• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!


Among the regiomal international syrtems into which the world was divided that which evolved in Europe was distinctive in that it came to repudiate any hegemonial principle and regard itself as a society of states that were sovereign or independent. This non-hegemonial society was not without historical precedent:the city states of classical Greece,the Hellenistic Kingdoms between the death of Alexander and the Roman conquest, perhaps the 'period of warring states' in ancient China,may all be thought to provide examples.


  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1


  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • sayshe
  • ベストアンサー率77% (4555/5904)

世界が分けられた地域の国家間のシステムの中では、それがいかなる覇権主義をも拒否し、それ自体を最高の、あるいは、独立した国家社会と考えるようになったという点で、ヨーロッパで進化したシステムは特徴的でした。 この非覇権主義の社会は、歴史の先例がないと言うわけではありませんでした: 古代ギリシャの都市国家、アレキサンダーの死とローマによる(プトレマイオス朝エジプトの)征服の間のヘレニズムの王国、おそらく古代中国の『春秋戦国時代』のすべてが、例を提供すると考えられるかもしれません。





  • この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(**)m

    Nor should it be overlooked that the European states, as they evolved this non-hegemonial system in their relations with one another,at the same time established a number of empires which,while they were rival and competing,taken together amounted to a European hegemony over the rest of the world,which in the nineteenth century became an immense periphery looking to a European centre. Moreover,the non-hegemonial system among the Europeans themselves was evolved only slowly,and with great difficulty,after 1500. よろしくお願い致します

  • この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(**)m

    However,it was never the case,before Europe unified the globe,that relations between states or rulers that were members of different regional international systems could be conducted on the same moral and legal basis as relations within the same system,for this basis was provided in part by principles that were culturally particular and exclusive: the unity of Christendom, the community of the faithful in Islam, the conception of the Chinese Empire as the Middle Kingdom. よろしくお願いします

  • 至急この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(*_*)m

    In this era preceding the emergence of a universal international society, what assumptions were made about the relationsbetween states or rulers that belonged to different regional international syrtems, as opposed to the much more intimate and continuous relations among states or rulers within the same system?This question has an important bearing on our study.We do not kmow enough to be able to provide a comprehensive answer to it,but certain things can be said.It is clearthat states or rulers have commonly enough entered into agreements with states or rulers-and indeed with merchants and other individuals and groups - outside their own regiomal international system and the civilization with which it is associated.

  • 英文の和訳で困っています 和訳を助けてください

    英文の和訳で困っています 和訳を教えていただきたいです よろしくお願いします!! Of the buildings in the forum area, it is in conceivable that the colonists did not make changes to the dominant temple at the northern end. Even if this was already dedicated to Jupiter, there was probably now a rebuilding that laid emphasis on the Capitoline version of that god’s cult, in which Jupiter shared honours with Juno and Minerva. It may have been at this stage that the base for the cult-statue within the temple was radically re-designed and monumentalized. At the south end of the forum the Comitium, or voting enclosure, though perhaps begun in the pre-colonial period, was brought to completion in the first years of the colony. Much of the building work of the colonists was carried out in a distinctive technique of quasi reticulatum in black lava with cornering in brickwork(often arranged to form a series of superposed wedges).

  • 英文の和訳をお願いします

    以下の文章です。 It is, of course, true that the emancipation of Asia and Africa and the development of the European crisis went hand in hand. Among the factors which facilitated the rise of independence movements in Asia and Africa, we must include the weakening of the grip of the European powers, Iargely as a consequence of their own discords and rivalries and of the wastage of resources in which their wars resulted. From the time of the First World War the incipient nationalist movements in the non-European world profited and the sudden collapse of the European empires after 1947 was to a large extent a consequence of external pressures and of the impact of world politics. In Asia neither the British nor the French nor the Dutch ever recovered from the blows inflicted by japan between 1941 and 1945; while in Africa and the Middle East they were checked and forced into retreat by pressures from the United States-acting directly and through the United Nations-which had a strong anti-colonial tradition of its own and was unwilling to stand aside while colonialism drove the peoples of Asia and Africa over to the side of the Soviet Union. Nationalism came to Asia a century later than it came to Europe and to black Africa fifty years later than to Asia. Two external events in the early years of the twentieth century were a powerful stimulus in its rise. The first was the victory of Japan over Russia in the war of 1904-5ー a victory hailed by dependent peoples everywhere as a blow to European ascendancy and proof that European arms were not invincible. Its impact was redoubled when, ten years later,the Japanese defeated the Germans in Shantung; and the successful campaigns of Kemal Ataturk against France in 1920 and Greece in 1922 were greeted in the same way as Asian victories over western military power. The second event was the Russian revolution of 1905ーa revolution which produced scarcely an echo in Europe but which, seen as a struggle for liberation from despotism, had an electrifying effect throughout Asia. The wave of unrest extended as far as Vietnam, and its impact, in sparking off the Persian revolution of 1906, the Turkish revolution of 1908 and the Chinese revolution of 1911, and in the new impetus it gave to the Indian Congress movement in 1907, was such that its consequences in Asia have been compared with those of the French revolution of 1789 in Europe.

  • 至急この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(*_*)m

    Societies which recognize that pacta sunt servanda among their own members,do not find it difficult to recognize the advantages of fulfilling obligations and contacts in dealings with individuals and groups in different societies.The fact that all societies appear to recognize that there is an obligation to fulfil contacts,alongwith prudential advantage in fulfilling them (just as,it is often argued,they all recognize rules that limit violence among their members and enjoin respect for rights of property) provides a basis for the extension of the principle of the sanctity of contracts beyond the bounds of particular societies.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.

  • 英文を和訳して下さい。

    The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks. Eventually, even under the "cruel" terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany′s economy had been restored to its pre-war status. Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany′s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. Barnett asserts that its post-war eastern borders were safer, because the former Austrian Empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the treaty "much enhanced" German power. Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again. By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that during the war the German right was committed to an annexationist program which aimed at Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa. Consequently, any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror would be unacceptable to them. Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles. Evans further noted that the parties of the Weimar Coalition, namely the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the social liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) and the Christian democratic Centre Party, were all equally opposed to Versailles, and it is false to claim as some historians have that opposition to Versailles also equalled opposition to the Weimar Republic.

  • この英文の構造について教えてください。

    バートランド・ラッセルの「The Conquest of Happiness」からの英文です。 They found themselves in the presence of something which awoke in them that sense of reverence which nothing else claimed, and something to which they felt, even in the very depths of their being, that an unquestioning loyalty was due. 彼らは、彼らの中に呼び起こした何かの存在の中に、他に値するものが何もない尊敬の意味、そして絶対的な忠誠が当然払われるものであると、彼らの存在のまさに深みの中でさえ、彼らが感じた何かに、気がついた。 と訳してみましたが、全体の構造がよくわかりません。 They(S) found(V) themselves in the presence of something (which) awoke in them が最初にあって、 以下はthat節でしょうか? (that) sense of reverence (which) nothing else claime, and something to( which) they felt(後半のthatにつながる→) (that) an unquestioning loyalty was due. even in the very depths of their being(挿入句)

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    " Thus it is that philosophy can supply no demonstrative refutation of idealism, even of the most extravagant form. Common sense, however, universally feels that analogy is here a safer guide to truth than the sceptical demand for impossible evidence; so that if the objective existence of other organisms and their activities is granted — without which postulate comparative psychology, like all the other sciences, would be an unsubstantial dream— common sense will always and without question conclude that the activities of organisms other than our own, when analogous to those activities of our own which we know to be accompanied by certain mental states, are in them accompanied by analogous mental states."