The Role of the European Imperial Powers throughout the Armenian Schism in the 1870s

The Bull "Reversurus" (1867) and its dogmatic legitimization at the First Vatican Council in 1870 caused not only ecclesiastical controversy and Schism in the Armenian Catholic Church, but it had also wide political consequences for the Armenian Catholics in the Ottoman Empire. The conflict originally between the Armenian Catholics and Rome attracted very soon the attention of the European imperial Powers. France, the British Empire, the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Russia were the main political powers who were involved in the Armenian affair. A full picture of the role of all these powers for the course of the Armenian Schism is missing. Mostly the role of France is foregrounded in the printed sources, as the main power, which supported the papacy to win during the Armenian affair. The role and the motives of the other imperial powers is almost missing. This article will try to describe as completely as possible the historical and political background, which brought to the escalation of the Armenian conflict beyond the national frontiers and led to number of conflicts at the international and transnational level. It will be shown that the imperial policy in Europe in the 19th century have played an enormous role throughout the Armenian Schism. It will be explained that several historical circumstances in Europe, especially the relation of the European imperial powers to each other as well as their expectations from the Ottoman Empire and its Armenian subjects were decisive for the duration and conclusion of the Armenian Schism.

Imperial legacy? The EU's Developmental Model and the Crisis of the European Periphery. CES Papers - Open Forum #19, 2013-2014

The high hopes for rapid convergence of Eastern and Southern EU member states are increasingly being disappointed. With the onset of the Eurocrisis convergence has given way to divergence in the southern members, and many Eastern members have made little headway in closing the development gap. The EU´s performance compares unfavourably with East Asian success cases as well as with Western Europe´s own rapid catch-up to the USA after 1945. Historical experience indicates that successful catch up requires that less-developed economies to some extent are allowed to free-ride on an open international economic order. However, the EU´s model is based on the principle of a level-playing field, which militates against such a form of economic integration. The EU´s developmental model thus contrasts with the various strategies that have enabled successful catch up of industrial latecomers. Instead the EU´s current approach is more and more reminiscent of the relations between the pre-1945 European empires and their dependent territories. One reason for this unfortunate historical continuity is that the EU appears to have become entangled in its own myths. In the EU´s own interpretation, European integration is a peace project designed to overcome the almost continuous warfare that characterised the Westphalian system. As the sovereign state is identified as the root cause of all evil, any project to curtail its room of manoeuvre must ultimately benefit the common good. Yet, the existence of a Westphalian system of nation states is a myth. Empires and not states were the dominant actors in the international system for at least the last three centuries. If anything, the dawn of the age of the sovereign state in Western Europe occurred after 1945 with the disintegration of the colonial empires and thus historically coincided with the birth of European integration.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countires. Statistics, 1920-1922. Gypsum.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Coal, coke & by-products.

At head of title: Imperial mineral resources bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Petroleum and allied products.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Zinc.

"References to technical literature":p. 165-193.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Uranium (Radium) minerals.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Tantalum and niobium.

Mode of access: Internet.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Zinc.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Gold.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Tin.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1919-1921. Diamonds.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.

The mineral industry of the British empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1920-1922. Antimony.

At head of title: Imperial mineral resources bureau.

The mineral industry of the British empire and foreign countries. Statistics, 1919-1921. Antimony.

At head of title: Imperial mineral resources bureau.

The mineral industry of the British Empire and foreign countries. Statistics,1920-1922. Lead.

At head of title: Imperial Mineral Resources Bureau.