Richard Fuchs – författare

What really happened at Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864?The Union called it a massacre.The Confederacy called it necessity.TheTennessee spring came early that year, “awakening regional plants as warmer air and mois soil nurtured new life. Across the landscape could be seen the faint hint of green as sweet gum, hickory, oak cottonwood,…Sweet Williams, and wild dogwood added their hues.” This serene backdrop in hardly the place where one would imagine such a one-sided military atrocity to take place.Although at first glance the numbers are hardly noteworthy, the casualty ratio speaks volumes on the event. Eyewitness accounts relate “vivid recollection” of the numerous and specific nature of the injuries suffered by the survivors.”Controversy and scandal surround the Southern general Nathan Bedford Forrest. Why did it seem that he passively watched his men attack and mutilate more than one hundred apparently unarmed soldiers?Perhaps the biggest controversy involved racial prejudice. Was there a reason

What really happened at Fort Pillow on April 12, 1864?The Union called it a massacre.The Confederacy called it necessity.TheTennessee spring came early that year, “awakening regional plants as warmer air and mois soil nurtured new life. Across the landscape could be seen the faint hint of green as sweet gum, hickory, oak cottonwood,…Sweet Williams, and wild dogwood added their hues.” This serene backdrop in hardly the place where one would imagine such a one-sided military atrocity to take place.Although at first glance the numbers are hardly noteworthy, the casualty ratio speaks volumes on the event. Eyewitness accounts relate “vivid recollection” of the numerous and specific nature of the injuries suffered by the survivors.”Controversy and scandal surround the Southern general Nathan Bedford Forrest. Why did it seem that he passively watched his men attack and mutilate more than one hundred apparently unarmed soldiers?Perhaps the biggest controversy involved racial prejudice. Was there a reason that Fort Pillow was singled out for Confederate vengeance, with the knowledge that the majority of the men were African-American? Of the dead, 66 percent were black.An Unerring Fire answers these questions and more in a critical examination of what remains one of the most controversial episodes of the Civil War.

Over the past two decades, projects supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) have critically examined the ways in which information and communications technologies (ICTs) can be used to improve learning, empower the disenfranchised, generate income opportunities for the poor, and facilitate access to healthcare in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Considering that most development institutions and governments are currently attempting to integrate ICTs into their practices, it is an opportune time to reflect on the research findings that have emerged from IDRC’s work and research in this area. “Connecting ICTs to Development” discusses programmatic investments made by IDRC in a wide variety of areas related to ICTs, including infrastructure, access, regulations, health, governance, education, livelihoods, social inclusion, technical innovation, intellectual property rights and evaluation. Each chapter in this book analyzes the ways in which research findings from IDRC-supported projects have contributed to an evolution of thinking, and discusses successes and challenges in using ICTs as tools to address development issues. The volume also presents key lessons learned from ICT4D programming and recommendations for future work.

Over the past two decades, projects supported by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) have critically examined the ways in which information and communications technologies (ICTs) can be used to improve learning, empower the disenfranchised, generate income opportunities for the poor, and facilitate access to healthcare in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Considering that most development institutions and governments are currently attempting to integrate ICTs into their practices, it is an opportune time to reflect on the research findings that have emerged from IDRC’s work and research in this area. “Connecting ICTs to Development” discusses programmatic investments made by IDRC in a wide variety of areas related to ICTs, including infrastructure, access, regulations, health, governance, education, livelihoods, social inclusion, technical innovation, intellectual property rights and evaluation. Each chapter in this book analyzes the ways in which research findings from IDRC-supported projects have contributed to an evolution of thinking, and discusses successes and challenges in using ICTs as tools to address development issues. The volume also presents key lessons learned from ICT4D programming and recommendations for future work.

Seminar paper from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - Topic: Public International Law and Human Rights, grade: 1,0 (A), Western Michigan University (Department of Political Science), language: English, abstract: [...] The paper attempts to make this transatlantic conflict more transparent through a comparative analysis of U.S. and EU responses to the ICC. It provides historical knowledge about the ICC development from an unsettled idea to its final implementation, and it clarifies American and European National Interests behind the scenes. Within the analysis, American objections will be outlined and set in context with the European counter-arguments. The most controversial issues between the transatlantic partners including the prosecutorial powers, the question of immunity, the risk of politically motivated prosecutions as well as the rights of the accused in trial procedures will be at the heart of the debate. The paper works with the hypothesis that the ICC case constitutes a transatlantic clash of ideologies centering on a fundamentally different interpretation of national sovereignty. Whereas the European Union considers the ICC as an expansion of its national sovereignty and its sphere of influence, the U.S. views the same issue as an infringement of its Constitutional Rights (Macpherson & Kaufman, 2002, p. 220). Whereas the EU is in fear of a possible double standard in International Human Rights Law, the U.S opposes automatism in ICC jurisdiction as a result of its universality. For the EU, a double standard in International Human Rights Law would occur, if American citizen were granted immunity without specification of time and conditions. For the US, the rejected automatism is the Court s right to step in and take over a case under ICC jurisdiction if a trial is not preceded after the Rome Statute Rules of Procedure . For the purpose of our research, the paper will start with the definition of State Sovereignty of Langley, which defines the multifaceted term as a fundamental concept of international law, defining the supreme authority of each state to make and enforce laws with respect to all property, events, institutions and persons within its borders (Langley, 1999). I conclude that that we indeed can see in the ICC case study urgent evidence for an ideological gap between the EU and the US, because the main arguments on both sides can all be traced back to the underlying question, how national sovereignty is defined under the current Rome Statute, so that we have to redefine the above mentioned definition for the US, respectively for the EU.