The Peace of Westphalia, 1648

The Peace of Westphalia, 1648 In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia signalled the end of a decades old European conflict. It is difficult to decipher the true meaning of the Peace of Westphalia because it represented the end of a war which ended in a way which was different from where it began. Religious confrontation morphed into a struggle and opportunity to advance state strategic interests. However, Leo Gross, Andreas Osiander, and Derek Croxton each make varying arguments on the effects of the Peace of Westphalia. In The Peace of Westphalia, 1648-1948, Leo Gross contends that the Peace of Westphalia is significant because it consecrated the principle of toleration by establishing the equality between Protestant and Catholic states and by providing some safeguards for religious minorities.  [1]  Thus, he states the Peace of Westphalia was the starting point for the development of modern international law.  [2]  Essentially, no one country would have a right (divine or other) to have power over another, as each states was acknowledged as sovereign. However, although this would be nice in theory, history has shown that Europe bled itself dry because of conflicts in the centuries following the Peace of Westphalia. Gross states that the Peace of Westphalia marked mans abandonment of the idea of hierarchical structure of society and his opinion for a new system characterized by the coexistence of a multiplicity of states, each sovereign within its territory, equal to one another, and free fr om any external earthly authority.  [3]  This statement is fundamentally flawed, although perhaps in theory, each state was equal they were absolutely not equal. It would be foolish to treat all states following the Peace of Westphalia as equally sovereign. For example he German states gained the right to ally themselves with states outside of the Holy Roman Empire, but the Swiss and the Dutch gained de facto sovereignty. Gross strengthens his argument when he acknowledges precedents set by previous treaties; however his constant romanticization of the Peace of Westphalia harms his argument, as it seems he focuses on his nostalgic viewpoint of the Peace of Westphalia.  [4]  Because no formal declaration of sovereignty existed at the time of the Peace of Westphalia, the parties involved found it individually beneficial to advance their national strategic interests, by enhancing state power. For example, Frances cardinal Richelieu was a brilliant realist strategist. Even thoug h the Austria and Spain were Catholic powers, he believed that Frances national interest could be advanced by opposing these two powers. France even continued to fight Spain while seeking a separate peace with Austria. Moreover, Grosss argument contains a glaring post hoc ergo. Gross states that we should search not so much in the text of the treaties themselves as in their implications, in the broad conceptions on which they rest and the developments to which they provided impetus.  [5]  The fallacy is that Gross claims that because the Peace of Westphalia was before our modern conception of sovereignty, it does not necessarily follow that the Peace of Westphalia alone created our modern conception of sovereignty. There were many more factors at play. Grosss argument is too straightforward as it assumes that all actors following the war were fundamentally equal. In Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth, Andreas Osiander contends that The Peace of Westphalia is a product of nineteenth and twentieth century fixation on the concept of sovereignty. I conclude by discussing how what I call the ideology of sovereignty has hampered the development of IR theory  [6]  According to Osiander the (Thirty Years) war continued because the Swedish and French crowns wanted to enhance their positions in Europe.  [7]  He comes to a conclusion that if the war war not fought to ward off a threat to the independence of other European actors posed by the Hasburg dynasty, then the tradition of the 1648 peace cannot be right either  [8]  Nineteenth and twentieth century historians readily espoused the view somehow that the Danes, Dutch, French, and Swedes were really defending themselves while also selflessly helping others to ward off oppression  [9]  He claims this is why the Peace of Westphalia is often seen as an anti-he gemonial order.  [10]  He directly accuses Leo Gross as spreading this false view. Osiander claims that many subsequent literature on this view, assume Grosss views to be self evident and implied in the treaty. Osiner strengthens his argument when he quotes another scholar who agree with him, Stephen Krassner. Osiander claims that history has viewed the Hasburgs as the villains of the Thirty Years War, and that the original crisis did not break out because the Hasburgs were powerful, but because they were weak.  [11]  Andreas Osiander views the Peace of Westphalia through the viewpoint of a postmodernist. He is challenging our previous knowledge of the Peace of Westphalia, and underlying assumptions held by previous scholars. He is purposely reversing traditional notions of historical interpretations such as the belief of the Hasburg dynasty as the villains of the Thirty Years War. Osiander is correct to warn there may be a harm of placing our values, our beliefs, onto histo rical events. Osianders argument is important as it forces us to re-examine commonly held beliefs about the Peace of Westphalia and its significance. Moreover he claims that Sovereignty as currently understood does not go back to the seventeenth century; that even then and nevertheless, relations among autonomous actors were perfectly possible without waiting for the concept to be invented; that the degree of autonomy of the actors might very.  [12]  He strengthens his argument when he acknowledges that the relationships between the actors involved in the Peace of Westphalia were very complex. In The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty, Derek Croxton doubts as whole, that sovereignty was a main principle of the Peace of Westphalia. Croxtons main argument is that de facto sovereign states existed at a time when few statesmen had anything like the modern conception of sovereign equality as the founding notion of the international system.  [13]  Croxton acknowledges that the main difficulty of the origins of sovereignty lies not in rulers which claims themselves to be sovereign but other leaders who acknowledge that sovereignty.  [14]  He accurately points out that papal authority was already in decline, the Peace of Westphalia just quickened the pace of the decline.  [15]  Croxton states that many scholars claim that sovereignty was dispersed to kings and princes in the Holy Roman Empire following its defeat in the Thirty Years war. However, he bluntly and correctly notes that the Holy Roman Empire lasted for another 158 years  [16]  an d that although the estates were given new rights, including the right to make alliances with outside powers and a territorial right of dominions, the rights demonstrate the limits to their sovereignty rather than its triumph superiority within their own.  [17]  Moreover, Croxton claims that The idea of sovereignty was not new in the 1640s; the question was whether sovereignty should be multipolar.  [18]  This view correctly challenges the assumption that the Peace of Westphalia was a groundbreaking event, even though it did make changes to the international system of politics. Throughout the readings, it is apparent that the relationship between the European states was very complicated, intricate, and included interrelationships based upon numerous factors. These factors could include a balance of religious, imperial, interstate and intrastate relationships. The Peace of Westphalia promoted the division of power, but ironically it also created a new balance of power among the European states. The The Peace of Westphalia promoted more moderation on behalf of all states, as whenever a power tried to dominate Europe (i.e. Napoleonic France or Hitlers Germany), there emerged a coalition of opposing forces to restore the balance of power. The balance of power did not avoid crisis, but it did create an equilibrium in which no one state had the ability to completely dominate the others.

Skills and Knowledge

Common core The rights of children and young people are acknowledge by the integrated services surrounding them and their families in order to identify and achieve a common core value; being healthy, staying safe, achieving and enjoying, making positive contribution, achieve economic wellbeing, which are the sis areas of every child matters. I will talk about these key areas more in depth as we continue.There are six key areas of every child matters and for a better understanding each areas and the importance it will looked at individually starting from numbers one [1] to six [6]. Here are the list as stated in the common core. 1. Effective communication and engagement 2. Child and young person development 3. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of a child 4. Supporting transition 5. Multi-agency working 6. Sharing information Effective communication Good communication is central to working with children, young people, their families and carers† the importance for skills and knowledge as stated in the common core gives a clear view as to the reasons and why it is so important to fallow these guidelines; Trust is a key part of effective communication between the those that are involved, a honest and open relationship is better to build by showing respect to the families you are working with, this can be reached if those involved do not feel under value and ignored.Showing honesty and respect for them by demonstrating that there too are apart of what is taking place in there surroundings. Communication is a two (2) way street and be aware that there are numerous ways of communicating which verbal(this is done orally or written), non-verbal(done in the form of body language, appearances and sounds ). It is also important to take into consideration the barriers of communications such as; disabilities, language, culture and emotionsEach families may have different barriers of communication so knowing that they are involved with people that they are able to t rust and rely on with confidence will initially ease some of their concerns the significance of being seen as individuals with valued opinions is vital. Maintaining confidentiality and ethics means you may often be required to share information with other agencies/services it is necessary to the welfare or wellbeing of individual families involved also bearing in mind that it is best to ensure they understand the reasons for this.Family should be kept informed of available local services that might be beneficial to their needs and how to used information they are given. By treating everyone as individuals with respect shows commitment Child and young person development Children and young people development varies and is different for each of child/young person, parent and carer sometimes finds it difficult manage and will often seek advice and support. Your knowledge and understanding of babies and young people and how to recognise changes or possible developmental delay will be nec essary.Children and young people sees and experience the world differently after evaluating the situation surrounding the child/young person where you feel more support is needed and when to get others professional involved you will then need to base your information of the fact of the situation and not of your own opinion. A sheared understanding can be reached the if individuals actively speaking and listening and breaking down and barriers making sure everyone is understanding. Allowing them come to their own conclusion on the matter while

Paul Bunyan Wordsearch, Crossword Puzzle and More

The John Newbery Medal and Current and Past WInners

In the United States, the John Newbery Medal is the most prestigious childrens book award that an author can receive. The Newbery Medal is an annual children’s book award administered by the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC of the American Library Association (ALA). According to the ALSC section of the ALA Web site, To be selected as the author of the most distinguished contribution to American literature for children, the book must have been published the previous year in English by an American publisher in the United States. The John Newbery Medal, commonly referred to as the Newbery, has been awarded every year since 1922. It is named for John Newbery, an eighteenth-century British bookseller. To be eligible for a Newbery, either winning the Newbery Medal or having your book designated a Newbery Honor Book, the following terms must also be met: The author(s) must be either citizens or residents of the United States. Fiction, non-fiction, and poetry are all eligible, but reprints and compilations are not. The book must be written for children, with children defined as â€Å"persons of ages up to and including fourteen.† The book must be an original work. A book that was originally published in another country is not eligible. The 2016 Newbery Award Winners The 2016 Newbery award winners, the Medal winner, and three Honor Books  include a picture book, a graphic novel, a fairy tale with historical elements and historical fiction. Below is a brief look at the winners and reviews of the books. 2016 John Newbery Medal Winner Author Matt de la Peà ±a won the 2016 Newbery Medal for his picture book Last Stop on Market Street, which Christian Robinson illustrated. The publisher is G. P. Putnam’s Sons, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA). Matt de la Peà ±a is most well-known for his young adult novels, which include Mexican WhiteBoy, The Living, and The Hunted. He is also the author of the Infinity Ring middle-grade books and one other picture book A Nation’s Hope, The Story of Boxing Legend Joe Louis. 2016 Newbery Honor Books The War That Saved My Life,  by Kimberly Brubaker Bradley. While featuring a historical World War II setting, the characters are products of Bradleys imagination. Dial Books for Young Readers, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA) is the publisher. For more information, read the book review of The War that Saved my Life.Roller Girl,  written and illustrated by Victoria Jamieson.  Roller Girl is Victoria Jamieson’sfirst graphic novel for middle-grade readers, and she brings to it her own experiences with the sport of roller derby.  Dial Books for Young Readers, an imprint of Penguin Group (USA) is the publisher.  For more information, read the book review of .Echo, by Pam Muà ±oz Ryan. Scholastic Press, an imprint of Scholastic Inc. is the publisher. Ryan, the author of more than 40 books, has received numerous awards for her writing, including winning the Pura Belprà © Medal twice, for The Dreamer and Esperanza Rising.  For more information, read the book review of E cho. If you are looking for more good books geared towards the 9- to 14-year-old age range, be sure and take a look at the following features about children’s books that have received Newbery Medals or honors: John Newbery Medal Winners: 2015 to 1922The 2014 Newbery Medal Winner and Honor BooksThe 2013 Newbery Medal Winner and Honor BooksThe 2012 Newbery Medal Winner and Honor BooksThe 2011 Newbery Medal Winner and Honor BooksThe 2010 Newbery Medal Winner and Honor BooksThe 2009 Newbery Medal Winner and Honor Books. Source: ALSC/ALA