International Government

A classless society can be brought about in Europe without a violent revolution.

no not yet it is year 2011

Edit: Yes - Barrack O'bama began his presidency on January 20, 2009

The Islands that has been claimed by the Philippines in Spratly Island Group are the Lawak,Patag,Kota,Likas,Parola,Pag-asa,Panata and Rizal

Cuba is an unlimited government.

The role of the pressure group is to voice the rights of Australians before the law - a form of social change and governance.

Pressure groups can be short lived to protest or object to an issue. [Not all pressures result in an issue.]

Or they can continue as an organisation able to achieve full government support and legitimacy as a governance approach body. This is called devolved authority and it applies at all levels of governance - individual, community, regional, national or international.

[A landholder protesting against the application of legislation is an example of individual pressure.]

Pressure groups encourage two way dissemination of government policy - thereby raising the popularity of political outcomes.

Win-Win outcomes are the main aim of pressure groups, but mutually exclusive options may result in difficult issue outcomes requiring mediation.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its role is to adjudicate disputes submitted to it by States in accordance with international law and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.

Preventing future generations from the scourge of war (much in line with the United Nations) and finding peaceful resolutions in times of international conflict between states.

This question is about European law. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judges do not always agree (= concur) on whether the community law (= the rules of the European Union) has supremacy over national law of a Member State. That's what you need to discuss: is community law 'more powerful' (supreme over) than national law?

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, because EU community law is not the same as any other type of international law. See case 62/26 ECJ.

No, because the EU and therefore ECJ do not always have full jurisdiction. You will need to see EU treaties TEU and TFEU for that.

Interest groups in Texas, like in many other states, employ various techniques to influence policy decisions. These techniques can be broadly categorized into several key strategies:

Lobbying: Interest groups often employ professional lobbyists who work to build relationships with legislators and other policymakers. They provide information, attend meetings, and advocate for their group's interests.

Campaign Contributions: Many interest groups in Texas contribute to political campaigns, especially during election seasons. This financial support can influence lawmakers to consider their positions and concerns.

Grassroots Mobilization: Groups mobilize their members and supporters to engage in grassroots activities. This includes letter-writing campaigns, phone banks, and public demonstrations to raise awareness about their issues.

Public Relations and Media Campaigns: Interest groups often use media campaigns to shape public opinion and sway policymakers. This may involve placing ads in newspapers, on radio or TV, or through social media.

Coalition Building: Groups often form coalitions with other like-minded organizations to amplify their collective voices. This strengthens their advocacy efforts and makes it more challenging for policymakers to ignore their demands.

Issue Advocacy: Interest groups conduct research and produce reports or studies that support their positions. These documents can be used to persuade lawmakers and the public of the merits of their policy proposals.

Direct Engagement with Policymakers: Interest groups participate in hearings, meetings, and public forums where policies are discussed. They provide expert testimony and engage in direct dialogue with legislators to make their case.

Legal Strategies: Some groups use legal avenues, including filing lawsuits or amicus briefs, to challenge or support policies in the courts.

Grassroots Lobbying: Interest groups mobilize their supporters to directly contact their elected officials through emails, phone calls, or in-person meetings. This can have a significant impact on legislators' decisions.

Educational Outreach: Groups often engage in educational efforts, including workshops, seminars, and informational materials, to inform the public and policymakers about the importance of their issues.

Issue Framing: Interest groups strategically frame their issues in a way that resonates with policymakers and the public. This involves careful messaging and framing of the problem and proposed solutions.

Monitoring and Tracking Legislation: Groups closely monitor legislative activities and track bills related to their interests. They may intervene at key stages of the legislative process to influence outcomes.

Participation in Regulatory Processes: Some interest groups engage in administrative or regulatory processes, providing input and comments on proposed rules and regulations that affect their industries or causes.

Networking: Building relationships with policymakers, government officials, and other stakeholders is crucial for interest groups. Networking can help in gaining access and influence within the policymaking process.

Issue Advocacy in Elections: Some interest groups engage in issue advocacy during elections, either supporting candidates who align with their views or opposing those who do not.

These techniques vary in effectiveness depending on the nature of the issue, the resources of the interest group, and the political climate. Successful interest groups often employ a combination of these strategies to achieve their policy goals in Texas.

Get in Touch!

Mobile – +91 9212306116

Whatsapp – +91 9212306116

Skype – shalabh.mishra

Telegram – shalabhmishra

The current (2011) Federal Opposition leader in Australia is Tony Abbott. Abbott became the Federal Opposition leader on 1 December 2009.

In parliamentary democracies the leader of the opposition is the leader of the largest parliamentary party not in the government. Their job is to shadow the Prime Minister or Premier and hold the government to account.

The bulk of the areas of power for the commonwealth are located in section 51 of the Constitution and called 'The Heads of Power". The full section is quoted underneath.

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States;

(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

(iii) bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth;

(iv) borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth;

(v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;

(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;

(vii) lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys;

(viii) astronomical and meteorological observations;

(ix) quarantine;

(x) fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits;

(xi) census and statistics;

(xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender;

(xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;

(xiv) insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned;

(xv) weights and measures;

(xvi) bills of exchange and promissory notes;

(xvii) bankruptcy and insolvency;

(xviii) copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks;

(xix) naturalization and aliens;

(xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth;

(xxi) marriage;

(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;

(xxiii) invalid and old‑age pensions;

(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

(xxiv) the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States;

(xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States;

(xxvi) the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;

(xxvii) immigration and emigration;

(xxviii) the influx of criminals;

(xxix) external affairs;

(xxx) the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific;

(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;

(xxxii) the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth;

(xxxiii) the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State;

(xxxiv) railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State;

(xxxv) conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State;

(xxxvi) matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides;

(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;

(xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;

(xxxix) matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

is Ethiopia common wealth country

The republic of Cuba is a secular state... yes!

Melanesia has a democracy.

To,

The Honorable Chief Justice of Pakistan

Supreme Court,

Islamabad.

Subject:- SAVE OUR SOULS (SOS)

Honorable Sir,

I am a low-paid employee in Wapda serving at 150MW FBC Power station Lakhra and living in Thermal Power Station Jamshoro colony, House-No. D-155

My Young son Mr. Asif Bhutto was taken away by jamshoro Police and other agencies on 16th May 2012 from House No. D-155 Thermal Power station colony Jamshoro and is since then missing/disappearing. He has not been produced an any court of law any where.

All our efforts to trace his whereabouts have produced no result. His life is in real danger and we fear that he might be murdered in there custody like is cousin Muzaffar Bhutto a few months earlier.

I and my family members very humbly request your highness to intervene and help us in finding the whereabouts of our beloved son Asif Bhutto and ask the concerned police/agencies to produce our son in court of law, if required any case.

If possible, this request may kindly be converted in to a petition/sou-moto-notice.

Respectfully

Rafique Ahmed Bhutto

Fitter

150MW FBC Power Station Lakhra.

Cell No. 03133371843

Cell No. 03443622174

Dated 27.06.2012.

it was part of India. India was originally the countries of Bangladesh and Pakistan. part of India was Muslim, and the other Hindu, so they split into India and Pakistan. now, Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be east and west Pakistan. due to political, beliefs, they split. they are now Pakistan and Bangladesh

Ethnicity is an important yet highly imprecise concept in contemporary Mexico. Students of Mexican society, as well as Mexicans themselves, identify two broad ethnic groups based on cultural rather than racial differences: mestizos and Indians. Each group has a distinct cultural viewpoint and perceives itself as different from the other. At the same time, however, group allegiances may change, making measurement of ethnic composition problematic at best. Originally racial designators, the terms mestizo and Indian have lost almost all of their previous racial connotation and are now used entirely to designate cultural groups. Historically, the term mestizo described someone with mixed European and indigenous heritage. Mestizos occupied a middle social stratum between whites and pure-blooded indigenous people (see Socieconomic Structures, ch. 1). Whites themselves were divided into criollo (those born in the New World) and peninsular (those born in Spain) subgroups. In contemporary usage, however, the word mestizo refers to anyone who has adopted Mexican Hispanic culture. Seen in this cultural context, both those with a solely European background and those with a mixed European-indigenous background are automatically referred to as mestizos. Mestizo , then, has become a synonym for culturally Mexican, much as ladino is used in many Latin American countries for those who are culturally Hispanic. Members of indigenous groups also may be called (and may call themselves) mestizos if they have the dominant Hispanic societal cultural values. If an indigenous person can become a mestizo, who, then, is an Indian? Anthropologist Alan Sandstorm lists minimum criteria that compose a definition of Indian ethnicity. According to Sandstorm, an Indian is someone who identifies himself as such; chooses to use an indigenous language in daily speech; remains actively involved in village communal affairs; participates in religious ceremonies rooted in native American traditions; and attempts to achieve a harmony with, rather than control over, the social and natural worlds. Should one or more criteria become absent over time, the individual probably has begun the transition to becoming a mestizo. Although mestizos and Indians may both reside in rural areas and have relatively comparable levels of income, they maintain different lives. Such differences can lead to highly negative perceptions about each other. Mestizos often contend that Indians are too unmotivated and constrained by tradition to deal appropriately with the demands of modern society. Indians, in turn, frequently complain that mestizos are aggressive, impatient, and disrespectful toward nature. Given the cultural use of the terms, it would be unrealistic to expect Mexican census officials to count the number of mestizos and Indians based on racial criteria. However, in measuring how many people speak an indigenous language, the census at least serves to identify a minimum number of racially unmixed Indians. In 1990, 7.5 percent of the Mexican population, or approximately 5.3 million people five years of age and over, spoke an Indian language. Of that total, approximately 79 percent knew Spanish as well and thus were at least potential cultural converts to the mestizo world. Enormous statewide differences exist in familiarity with indigenous languages (see fig. 6). Roughly speaking, familiarity with indigenous languages increases from north to south. The latest census showed that almost no native speakers lived in a band of eight contiguous states stretching from Coahuila in the northeast to Jalisco and Colima along the north-central Pacific coast. Speakers of indigenous languages constituted less than 5 percent of the population in states in the far northwest and along a central belt of states from Michoacán in the west to Tlaxcala in the east. The percentage climbed to between 10 and 20 percent in another contiguous grouping of states from San Luis Potosí to Guerrero, to 26 percent in Oaxaca, to 32 and 39 percent, respectively, in Quintana Roo and Chiapas, and to 44 percent in Yucatán. Only 63 percent of users of indigenous languages in Chiapas also knew Spanish. Specialists have identified twelve distinct Mexican linguistic families, more than forty subgroups, and more than ninety individual languages. Nearly 23 percent of all native speakers speak Náhuatl, the language of the Aztec people and the only indigenous language found in fifteen states. Other major indigenous languages include Maya (spoken by approximately 14 percent of all Indians and primarily used in the southeast from the Yucatan Peninsula to Chiapas); Zapotec (spoken by approximately 7 percent of all Indians and largely used in the eastern part of Oaxaca); Mixtec (also spoken by approximately 7 percent of all Indians and primarily found in Oaxaca and Guerrero); Otomí (spoken by approximately 5 percent of all Indians and used in central Mexico, especially the states of México, Hidalgo, and Querétaro); Tzeltal (spoken by nearly 5 percent of all Indians and used in Chiapas); and Tzotzil (spoken by roughly 4 percent of the Indian population and also used in Chiapas). With twelve different Indian languages, Oaxaca has the nation's most diverse linguistic pattern. Census data reveal that Indians remain the most marginalized sector of Mexican society. More than 40 percent of the Indian population fifteen years of age and older was illiterate in 1990, roughly three times the national rate. Thirty percent of Indian children between six and fourteen years of age did not attend school. Indians also had significantly higher morbidity and mortality rates associated with infectious and parasitic illness, higher levels of nutritional deficiencies, and less access to such basic services as indoor plumbing, piped water, and electricity. Sourced from the University Of Congress library via website. Ethnicity is an important yet highly imprecise concept in contemporary Mexico. Students of Mexican society, as well as Mexicans themselves, identify two broad ethnic groups based on cultural rather than racial differences: mestizos and Indians. Each group has a distinct cultural viewpoint and perceives itself as different from the other. At the same time, however, group allegiances may change, making measurement of ethnic composition problematic at best. Originally racial designators, the terms mestizo and Indian have lost almost all of their previous racial connotation and are now used entirely to designate cultural groups. Historically, the term mestizo described someone with mixed European and indigenous heritage. Mestizos occupied a middle social stratum between whites and pure-blooded indigenous people (see Socieconomic Structures, ch. 1). Whites themselves were divided into criollo (those born in the New World) and peninsular (those born in Spain) subgroups. In contemporary usage, however, the word mestizo refers to anyone who has adopted Mexican Hispanic culture. Seen in this cultural context, both those with a solely European background and those with a mixed European-indigenous background are automatically referred to as mestizos. Mestizo , then, has become a synonym for culturally Mexican, much as ladino is used in many Latin American countries for those who are culturally Hispanic. Members of indigenous groups also may be called (and may call themselves) mestizos if they have the dominant Hispanic societal cultural values. If an indigenous person can become a mestizo, who, then, is an Indian? Anthropologist Alan Sandstorm lists minimum criteria that compose a definition of Indian ethnicity. According to Sandstorm, an Indian is someone who identifies himself as such; chooses to use an indigenous language in daily speech; remains actively involved in village communal affairs; participates in religious ceremonies rooted in native American traditions; and attempts to achieve a harmony with, rather than control over, the social and natural worlds. Should one or more criteria become absent over time, the individual probably has begun the transition to becoming a mestizo. Although mestizos and Indians may both reside in rural areas and have relatively comparable levels of income, they maintain different lives. Such differences can lead to highly negative perceptions about each other. Mestizos often contend that Indians are too unmotivated and constrained by tradition to deal appropriately with the demands of modern society. Indians, in turn, frequently complain that mestizos are aggressive, impatient, and disrespectful toward nature. Given the cultural use of the terms, it would be unrealistic to expect Mexican census officials to count the number of mestizos and Indians based on racial criteria. However, in measuring how many people speak an indigenous language, the census at least serves to identify a minimum number of racially unmixed Indians. In 1990, 7.5 percent of the Mexican population, or approximately 5.3 million people five years of age and over, spoke an Indian language. Of that total, approximately 79 percent knew Spanish as well and thus were at least potential cultural converts to the mestizo world. Enormous statewide differences exist in familiarity with indigenous languages (see fig. 6). Roughly speaking, familiarity with indigenous languages increases from north to south. The latest census showed that almost no native speakers lived in a band of eight contiguous states stretching from Coahuila in the northeast to Jalisco and Colima along the north-central Pacific coast. Speakers of indigenous languages constituted less than 5 percent of the population in states in the far northwest and along a central belt of states from Michoacán in the west to Tlaxcala in the east. The percentage climbed to between 10 and 20 percent in another contiguous grouping of states from San Luis Potosí to Guerrero, to 26 percent in Oaxaca, to 32 and 39 percent, respectively, in Quintana Roo and Chiapas, and to 44 percent in Yucatán. Only 63 percent of users of indigenous languages in Chiapas also knew Spanish. Specialists have identified twelve distinct Mexican linguistic families, more than forty subgroups, and more than ninety individual languages. Nearly 23 percent of all native speakers speak Náhuatl, the language of the Aztec people and the only indigenous language found in fifteen states. Other major indigenous languages include Maya (spoken by approximately 14 percent of all Indians and primarily used in the southeast from the Yucatan Peninsula to Chiapas); Zapotec (spoken by approximately 7 percent of all Indians and largely used in the eastern part of Oaxaca); Mixtec (also spoken by approximately 7 percent of all Indians and primarily found in Oaxaca and Guerrero); Otomí (spoken by approximately 5 percent of all Indians and used in central Mexico, especially the states of México, Hidalgo, and Querétaro); Tzeltal (spoken by nearly 5 percent of all Indians and used in Chiapas); and Tzotzil (spoken by roughly 4 percent of the Indian population and also used in Chiapas). With twelve different Indian languages, Oaxaca has the nation's most diverse linguistic pattern. Census data reveal that Indians remain the most marginalized sector of Mexican society. More than 40 percent of the Indian population fifteen years of age and older was illiterate in 1990, roughly three times the national rate. Thirty percent of Indian children between six and fourteen years of age did not attend school. Indians also had significantly higher morbidity and mortality rates associated with infectious and parasitic illness, higher levels of nutritional deficiencies, and less access to such basic services as indoor plumbing, piped water, and electricity. Sourced from the University Of Congress library via website.

because, it is territory of Georgia, communists named this peace of Georgia < South ossetia >, there lived Georgians! ossetians with Russians killed and kicked Georgians from there , because Russians wanted punish Georgia for its loving of freedom and democracy. this is very short answer: IT'S OUR, GEORGIAN LAND WE LIVED THERE 3000 YEAR!!!

and there are our burned homes, killed brothers and everything what I loved !!!

World War II reshaped almost the entire face of Europe and the countries that call the content home. Following the war, Denmark created a democratic government.

Pakistan share good relation with most countries but have strained relation with India right from its independence

The US was given control of Cuba in 1898 by the Treaty of Paris which ended the Spanish-American War. The treaty put the United States in total control of Cuba and the US took over military possession of the nation from January 1 1899 until May 20 1902, when the US possession of Cuba ended.

There goverment is unlimited so theres your answer