Senat

United States Senate Committee on Foreign RelationsBiblio.com

Neutrality Peace Legislation and Our Foreign Policy; Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Seventy-sixth Congress First Session The Following Bills and Resolutions are Pending before the Committee for Consideration S. J. Res. 21 S. J. Res. 67 S .J. Res. 97 S .J Res. 106 S. Con. Res. 8 S.203 S.1745 Part 1 April 5 1939 through Parts 21 May 8 1939

1939réf. 91299Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office 1939. Presumed First Edition First Printing. Hardcover. Good. ii 613 7 pages. Fold-out. Marbled endpapers and edges. Minor moisture staining at lower right corner of some pages. Sturdy institutional binding. Tape residue at middle of spine. The Neutrality Acts were a series of acts passed by the US Congress in 1935 1936 1937 and 1939 in response to the growing threats and wars that led to World War II. They were spurred by the growth in isolationism and non-interventionism in the US following the US joining World War I and they sought to ensure that the US would not become entangled again in foreign conflicts. The legacy of the Neutrality Acts is widely regarded as having been generally negative since they made no distinction between aggressor and victim treating both equally as belligerents and limited the US government's ability to aid Britain and France against Nazi Germany. The Acts were largely repealed in 1941 in the face of the Lend-Lease Act. As noted by the Chairman "It is universally agreed by international lawyers that there should be no substantial change in the laws of a neutral as affecting a belligerent after declared or undeclared war takes place. Among the witnesses and participants are Bernard Baruch Henry Stimson Hugh Johnson Walter Judd; Breckinridge Long George Wharton Pepper James Shotwell Charles Tansill Edmund Walsh Raymond Buell Bainbridge Colby Paul Revere Sentinels and Dorothy Thompson. In philosophy neutrality is the tendency to not take a side in a conflict physical or ideological which may not suggest neutral parties do not have a side or are not a side themselves. In colloquial use neutral can be synonymous with unbiased. However bias is a favoritism for one side distinct from the tendency to act on that favoritism. Neutrality is distinct though not exclusive from apathy ignorance indifference doublethink equality agreement and objectivity. Apathy and indifference each imply a level of carelessness about a subject though a person exhibiting neutrality may feel bias on a subject but choose not to act on it. A neutral person can also be well-informed on a subject and therefore need not be ignorant. Since they can be biased a neutral person need not feature doublethink i.e. accepting both sides as correct equality i.e. viewing both sides as equal or agreement a form of group decision-making; here it would require negotiating a solution on everyone's opinion including one's own which may not be unbiased. Objectivity suggests siding with the more reasonable position except journalistic objectivity where reasonableness is judged by some common basis between the sides such as logic thereby avoiding the problem of incommensurability. Neutrality implies tolerance regardless of how disagreeable deplorable or unusual a perspective might be. In moderation and mediation neutrality is often expected to make judgments or facilitate dialogue independent of any bias emphasizing on the process rather than the outcome. For example a neutral party is seen as a party with no or a fully disclosed conflict of interest in a conflict and is expected to operate as if it has no bias. Neutral parties are often perceived as more trustworthy reliable and safe.38 Alternative to acting without a bias the bias of neutrality itself is the expectation upon the Swiss government in armed neutrality and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in non-interventionism. The Oxford English Dictionary documents that by at least 1897 "neutral" meant applying the rules to the facts as in football "Neutral linesmen shall officiate in all games." In the Supreme Court decision Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth based on the United States Constitution's First Amendment the court decided some funding decisions should be made through a neutral viewpoint. United States Government Printing Office hardcover

Ground Zero Books · États-Unis1 250,00 $US≈ 1 116,77 €

Senat

Senat

Siècle

Langue

Pays du libraire

Photos

Ajouté

Sujets

Catalogues

Siècle

Langue

Pays du libraire

Photos

Ajouté

Sujets

Catalogues

Siècle

Langue

Pays du libraire

Photos

Ajouté

Sujets

Catalogues