The political initiative was not so much lost as given away, and it was considered the perfect opportunity to ambitious or radical deputies such as Mirabeau, Lafayette, Sieyes and Le Chapelier to come to the front. [4] Under their influence the third estate, representing a minimum of 98 per cent of the population, declared itself the National Assembly on the 17th of June. 5] Due to this action, the deputies broke the umbilical cord connecting them to the society of orders marking the birth of the sovereign nation and the death of the old regime. The revolution had begun officially. By the end of June, effective power was draining away from the monarchy and the political failing of Louis XVI (who reigned from 1774-92) was observed once more after the violence in the capital culminating in the storming of the Bastille on the July 14th.

The fall of the Bastille was nevertheless highly noteworthy equally as a political Symbol and as a result of the municipal revolutions that followed. In Paris, order was restored by the newly created National Guard, headed by another ambitious aristocrat – Lafayette – , and effective power passed into the hands of the elected municipality (leaving royal officials with little more than their titles). Throughout France, the conventional power of governors, parliaments and intendants dissolved.

Between the 14th of July and the formal promulgation of a new constitution in September 1791 France was witness to an unprecedented wave of reform. As for Louis XVI, he was largely excluded from the process of national restoration and it symbolized one of the revolution’s most striking achievements: the transfer of sovereignty from the king to the National Assembly. [6] As calm was being restored in Paris, information regarding rural revolution began to reach the city.

The peasantry proved itself to be much more persistent and determined than the revolutionary politicians and by July 1793 had won a complete victory as seigneurialism and tithes disappeared from the French countryside forever. The night of 4th of August was considered essential for the upcoming path of reform in a way that it removed the particularist obstacles and corporate mentality that had so often impeded the monarchy. Nevertheless, it was the Declaration of the rights of man, adopted by the National Assembly on 26 of

August, which most clearly indicated the new philosophy of government. Written by Lafayette, the Declaration was a manifesto for liberal revolution. Men were assured equal in rights and such fundamental values as freedom of speech and of the press, religious toleration, equality before the law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and open competition for public office, decreed in a series of imposing articles. No less imperative was the claim that sovereignty belongs to the nation, ideology that justified everything accomplished afterwards. 7] Jointly, the night of the 4th July and the Declaration of the rights of man are a symbol of a revolution that literally destroyed the old social and institutional map of France and sought to apply rational and enlightened principles to the construction of its successor. Internal tolls and duties were abolished, free trade in grain restored and guilds and professional monopolies damaged, old provinces were replaced by eighty-three departments of comparable size and identical administrative structure.

Those departments were divided into districts, which in turns were sub-divided in communes. In August 1790, the parliaments were abolished and legal hierarchy reconstructed. Under the old regime, offices in the parliaments and several of its inferior courts had been nought on the open market. That abuse was reformed and the democratic principle was put into place as future judges were to be elected. One final example of their power was the abolition of nobility in June 1790, which came to reassure that only equal citizens remained.

Despite all these significant and revolutionary reforms, it was the financial crisis that had been the immediate cause of the monarchy’s collapse and the revolutionaries were expected to provide a solution. It became even more complicated to achieve it due to the integral collapse of the existing administrative and fiscal system and the disturbances in the countryside where taxes were not being paid. In order to meet its obligations, the state began to print money which benefited from the public confidence in the National Assembly.

Numerous tangible grounds for confidence were provided in November 1789, when the Assembly, voted to confiscate the lands of the church. The effective nationalization of between 5 and 10 per cent of the land in the kingdom provided collateral for state credit and a source of income when the decision was taken to sell these “biens nationaux”. By continuing to print paper money against the value of the land seized from the church, their financial worries were solved – at least in the short term. The revolution gained another primordial asset by selling the “biens natiounaux”.

Those who had invested had a vested interest in the consolidation and defence of the new regime. [8] Another revolutionary reform included a complete transformation of the church. Aided by Jansenist priests, the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was drafted and unveiled in July 1790. Rational enlightened thinking was brought to bear upon the workings of the Catholic Church and like judges and officials in the administrative and political hierarchy, parish priests were subject to elections by district electoral assemblies.

As this brief survey which clearly explained the significant changes occurring in France and the impact they possessed in society, has indicated, the National Assembly was responsible for a programme of reform which transformed the social and institutional life of France. “The patchwork quilt of particularist rights and privileges was replaced by a greater emphasis upon the rights of the individual and the concept of equality before the authority of the state. ”[9] Although, revolutionaries were not satisfied as they wanted to merge the world into their sea of values, ideologies and revolution.

The revolutionaries of 1792 began a war which extended through the Imperial period and forced nations to marshal their resources to a greater extent than ever before. Some areas, like Belgium and Switzerland, became client states of France with reforms similar to those of the revolution. National identities also began coalescing like never before. The many and fast developing ideologies of the revolution were also spread across Europe, helped by French being the continental elite’s dominant language. If the National Assembly had actually reinvigorated France, the constitution created to improve the country was a disaster.

Within twelve months the monarchy had been defeated by the second revolutionary wave of August 1792 resulting in the execution of Louis XVI in January 1793. Another example of the extremely radical path the revolution was taking is the treatment of the church. The reality was that not satisfied, the revolutionaries proceeded to execute the nonconformists. As the revolution slid into Terror after 1792, the clergy was increasingly seen as the agent of counter-revolution. In the short-term, the religious policies of successive governments after 1790 created unnecessary enemies for the revolution.

Revolutionaries started to then use war as a way of forcing the king, and any other “enemies”, to declare themselves whole-heartedly for the revolution. It was therefore; with mixed motives the French began their battle to export revolution to Europe. It can be considered that the use of Terror was simply a form of political strategy but in the minds of the revolutionaries it had a deeper reason. They believed they were creating a new society, a new man and to do so they needed to destroy the idea, beliefs and patterns of behaviour of the old.

Terror was paving the way to a republic virtue and those who would stand in the way of the march of progress would be discarded. It was the integral part of the vision and ideology of a revolution. [10] Between 1789 and 1799, the French Revolution offered a spectacle which inspired and horrified the people of France and Europe ever since. The overthrown of the monarchy, the attack on the church, the declaration of the principles of civic equality and national sovereignty along the destruction of seigneurialism were an admonition to the other monarchies in Europe and an example to their rivals.

For liberals the values and ideas of 1789 and the Declaration of the rights of the man continue to possess repercussions nowadays. Throughout the nineteenth century the radical revolution was the source of inspiration for republican and left-wing movements all over the world. On the other hand, conservatives remained fearful of a further outbreak of revolutionary passion. It influenced and leaded to other revolutions in most of the European nations, America and several other countries around the world.

The French Revolution was a defining moment in the development of all shades of political opinion, changed views and values, implemented new laws and behaviours. It left no one indifferent and for that reason it can be considered one of the most revolutionary procedures of modern history.

Bibliography • Soanes, Catherine, Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2008 • Hillis, William, A metrical history of the life and times of Napoleon Bonaparte, G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1896 • Blanc, Louis, History of the French Revolution of 1789 – Volume 1, 1848 Pilbeam, Pamela, Themes in modern European History 1780 – 1830, Routledge, 1995 • Baker, Keith, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, University of Chicago Press, 1987 • Gardiner, Bertha, The French revolution 1789-1795, Longmans, Green, 1893 • Lough, Muriel, An introduction to nineteenth century France, Longman, 1978 • Salvemini, Gaetano, The French Revolution, 1788- 1792, Holt, 1954 ———————– [1] Soanes, Catherine, Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2008 [2] Hillis, William, A metrical history of the life and times of Napoleon Bonaparte, G. P. Putnam’s sons, 1896, page 48 [3] Blanc, Louis, History of the French Revolution of 1789 – Volume 1, 1848, page 480 [4] Pilbeam, Pamela, Themes in modern European History 1780 – 1830, Routledge, 1995, page 19 [5] Baker, Keith, The Old Regime and the French Revolution, University of Chicago Press, 1987, page 148 [6] Gardiner, Bertha, The French revolution 1789-1795, Longmans, Green, 1893, page 46 [7] Pilbeam, Pamela, Themes in modern European history 1780-1830, Routledge, 1995, page 22 [8] Lough, Muriel, An introduction to nineteenth century France, Longman, 1978, page 55 [9] Pilbeam, Pamela, Themes in Modern European History, New York, 1995, page 24 [10] Salvemini, Gaetano, The French Revolution, 1788- 1792, Holt, 1954, page 186