Fathers Rights in Childcare

Fathers Rights in Childcare In recent years the rights of Fathers has become a highly controversial issue. Groups such as father- 4-justice have embarked on hard-hitting campaigns that have attempted to expose discrimination within British Law and the judicial system against the rights of men to have access to their children after divorce. British law, it is argued, is both unequal in this regard and damaging to the welfare of children, fathers and families. In this essay I shall argue that British family law does indeed discriminate against fathers and that the law should be changed. The essay is divided into three main sections: (1) Cultural attitudes to fathers and fatherhood; (2) unequal treatment of fathers within British Family Law and the judicial system that upholds it; (3) the social and pyschological consequences of descrimination aagainst fathers and thus why/how the law should be changed. Cultural attitidues to fathers and fatherhood For centuries the dominant conception of the role of fathers was as the breadwinner who would provide for his wife and children. The role of women was to maintain the family home and care for the children. This division of roles was, and still is in some quarters, supported by natural law, scientific reason or religious belief. In other words, the traditional division of roles between men and women was either divinely ordained or it was simply the natural, biological order. Until recently, this division of roles enabled, in western societies, a patriarchal order. Men’s role enabled them to control the structures of power within society and thus the lmited rights of women. Family issues were largely a private matter and to a considerable extent beyond the jurisdiction of the law. Since the 1960’s however this patriarchal order has to a significant extent been diminished. The sexual liberation of women, the advancement of women in public life and secularisation has brought about a different set of cultural attitudes regarding the familial roles of men and women. However, this shift in cultural attitudes has not led to quite as much change in relation to the conception of the role of men. To be sure, it is now widely thought that men need not neccessarily be the main breadwinners and that they should carry out their fair share of household and child-caring duties. However, it is still widely believed, it would seem, that men are not as capable of caring for children as women are. For many women, it seems, the main function of men is as sexual partners and sperm donors. Once they have provided sperm, they are, for an increasing number of women, disposable. After all, women’s own increased financial security and the security provided by the state means that that they are not needed for financial support. As the following section attempts to demonstrate, this perception of the role of men is supported by the law. The unequal treatement of fathers in British Law Family Law: divorce Clearly, the point at which the rights of fathers becomes an issue is when marraiges or cohabitation breaks down. Given the unequal treatment of fathers that will be accounted for below, it is perhaps unsurprising that most requests for divorce are brought by women, some 80% in fact (Gross, 2004) It could be argued that the high rate of divorce has actually been encouraged by the ease with which it is now possible to obtain a divorce. The 1996 Family Law act introduced the no fault divorce (Oldham, 2004). This means that so long as one party believes that the ‘marraige is over’ the other party must accept that this is the case. Furthermore, the partner who requests divorce does not have to give any justification for the request for a divorce. To be sure, there is a provision for marraige counselling and mediation, which must have been exhuasted before divorce can be accepted (Oldham, 2004). However, there is very little power to enforce these measures and in any case onc e it has reached this stage it is unlikely that the marraige can be recovered. In theory, the no fault divorce is all well and good. Why should one partner be kept within a marraige that they are unhappy with. Surely, it cannot be good for the welfare of children if their parents do not get on with each other or if one partner is seriously unhappy. That said however, it could be argued that the ease with which it is possible to obtain a divorce has further diminished the rights of men. This is because, as will be further explained below, the rights of men to have access to their children, and in terms of the money they are expected to give over to their former wife, is descriminatory. More divorce means more marginalised men. Just as in the past when women were economically and culturally disadvantaged after divorce, so it is now the case for men except for somewhat differing reasons. Custody rights The 1996 Family Law act states that of paramount importance in allocating the custody rights of parents after divorce is the welfare of the children (Oldham, 2004). The problem is however that men and women are not considered equal in relation to their chances of ensuring the welfare of children. Indeed, neither parent actually has a right in law to see their own children but the resident parent i.e the women, is significantly advantaged. This is supported by the childrens act of 1989. This act carries no presumption whatsoever that the father should have rights to see his children (Oldham, 2004). All that is conferred by statute is that the father should not be prevented from having contact with his child ‘ at all and forever without some reason’. This means that if a mother seeks to prevent the father from having regular contact with his children she is almost certain to win, regardless. Furthermore, it means that the ‘contact’ can be variously defined fr om a minimum of supervised contact for an hour in a contact centre once a month. In fact the childrens act confers the rights of contact upon the children themselves. This means that if the child wishes to see the non-resident parent then his or her wish should be granted. On the other hand however, if the child does not wish to see the non-resident parent then contact will range from non-existent to minimal. Clearly this favours the resident parent because the resident parent is likely to be able to control the actions and wishes of the child. Family Courts The settlement of disputes regarding the allocation of contact rights through family courts leads to further descrimination against fathers. To begin with these courts meet in secret. Their delibarations are secret and thus so is the reasoning which led them to  arrive at a decision regarding the welfare of the children. The courts only need to refer to guidlines on the childs welfare, nothing else. And in almost every case this is bound to favour the resident parent, the mother (Gross, 2004). In cases where neither parent has been socially deviant, the mother can claim that the child is still not well looked after by the father when he is in custody of the children. Since the issue at hand is ‘how much contact should the father have given the welfare of the child’ and not ‘how is it possible to ensure an equitable, workable child caring arragement given the best interests of the child being contact with both parents’ then the burden is on the father to pr ove that he can care for the child adequately when in his care. This means that apparently minor concerns such as whether the child returns tired, emotionally upset or late can be raised against the father. It is not taken into account that these concerns can be an evryday normal occurence under the care of the mother. There is no wieghing up of interests between the fathers rights of contact, the legitimacy of the mothers view of the father and the childs interests. Rather, there is just an attempt to remove possible hinder ant’s to the childs welfare when considering applications for contact (Lockhart, 2001). In cases where there is no contact to begin with then it is unlikley that much further contact will be granted, because contact with the father is not recognised to be in the childs interests beyond those that have been explicitly expressed by the child. CAFCASS Family court judges follow the advice of Family Court Welfare Offices. These offices are responsible for the interpretation of the Children Act and Family Policy (Gross, 2004). They provide reports on the welfare of the children based on inspections, interviews with parents and the guidelines. The problem is that the training these officers recieve does not prepare them for judgement in individual cases. This means that judgement is more-or-less removed from the judicial process pertaining to the allocation of custody rights, because judges in family courts merely follow their recommendations. Most crucially the reports can also take into account claims by the mother that the father is violent or abusive towards his children. These claims are not tested through the proper judicial process and can simply remain as a slur on the  fathers character. Fathers rights groups claim that such claims should either be subject to criminal charges and thus trial in court or removed utterly. Wor se still, fathers do not have the rights and nor does anyone else, to question the Family Court Welfare Officer Enforcement In cases where the court has allocated the father a certain amount of contact time and when the mother has failed to meet the requirements there is also very little that can be done to enforce the order. Of course, if the non-resident parent fails to meet the requirements of the order then he could pay a heavy penalty. He could either have his contact entitlements completely removed or worse still fined, ordered to do community service or even imprisoned. There have been numerous cases where the father has been sent to prison for doing apparently harmless things such as sending presents on his childs birthday or waving to the child without gaining prior permission from the relevant authorities (Lockhart, 2001). On the other hand, when the fathers rights of contact have been denied then very little is or can be done because a rather narrow conception of the welfare of the child is the main consideration, which does not include the need for contact with both parents. Parental Alienation All of the procedures described above are subject to a condition called Parental Alienation (Hooper). This is when one parent, usuually the resident parent or mother in most cases, encourages the child to reject the non-resident parent. Clearly the resident parent has an advantage in this regard simply because she is with the child more often. According to the Stockholm Syndrome there is a psychological state whereby the captive takes on the beliefs and wishes of the captor and often wilfully and actively complies with them. In family court judgements and in the reports of family court welfare officers, parental alienation syndrome is hardly accounted for at all. This can not only be hurtful to the father it can also lead to the denial of his contact rights. The Child Support Agency The Child Support Agency is another instutution that enforces descrimination against fathers. In addition to Fathers being denied access to their children they are forced to pay in most cases around a third of their salary to the resident parent for the care of the child. At a superfical level the principle that non-resident parents should contribute financially to the upbringing of their children seems reasonable enough. However, when it is enforced in addition to a financial settelment after the divorce and a denial of the fathers rights to see his children it can be little short of barbaric, let alone unequal. Let’s deal with the unequal aspect first. The problem is that the agency seeks payement from the ‘absent parent’ which means fathers , universally, because fathers have been labelled as ‘absent’ parents regardless of any other circumstances. Worse still, in cases where the father earns a merely average income it can leave him with no possibil ity of obtaining another mortgage and limited chances of prusing another familial relationship. This situation can affect fathers who were neither in a married or cohabiting relationship with the mother and may only have known the mother for a short period of time. Since it is entirely the decision of the mother as to whether she has an abortion and at least half the responsibility of the mother to use contraception, this would appear both unfair and open to abuse. Why the law should be changes? The reasons provided above should already be ample evidence for why the law ought to changed. But the case is strengthened when we consider the consequences of descrimination against fathers. Depression The law offers no protection against fathers who have been denied access to their children, have had most of their assets taken away and who are forced to give over a third of their income. Indeed, the law promotes situations of this type. Therefore, many fathers drift into depression and even suicide. Consider an extreme but all to  probable scenario. After a divorce settlement brought about by continued acts of adultery, the mother decides that in order to guarantee her own best interests she lies to the welfare officer and the courts about the fathers violent and neglegant behaviour and encourages the child to do likewise. This accusation remains untried and untested but leads to the welfare officer producing an unfavourable report for the family court. Despite wanting to attempt to repair the marraige the father, who has already been forced to give up the family home and other assets, is ordered to remain out of contact with his children, who on the mothers instruction have exp ressed hatred towards him, and then asked to pay maintainence from his earnings for the childrens wlefare. He is then left alone, with only the means for basic self-substistence, without any contact with his children who he has been told do not want to see him anyway. The chances of surviving such a scenario without suffering severe depression would seem unlikely. Effects on children Whilst the welfare of the children is supposed to be of paramount concern to the law and the judges that implement it, the consequences for children of having limited contact with the father are rarely accounted for. Gone are the days when there was a widely accepted scientific consensus that deemed men naturally incapable of caring for children and when children were considered to be psychologically and emotionally dependent on the mother but not on the father. However, there remains relative silence about the effects on children as a result of fatherless families because it is considered offensive to one parent families, and to ethnic groups within which there is a propensity towards one-parent families. There is however, research that suggests that fathers have a positive impact on the lives and cognitive development of their children (Lockhart, 2001). Likewise there is also research that suggests that children with absent fathers are more likely to become socially deviant. Furthermore, the law offers little protection against children who are forced to remain in the care of unfit mothers who, despite their protestation that the father is neglegant or violent are unfit themselves to be the carer of the child. This is partly because the fathers views on this matter are not considered and it may only be the father who is  capable of forming them, since social care professionals are unlikely to have gained the level of access and knowledge needed to be able to make such a judgement. Are fathers rights human rights? Many campaigners on human rights have argued that the right of a father to have contact with his children should be considered a human right. If a human right is a right pertaining to the ability of a human being to live with basic human needs then surely the ability of fathers to have contact with children should be a human right. What could be more essential to a reasonable human existence than to have contact with and at least knowledge of ones children, for both parents. For most caring, responsible parents this is in fact more essential to a reasonable human existence than access to food or shelter. It is prior to all other needs and aspirations. Moreover, if there is any such thing as human rights then the right to regular contact with ones children should be the most fundamental of these rights. However, proclaiming the rights of fathers as human rights is possibly not the best way to attempt to establish such rights. Firstly, this is because, strategically, human rights declarations are often so vague and potentially contradictory that they can be overturned by the particular legal and political system that is supposed to protect them. One of the reasons for this is that it is notoriously difficult to prove, philosophically, what is a universal human right. Such a possibility is to a significant extent dependent upon the philosophical credibility of a conception of humaness, which will always be highly contested. Perhaps it would be better therefore to concentrate on conceptions of legal equality, citizenship and the good of society than proclaiming fathers rights as human rights. It would be better to argue that in a democratic society fathers should at the very least be given the right to defend their rights to have contact with their children in legitimate courts of law. Paths to the reform of family law and its implementation When considering the ways in which the unequal treament of men in British family  law it is best to first concentrate on the unexplored benifits of shared responsibility for children. Why not establish a default conception of the welfare of children which proposes that it is best for the childrenn, when no partner is socially deviant, for both parents to have an equal share of the responsibilities for the child’s care. The objection to this has been that it is too disruptive for the child, emotionally and in other practical respects, for the child to be regularly moving from one abode to another. But is this really the case? Clearly, very little research has been carried out on the potential effects of such an arrangement since it is hardly ever pursued. Another avenue for reform could be to radically improve the training of welfare officers. This would be a fairly simple and much less complicated measure that introducing a new family law. Welfare officers could at least be trained more specifically to detect the existence of parental alienation. To be sure this is not just a matter of training it would also involve putting the issue on the welfare checklist. Additionally, allegations of domestic violence and neglect ought to be removed from consideration unless they are proven. Some would argue that certain cases of domestic violence are hard to prove in court which would make children more vulnerable. But at least the burden of proof in respect to the suitability of fathers to care for children should be much tougher than it is at present. These would be piecemeal advances, but if the law is to truly treat men and women equally there needs to be a wholly new act. Such an act would not just be introduced to protect the rights of fathers, but to better protect the institution of the family and the welfare of children. Conclusion In conclusion we can say that for several reasons British family law unfairly descriminates against fathers. Firstly, there is no provision for the rights of fathers in family law in case or statute law. Secondly, the non-resident parents access to the child is dependent upon the consent of the child, which is bound to favour the resident parent, especially if there is implacable hostility between the two parents. Thirdly, the  judicial system that upholds family law also, institutionally, descriminates against men. This is because deliberation is made in secret and family welfare officers cannot be questioned, which simply maintains inequality within the law because it precludes the fathers point of view. For these reasons, and because the alienation of fathers can lead to depression and unfavourable effects on the children, the law should indeed be changed. Bibliography Robert C Lockhart Fathers Have Rights Too, Writers Club Press 2001 C A Hooper Do Families Need Fathers James T Gross Fathers Rights: A legal guide to protecting the best interests of your children. Sphinx 2004 Mike Oldham Statutes on Family Law, Oxford University Press 2004 www.fathers-4-justice.org

Romeo and Juliet Act 2 Scene 2 Analysis

Romeo replies to Juliet’s speech by agreeing to disown his name â€Å"Henceforth, I never will be Romeo†. Shakespeare implies the danger that the lovers are in when Juliet points out â€Å"the place death, considering who thou art†. This creates tension for the audience, and demonstrates Juliet’s concern for Romeo’s safety – â€Å"If they do see thee, they will murder thee. † Romeo speaks metaphorically when he says â€Å"With love’s light wings did I o’erperch these walls†, suggesting there is no boundary to his love.Romeo claims to find the idea of his death preferable to a life without the love of Juliet, â€Å"My life were better ended by their hate than death prorogued, wanting of thy love. † Juliet admits to be blushing â€Å"the mask of night is on my face, else would a maiden blush bepaint my cheek† and asks, â€Å"Dost thou love me? † She goes on to express concern that she may have be en too forward in her soliloquy asking him to forgive her for her foolishness â€Å"Therefore pardon me, and not impute this yielding to light love†.Romeo declares his love by â€Å"yonder blessed moon† using celestial references. Juliet responds by refusing to allow Romeo to swear by something so changeable â€Å"O swear not by the moon, th’ inconstant moon†. She fears that it is the way their love will be â€Å"Lest that thy love prove likewise variable†. Juliet encourages him to be genuine and to use a less traditional, more spiritual concept of love, reinforcing the idea that she is taking the relationship seriously.Juliet then tries to say goodnight â€Å"Sweet, good night. This bud of love, by summer’s ripening breath, may prove a beauteous flower when next we meet. † She then uses a rhyming couplet, â€Å"as sweet repose and rest come to thy heart as that within my breast. † Romeo expresses his wish to prolong their time together â€Å"O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied? † but they part as Juliet’s nurse calls her and they agree to meet again. â€Å"Stay but a little. I will come again† as they make a commitment to each other.Juliet, going against stereotype, suggests that they should marry, â€Å"If that thy bent of love be honorable, thy purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow†. This is very bold and, rather than taking her time as she suggests earlier in the scene, this is because she has realized Romeo has matured and is taking their relationship seriously. Juliet’s promise to Romeo to â€Å"follow thee, my lord, throughout the world† is full of dramatic irony and foreshadows the final scene of the play, when Juliet follows Romeo into death.The nurse calls for Juliet again who uses hyperbole â€Å"A thousand times good night! † which indicates that neither wants to leave and reinforces the message that their meeting must reach a conclusion for now. Juliet says, â€Å"Bondage is hoarse, and may not speak aloud†. This is referring to the fact that the lovers must keep their love quiet and away from the family feud. Later, Juliet uses further hyperbole â€Å"’Tis twenty years till then† implying that it will seem a lifetime until they next meet. At the end of the scene, Juliet says one of her most famous lines â€Å"Parting is such sweet sorrow†.This is a very well known oxymoron and demonstrates that she cannot bear to leave Romeo. The scene ends on several rhyming couplets. In conclusion, this scene demonstrates Romeo and Juliet’s attraction to each other and their desire never to be parted. I feel it is very moving, and poetic albeit surreal that a maiden could be so frank in those times and that a couple could achieve such a depth of love in such a short space of time particularly against such a divide. It also sets the scene for the final tragic sequence ahead.

The Hundred Years War History and Summary

The Hundred Years War was a series of connected conflicts between England, the Valois kings of France, factions of French nobles and other allies over both claims to the French throne and control of land in France. It ran from 1337 to 1453; you’ve not misread that, it is actually longer than a hundred years; the name derived from nineteenth-century historians and has stuck. Context of the Hundred Years War: English Land in France Tensions between the English and French thrones over continental land dated to 1066 when William, Duke of Normandy, conquered England. His descendants in England had gained further lands in France by the reign of Henry II, who inherited the County of Anjou from his father and control of the Dukedom of Aquitaine through his wife. Tensions simmered between the growing power of the French kings and the great power of their most powerful, and in some eyes equal, English royal vassal, occasionally leading to armed conflict. King John of England lost Normandy, Anjou, and other lands in France in 1204, and his son was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris ceding this land. In return, he received Aquitaine and other territories to be held as a vassal of France. This was one king bowing to another, and there were further wars in 1294 and 1324 when Aquitaine was confiscated by France and won back by the English crown. As the profits from Aquitaine alone rivaled those of England, the region was important  and retained many differences from the rest of France. Origins of the Hundred Years War When Edward III of England came to blows with David Bruce of Scotland in the first half of the fourteenth century, France supported Bruce, raising tensions. These rose further as both Edward and Philip prepared for war, and Philip confiscated the Duchy of Aquitaine in May 1337 in order to try and reassert his control. This was the direct start of the Hundred Years War. But what changed this conflict from the disputes over French land earlier was Edward III’s reaction: in 1340 he claimed the throne of France for himself. He had a legitimate right claim—when Charles IV of France had died in 1328 he was childless, and the 15-year-old Edward was a potential heir through his mother’s side, but a French Assembly chose Philip of Valois—but historians don’t know whether he really meant to try for the throne or was just using it as a bargaining chip to either gain land or divide the French nobility. Probably the latter but, either way, he called himself the King of France. Alternate Views As well as a conflict between England and France, the Hundred Years War can also be viewed as a struggle in France between the crown and major nobles for control of key ports and trading areas and equally a struggle between the centralizing authority of the French crown and local laws and independencies. Both are another stage in the development of the collapsing feudal/tenurial relationship between the King-Duke of England and the French King, and the growing power of the French crown/tenurial relationship between the King-Duke of England and the French King, and the growing power of the French crown. Edward III, the Black Prince and English Victories Edward III pursued a twofold attack on France. He worked to gain allies among disaffected French nobles, causing them to break with the Valois kings, or supported these nobles against their rivals. In addition, Edward, his nobles, and later his son—dubbed The Black Prince—led several great armed raids aimed at plundering, terrorizing and destroying French land, in order to enrich themselves and undermine the Valois king. These raids were called chevauchà ©es. French raids on the British coast were dealt a blow by the English naval victory at Sluys. Although the French and English armies often kept their distance, there were set-piece battles, and England won two famous victories at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), the second capturing the Valois French King John. England had suddenly won a reputation for military success, and France was shocked. With France leaderless, with large parts in rebellion and the rest plagued by mercenary armies, Edward attempted to seize Paris and Rheims, perhaps for a royal coronation. He took neither  but brought the Dauphin—the name for the French heir to the throne - to the negotiating table. The Treaty of Brà ©tigny was signed in 1360 after further invasions: in return for dropping his claim on the throne. Edward won a large and independent Aquitaine, other land and a substantial sum of money. But complications in the text of this agreement allowed both sides to renew their claims later on. French Ascendance and a Pause Tensions rose again as England and France patronized opposing sides in a war for the Castilian crown. Debt from the conflict caused Britain to squeeze Aquitaine, whose nobles turned to France, who in turn confiscated Aquitaine again, and war erupted once more in 1369. The new Valois King of France, the intellectual Charles V, aided by an able guerrilla leader called Bertrand du Guesclin, reconquered much of the English gains while avoiding any large pitch battles with the attacking English forces. The Black Prince died in 1376, and Edward III in 1377, although the latter had been ineffectual in his last years. Even so, the English forces had managed to check the French gains and neither side sought a pitched battle; stalemate was reached. By 1380, the year both Charles V and du Guesclin died, both sides were growing tired of the conflict, and there were only sporadic raids interspersed by truces. England and France were both ruled by minors, and when Richard II of England came of age he reasserted himself over pro-war nobles (and a pro-war nation), suing for peace. Charles VI and his advisors also sought peace, and some went on crusade. Richard then became too tyrannical for his subjects and was deposed, while Charles went insane. French Division and Henry V In the early decades of the fifteenth-century tensions rose again, but this time between two noble houses in France — Burgundy and Orlà ©ans — over the right to govern on behalf of the mad king. This division led to civil war in 1407 after the head of Orlà ©ans was assassinated; the Orlà ©ans side became known as the Armagnacs after their new leader. After a misstep where a treaty was signed between the rebels and England, only for peace to break out in France when the English attacked, in 1415 a new English king seized the opportunity to intervene. This was Henry V, and his first campaign culminated in the most famous battle in English history: Agincourt. Critics might attack Henry for poor decisions which forced him to fight a larger pursing French force, but he won the battle. While this had little immediate effect on his plans for conquering France, the massive boost to his reputation allowed Henry to raise further funds for the war and made him a legend in British history. Henry returned again to France, this time aiming to take and hold land instead of carrying out chevauchà ©es; he soon had Normandy back under control. The Treaty of Troyes and an English King of France The struggles between the houses of Burgundy and Orlà ©ans continued, and even when a meeting was agreed to decide upon anti-English action, they fell out once more. This time John, Duke of Burgundy, was assassinated by one of the Dauphin’s party, and his heir allied with Henry, coming to terms in the Treaty of Troyes in 1420. Henry V of England would marry the daughter of the Valois King, become his heir and act as his regent. In return, England would continue the war against Orlà ©ans and their allies, which included the Dauphin. Decades later, a monk commenting upon the skull of Duke John said: â€Å"This is the hole through which the English entered France.† The Treaty was accepted in English and Burgundian held lands—largely the north of France—but not in the south, where the Valois heir to France was allied with the Orlà ©ans faction. However, in August 1422 Henry died, and the mad French King Charles VI followed soon after. Consequently, Henry’s nine-month-old son became king of both England and France, albeit with recognition largely in the north. Joan of Arc Henry VI’s regents won several victories as they readied for a push into the Orlà ©ans heartland, although their relationship with the Burgundians had grown fractious. By September 1428 they were besieging the town of Orlà ©ans itself, but they suffered a setback when the commanding Earl of Salisbury was killed observing the city. Then a new personality emerged: Joan of Arc. This peasant girl arrived at the Dauphin’s court claiming mystic voices had told her she was on a mission to free France from English forces. Her impact revitalized the moribund opposition, and they broke the siege around Orlà ©ans, defeated the English several times and were able to crown the Dauphin in Rheims cathedral. Joan was captured and executed by her enemies, but opposition in France now had a new king to rally around. After a few years of stalemate, they rallied around the new king when the Duke of Burgundy broke with the English in 1435. After the Congress of Arras, they recognized Charles VII as king. Many believe the Duke had decided England could never truly win France. French and Valois Victory The unification of Orlà ©ans and Burgundy under the Valois crown made an English victory all but impossible, but the war continued. The fighting was halted temporarily in 1444 with a truce and a marriage between Henry VI of England and a French princess. This, and the English government ceding Maine to achieve the truce caused an outcry in England. War soon began again when the English broke the truce. Charles VII had used the peace to reform the French army, and this new model made great advances against English lands on the continent and won the Battle of Formigny in 1450. By the end of 1453, after all, English land bar Calais had been retaken and feared English commander John Talbot had been killed at the Battle of Castillon, the war was effectively over.

Us Foreign Policy - 2433 Words

1. Introduction The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking. In the sections that follow, a historical path will be traced through American foreign policy starting in 1776 with a watershed period†¦show more content†¦Carruthers (2005: 64) identifies Americas rapid industrial expansion as one of the key features of the 1900s. 3. The 1900s up to the end of World War II Initially foreign policy during this period rested upon what was known as Dollar diplomacy referring to Americas preference for a business oriented foreign policy rather than the use of force (Kegley et al, 2003: 32). The rest of this period would be marked by three world changing events, namely the First and Second World Wars and the great depression. Two important US Presidents also appeared during this period. The first was Woodrow Wilson, from 1912-1921. Wilson is most famous firstly for his long list of military interventions, depicting a shift in US policy towards interventionism. He is further remembered for his role in leading the US into World War I (WWI). And finally and perhaps most importantly from a global perspective, his calls for a system of collective security which eventually led to the formation of the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations (Kegley et al, 2003: 34). Americas late entrance into WWI was followed by a world-wide impetus to not return to a state of war ever again. Wilson led this revolution with his famous fourteen points outlining his vision for a more peaceful and stable world orderShow MoreRelatedUS Foreign Policy Essay1017 Words   |  5 PagesUS Foreign policy is what the United States of America does in foreign countries. This may include setting new rules or even controlling the countries’ governments. What the US does in other countries usually ends up creating a conflict or an uprising in the region. US foreign policy makes the world very unstable and it causes disagreements between countries. The Israel Lobby has a great deal of negative influence on US foreign policy. The US is also very keen to destroy WahabbistRead MoreEssay about President Bush And Us Foreign Policy1683 Words   |  7 Pages2000 raised a debate between democrat and republican and in the end the American people chose a new leader Mr. George w. Bush. President Bush clearly defined foreign policy objectives and goals. I have seen and hear our dear President Bush foreign policy after September 11. Following this, Bush has established its top priorities in foreign policy. He claims that an acts in the government to improve the international community through negotiation and cooperation. Likewise President Bush remark It isRead MoreUs Foreign Policy2444 Words   |  10 Pages1. Introduction The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linkedRead MoreUs Foreign Policy Essay902 Words   |  4 PagesUnited States Foreign Policy has always been in a constant form of metamorphosis. Gradually, since the birth of the United States of America, the country has been slowly evolving it’s policies and relations with other countries. The United States began its history as a insignificant isolated nation. It slowly overtime would change to what the powerhouse that it is today: A Global Superpower. Just after the 13 Colonies began the break with Britain, the nations first government would come into existenceRead MoreUs Foreign Policy Essay865 Words   |  4 PagesWhy is US foreign policy pulled to extreme of either doing too much or nothing at all? The inability of U.S. foreign policy to stay effective is because America has committed itself to supporting alliances that have not proven to be mutually beneficial. Foreign assistance, which is supposed to improve the well-being of recipient countries, goes directly to small coalitions. The United States, with the fear of losing its position on the global stage, has committed itself to the conundrum of regimeRead MoreThe Washington Rules Of Us Foreign Policy1513 Words   |  7 PagesThe â€Å"Washington Rules† project of US foreign policy has managed to sustain and regenerate itself since the end of World War Two. According to the theory of â€Å"Washington Rules,† the world must be ordered by the United States and cannot be permitted to order itself. This notion is considered to be a self-mechanism; the United States has a duty and moral obligation to be the world’s policeman to the point where other nations just naturally expect us to act. Nonetheless, we so metimes forget that by followingRead MoreEssay on Israel and US Foreign Policy1261 Words   |  6 Pagesof the US, served its own interests which were not always consistent with US interest in regional stability. The Israeli violations, however, were either condoned or even approved by the US administrations. These reactions comprised what this chapter addressed as a pro-Israel model of intervention. The pro-Israel intervention represented the US foreign policy reaction when the violation to regional stability was committed by Israel. The cases discussed above were evaluated against the US reactionRead MorePost-Cold War US Foreign Policy1417 Words   |  6 PagesPost-Cold War US Foreign Relations The Cold War and its ending with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and a great reduction in the threat of communism as a competing system to capitalism and democratic governance changed the focus of US foreign policy. The change did not happen overnight and has ebbed and flowed significantly across time, often associated with the nature of foreign conflicts and US involvement in them but change it did (Saull, 2007, p. 180). The reduction of the size, might andRead MoreUS Foreign Policy During the 20th Century797 Words   |  4 PagesOver the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America. It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrentlyRead MoreHistory And Political Science : Future Of Us Foreign Policy Essay1357 Words   |  6 PagesName: Course: Instruction: Date: History and Political Science: Future of US Foreign Policy America has been enjoying complete global domination for quite a while now. There is no other country on earth that has been able to do that; ever. For about 50 years, America has been the strongest in terms of its economy, its military might, as well as the cultural power it holds over the other countries in the world (Hastedt). For the last twenty years, all the rest of the world has known in terms of the