scholarly journals German authority halts primate work

Nature ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 455 (7217) ◽  
pp. 1159-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quirin Schiermeier
Keyword(s):  
German Authority

Treatment of Enemy Aliens

1918 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Garner
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
Substantial Agreement ◽  
Government Grants ◽  
German Authority ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Jay Treaty ◽  
The Right

Writers on international law are now in substantial agreement that a belligerent ought not to detain enemy subjects, confiscate their property, or subject them to any disabilities, further than such as the protection of the national security and defense may require. Vattel, in 1758, appears to have been the first writer to adopt the view that had come to be generally held by publicists at the time the present war broke out. “The sovereign,” he said, “who declares war has not the right to detain the subjects of the enemy who are found within his state, nor their effects. They have come to his country in public faith; in permitting them to enter and live in the territory, he has tacitly promised them all liberty and surety for their return. A suitable time should be given them to withdraw with their goods; and if they stay beyond the time prescribed, it is lawful that they should be treated as enemies, though as disarmed enemies.” Alexander Hamilton, in defending the Jay Treaty of 1794, declared that the right of holding property in a country always implies a duty on the part of its government to protect that property and to secure to the owner full enjoyment of it. “Whenever, therefore,” he added, “a government grants permission to foreigners to acquire property within its territories, or to bring and deposit it there, it tacitly promises protection and security — the property of a foreigner placed in another country, by permission of its laws, may be justly regarded as a deposit of which the society is the trustee.” Westlake, in 1907, adverting to the numerous treaty stipulations on the subject, remarked that they might be deemed to amount to “a general agreement, on the part of governments, that modern international law forbids making prisoners the persons of enemy subjects in the territory at the outbreak of war, or, saving the right of expulsion in case of apprehended danger to the state, refusing them the right of continuous residence during good behavior.” Referring to the right of expulsion, Ullmann, a respectable German authority, remarks that expulsion can be resorted to against the subjects of the enemy state, but only after a suitable delay has been offered in order to enable those affected to wind up their affairs.

Mkwawa and the Hehe Wars

1968 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Redmayne
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Attempted Suicide ◽  
Lake Tanganyika ◽  
Early History ◽  
The Other ◽  
Central Plateau ◽  
Political Unity ◽  
The People ◽  
German Authority ◽  
The Way

The Hehe now live mainly in the Iringa and Mufundi districts of Tanzania. Little is known of their early history before the mid-nineteenth century, when chief Munyigumba of Ng'uluhe extended his rule over the other chiefdoms of the Usungwa highlands and central plateau of Uhehe. By his death in ca. 1878 he had also won important victories against the chiefs of Utemikwila, Usangu and Ungoni.After Munyigumba/s death the Hehe suffered a temporary set-back when Mwambambe, who had been a subordinate ruler under Munyigumba, tried to usurp the chiefship, killed Munyigumba's younger brother and caused one of his sons, Mkwawa, to flee to Ugogo. However, eventually Mwambambe was killed in battle against Mkwawa, and his surviving followers, whom he had recruited from Kiwele, fled. By 1883, when Giraud visited Uhehe, Mkwawa was the unchallenged ruler of his father/s lands, and under him the Hehe, who had only recently acquired political unity, had extraordinary military success. Their most important raids were on the caravan route which ran from Bagamoyo on the coast to Lake Tanganyika. By 1890 these raids were a threat to German authority and a major obstacle in the way of colonization and the development of trade. In spite of the Germans' effort to make peace with them, the Hehe persisted in attacking caravans and the people who had submitted to the Germans so, in 1891, a German expedition was sent to Uhehe. This was ambushed and defeated by the Hehe, who then continued their raids, causing the Germans to return in 1894 with a larger expedition and destroy the Hehe fort. Chief Mkwawa may have attempted suicide in the fort, but he was persuaded to flee and then maintained his resistance to the Germans until 1898 when he shot himself to avoid capture. The Hehe then submitted to the Germans. Mkwawa's own determination not to surrender was a very important factor in the long struggle. During this war the Germans acquired a respect for the Hehe which has affected the way that the Hehe have been regarded and treated ever since.

Youth under German Authority, 1890-1945

1993 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Donna Harsch ◽  
Derek S. Linton ◽  
Willy Schumann ◽  
Josey G. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
German Authority

scholarly journals Translated literature as soft propaganda: examples from occupied Norway (1940-1945)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-159
Author(s):  
Ida Hove Solberg
Keyword(s):  
Archival Research ◽  
Literary Field ◽  
Contextual Features ◽  
German Authority ◽  
A Site ◽  
Translated Literature

Among the cultural fields censored under the Nazi rule of occupied Norway (1940-1945) during WWII, translated literature stands out as the most strictly controlled part of the literary field, censored by the Norwegian Literature and Library Office. Moreover, the Reich Commissariat (the highest German authority in occupied Norway) used the field of translated literature as a site for soft propaganda, here understood as subtle messaging, in contrast to hard propaganda, which is cruder and more heavy-handed. Aiming to investigate how the Reich Commissariat influenced the field of translated literature, this article presents findings from archival research focused on correspondence directly or indirectly involving the Reich Commissariat, taking into consideration textual and contextual features of the books and authors discussed. The article concludes that the Reich Commissariat had various ways of influencing publications of translated literature, being both overtly and covertly involved in publishing processes.

Bibliothekarische Normdaten und digitale Musikwissenschaft

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 338-357
Author(s):  
Barbara Wiermann
Keyword(s):  
Digital Humanities ◽  
Practical Realization ◽  
Theoretical Concepts ◽  
Authority File ◽  
German Authority

The paper presents the authority data provided by the German authority file (GND), its hisrory and conceptual founding in FRBR and FRAD. Referring to selected examples, the text scrutinizes carefully the potential and obstacles of using name authority data in digital humanities projects. However, the focus lies on the newly implemented work authority data that promises to be highly relevant for digital musicology. Challenges of theoretical concepts as well as practical realization are shown and different application scenarios are discussed. The author calls for a lively exchange between musicologists and librarians on the design and potential of the GND as basic musicological ontology.

Melanchthonian Method as a Guide to Reading Confessions of Faith: The Index of the Book of Concord and Late Reformation Learning

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kolb
Keyword(s):  
Theological Method ◽  
German Authority ◽  
Independent Existence ◽  
The Way

Horst Kunze, the contemporary German authority on indexing, writes, “An index is not a tool that has its own independent existence. It is an aid for the use of another literary object. It is like a signpost. Like a signpost it has no other purpose than to point the way in certain directions.” Indices seldom attract scholarly investigation. Casual users accept the index as a more or less objective guide to the contents of a book. However, the index prepared in 1580 for the initial publication of the Book of Concord, appearing in several of its first printings, was designed to point in specific directions, to cultivate a particular way for its primary audience to read the volume and put it to use. It took the form of loci communes—topics—as they had been developed a generation earlier by Martin Luther's Wittenberg colleague Philip Melanchthon for the proper, fruitful, study of theology. By selecting the doctrinal topics and categories into which pastors and teachers were to organize the content of this volume for their own use, this index offers one of the first theological commentaries on the Book of Concord. The index also reveals how Melanchthon's theological method continued to dominate the way the heirs of the Wittenberg Reformation thought—in spite of the fact that it directs readers away from and against the theology of some of Melanchthon's followers whom scholars have dubbed with his name, “Philippists.” (In fact, some contemporaries objected to the Book because they believed it to be anti-Melanchthonian.)

scholarly journals Progress in Authority Management of People Names for Collections

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quentin Groom ◽  
Chloé Besombes ◽  
Josh Brown ◽  
Simon Chagnoux ◽  
Teodor Georgiev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
International Workshop ◽  
Knowledge Graph ◽  
Data Mapping ◽  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ◽  
Integrated Network ◽  
Biographical Information ◽  
Geographically Dispersed ◽  
Biodiversity Knowledge ◽  
German Authority

The concept of building a network of relationships between entities, a knowledge graph, is one of the most effective methods to understand the relations between data. By organizing data, we facilitate the discovery of complex patterns not otherwise evident in the raw data. Each datum at the nodes of a knowledge graph needs a persistent identifier (PID) to reference it unambiguously. In the biodiversity knowledge graph, people are key elements (Page 2016). They collect and identify specimens, they publish, observe, work with each other and they name organisms. Yet biodiversity informatics has been slow to adopt PIDs for people and people are currently represented in collection management systems as text strings in various formats. These text strings often do not separate individuals within a collecting team and little biographical information is collected to disambiguate collectors. In March 2019 we organised an international workshop to find solutions to the problem of PIDs for people in collections with the aim of identifying people unambiguously across the world's natural history collections in all of their various roles. Stakeholders were represented from 11 countries, representing libraries, collections, publishers, developers and name registers. We want to identify people for many reasons. Cross-validation of information about a specimen with biographical information on the specimen can be used to clean data. Mapping specimens from individual collectors across multiple herbaria can geolocate specimens accurately. By linking literature to specimens through their authors and collectors we can create collaboration networks leading to a much better understanding of the scientific contribution of collectors and their institutions. For taxonomists, it will be easier to identify nomenclatural type and syntype material, essential for reliable typification. Overall, it will mean that geographically dispersed specimens can be treated much more like a single distributed infrastructure of specimens as is envisaged in the European Distributed Systems of Scientific Collections Infrastructure (DiSSCo). There are several person identifier systems in use. For example, the Virtual International Authority File (VIAF) is a widely used system for published authors. The International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI), has broader scope and incorporates VIAF. The ORCID identifier system provides self-registration of living researchers. Also, Wikidata has identifiers of people, which have the advantage of being easy to add to and correct. There are also national systems, such as the French and German authority files, and considerable sharing of identifiers, particularly on Wikidata. This creates an integrated network of identifiers that could act as a brokerage system. Attendees agreed that no one identifier system should be recommended, however, some are more appropriate for particular circumstances. Some difficulties have still to be resolved to use those identifier schemes for biodiversity : 1) duplicate entries in the same identifier system; 2) handling collector teams and preserving the order of collectors; 3) how we integrate identifiers with standards such as Darwin Core, ABCD and in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility; and 4) many living and dead collectors are only known from their specimens and so they may not pass notability standards required by many authority systems. The participants of the workshop are now working on a number of fronts to make progress on the adoption of PIDs for people in collections. This includes extending pilots that have already been trialed, working with identifier systems to make them more suitable for specimen collectors and talking to service providers to encourage them to use ORCID iDs to identify their users. It was concluded that resolving the problem of person identifiers for collections is largely not a lack of a solution, but a need to implement solutions that already exist.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document