Foram encontradas 292 questões.
Text III
Much has been written about the superlative qualities desirable in diplomacy. Few persons can embody them all, but the greater part of a diplomat’s armoury can be developed and improved by sincere application guided by advice and example of his/her seniors. One must be concerned primarily with the foundations on which to build. For these the selectors must be satisfied there is a hard core to the applicant’s personality. On it will rest the courage, toughness in confrontation, patience and perseverance without which many more brilliant gifts can come to grief. Contrary to popular belief, diplomacy is not a career for the compliant. It often imposes on an officer the duty of defending the interests of his/her country in places not of his/her choice, where he/she must be prepared to withstand the moral attrition to which he/she may be exposed in the front line of international politics.
Lord Gore-Booth and Desmond Pakenham. Satow’s
guide to diplomatic practice. 5.th ed. London and New York: Longman, 1979, p. 79 (adapted).
Considering the grammatical and semantic aspects of text III, decide whether the following items are right (C) or wrong (E).
The word “armoury” can be correctly replaced by arsenal since both words can be used in the context to indicate the skills a diplomat should have.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Considering the grammatical and semantic aspects of text II, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
Because the word “deployed” can be related to the meaning of putting troops or weapons in a position ready to be used, in the text it reinforces the idea that panda bears have acquired political and strategic significance.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Considering the grammatical and semantic aspects of text II, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
In “But this is merely an extension”, the word “this” refers to the statement that “the panda bear in the zoo is China”.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Considering the grammatical and semantic aspects of text II, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
As used in the text, the word “posit” is synonymous with ignore
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Considering the grammatical and semantic aspects of text II, decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E).
The point made by the author in “Unfortunately, it was (…) that of representation” would remain the same if this passage were rewritten as Sadly, only recently have political scientists started to actively engage in the study of diplomacy as a conceptual phenomenon, and this delay has led to the irrefutable axiom of representation.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text II.
The view on representation expressed by the author is broader and more flexible than the one which considers that “diplomacy is about people representing polities”
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text II.
One can correctly infer from the text that the author is against the exploitation of animals for political or diplomatic ends.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text II
What do politically minded visitors to a zoo feel when they stand in front of the panda bear’s cage? The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange — there is an intuitive knowledge that this panda, constantly eating bamboo in front of a cheerful and amazed audience, is deeply charged with political agency.
Estrangement from the familiar is the start of every theory. Unfortunately, it was only recently that political scientists have embarked on exploring diplomacy systematically as a conceptual phenomenon, generating one unquestionable axiom: that of representation. As with any axiom, it is unprovable, but it is the taken-for-granted starting point for all further research: most scholars agree on the basic postulate that diplomacy is about people representing polities (most often a state) vis-à-vis another polity.
One should mention that the notion of political representation is a theoretical axiom applicable to all countries, but let us explore the example given by the panda bear and, consequently, by China a little further.
It is often correctly perceived that the speech of an accredited Chinese ambassador is attributable to the Chinese government. It is “China” who spoke, not (just) the individual person. This is the basis of representation. But what is often forgotten is how non-human material can represent polities — they are also diplomats, but mute.
It may sound ridiculous, if not provocative, to posit that the panda bear in the zoo is China. But this is merely an extension of the basic premise of diplomatic theory. Why should only human individuals be able to represent a state? In periods of conflict, flags (material objects) are burnt, walls are erected, monuments torn down; in times of better political mood, heads of states exchange precious gifts with each other, while embassy buildings in foreign countries enjoy a “sacred” legal status. Flags, walls, monuments, gifts, and the embassies re-present, i.e. “bring into presence,” a country, and actions toward these objects address the states they represent.
And there are good grounds for sensing a foreign policy tool in the giant pandas that now reside in zoos all over the world. They prominently embody China’s modern public diplomacy; they are non-human material deliberately deployed by the Chinese government to the soil of other states; and they have, at times, served as the primary means of expressing inter-state sentiment — during times of both conflict and cooperation —, in instances of the so-called “panda diplomacy”.
Andreas Pacher. The Diplomat. Nov./2017. Internet: <https://thediplomat.com> (adapted).
Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text II.
The passage “The previously cute panda may suddenly strike them as strange” indicates that people may become aware that panda bears kept outside China can be signs of international political forces.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text I
With this report, our aim is to present initial reflections on diplomacy in the digital age. In the ongoing debate amongst international relations scholars, information and communication technology (ICT) experts, digital strategists, social media advocates and others, the first question for us is: what is happening to diplomacy? And the obvious answer is what has always happened to it: diplomacy is responding to changes in the international and domestic environments, in the main centres of authority, particularly states, and in the character of societies at home and abroad.
“Newness” in diplomacy today has everything to do with the application of new communications technologies to diplomacy. This issue goes right to the heart of diplomacy’score functions, including negotiation, representation and communication. Given the centrality of communication in diplomacy, it is hardly surprising that the rise of social media should be of interest to practitioners of diplomacy. Most of them, like people outside diplomatic culture, are in the process of adjusting their “analogue” habits and finding their own voice in a new information sphere. This takes time, and for technological enthusiasts to simply proclaim the arrival of a “new statecraft” in the form of what is variously termed e-diplomacy, digital diplomacy, cyber diplomacy and “twiplomacy” is too simplistic.
Paradoxically, greater complexity encourages shallow, hurried analyses and the search for simple explanations about what is happening to diplomacy as the regulating mechanism of the society of states. As in other epochs of fast technological change, the lure of quick fixes addressing multifaceted processes of change in diplomacy appears almost irresistible.
Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen. Diplomacy in the digital age. 2015, p. 9. Internet: <www.clingendael.org> (adapted).
Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text I.
The passage “the lure of quick fixes addressing multifaceted processes of change” could be replaced by the temptation of finding easy solutions for manifold processes of change and this would still keep the paragraph coherent.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Text I
With this report, our aim is to present initial reflections on diplomacy in the digital age. In the ongoing debate amongst international relations scholars, information and communication technology (ICT) experts, digital strategists, social media advocates and others, the first question for us is: what is happening to diplomacy? And the obvious answer is what has always happened to it: diplomacy is responding to changes in the international and domestic environments, in the main centres of authority, particularly states, and in the character of societies at home and abroad.
“Newness” in diplomacy today has everything to do with the application of new communications technologies to diplomacy. This issue goes right to the heart of diplomacy’score functions, including negotiation, representation and communication. Given the centrality of communication in diplomacy, it is hardly surprising that the rise of social media should be of interest to practitioners of diplomacy. Most of them, like people outside diplomatic culture, are in the process of adjusting their “analogue” habits and finding their own voice in a new information sphere. This takes time, and for technological enthusiasts to simply proclaim the arrival of a “new statecraft” in the form of what is variously termed e-diplomacy, digital diplomacy, cyber diplomacy and “twiplomacy” is too simplistic.
Paradoxically, greater complexity encourages shallow, hurried analyses and the search for simple explanations about what is happening to diplomacy as the regulating mechanism of the society of states. As in other epochs of fast technological change, the lure of quick fixes addressing multifaceted processes of change in diplomacy appears almost irresistible.
Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen. Diplomacy in the digital age. 2015, p. 9. Internet: <www.clingendael.org> (adapted).
Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text I.
In the end of the second paragraph, the authors express the opinion that the so-called ‘new statecraft", also known as “digital diplomacy”, is “too simplistic”.
Provas
Questão presente nas seguintes provas
Cadernos
Caderno Container