Mostrando postagens com marcador FGV 2019. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador FGV 2019. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 4 de junho de 2025

FGV 2019 – INGLÊS DISCURSIVO – RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS – 1º SEMESTRE

  

https://vestibular.fgv.br

 TEXTO:

ISRAEL  AND PALESTINE
ISRAEL E PALESTINA
Background
Contexto

Zionism is the name of the movement that sought to recover for the Jewish people its historic Palestinian homeland (the Eretz Israel) after centuries of dispersion, or Diaspora – the term used to describe the scattering of Jews in the world outside the land of Israel in ancient times.
Sionismo é o nome do movimento que procurou recuperar para o povo judeu a sua histórica pátria palestiniana (Eretz Israel) após séculos de dispersão, ou Diáspora — o termo utilizado para descrever a dispersão dos judeus no mundo fora da terra de Israel nos tempos antigos.

The modern Zionist movement arose in the late 19th century with plans for Jewish colonization of Palestine, and under Theodor Herzl also developed a political program to obtain sovereign state rights over the territory.
O movimento sionista moderno surgiu no final do século XIX com planos para a colonização judaica da Palestina e, sob a liderança de Theodor Herzl, desenvolveu também um programa político para obter direitos de soberania sobre o território.

In 1917, the British Balfour Declaration endorsed Zionism's objectives, as long as rights for non-Jews in Palestine were not impaired.
Em 1917, a Declaração Balfour britânica endossou os objetivos do sionismo, desde que os direitos dos não-judeus na Palestina não fossem prejudicados.

From 1920 to 1948, the United Kingdom administered Palestine, which was viewed by the Jews as the “Promised Land,” but which also contained an Arab Muslim majority as well as many Islamic holy sites associated with Mohammed.
De 1920 a 1948, o Reino Unido administrou a Palestina, que era vista pelos judeus como a "Terra Prometida", mas que também continha uma maioria árabe-muçulmana, bem como muitos locais sagrados islâmicos associados a Maomé.

After World War II, Jewish immigrants (strongly supported by the United States) flooded into Palestine.
Após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os imigrantes judeus (fortemente apoiados pelos Estados Unidos) fugiram para a Palestina.

Tension between Jews and Arabs (i.e., native Palestinians) led the UN in 1947 to propose the formation of two states in Palestine, one Jewish and the other Arab.
A tensão entre judeus e árabes (i.e., palestinianos nativos) levou a ONU, em 1947, a propor a formação de dois Estados na Palestina, um judeu e outro árabe.

When the Arab side rejected this, David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) announced the creation of the independent State of Israel on 14 May 1948.
Quando o lado árabe rejeitou a proposta, David Ben-Gurion (primeiro-ministro de Israel) anunciou a criação do Estado independente de Israel a 14 de Maio de 1948.

Embora os seus vizinhos árabes tenham invadido imediatamente, Israel saiu vitorioso e conquistou mais terras do que as que tinham sido concedidas pela ONU.

Over 700,000 Arab refugees left the Israeli-occupied areas.
Mais de 700.000 refugiados árabes abandonaram as zonas ocupadas por Israel.

Since then, several wars and armed conflicts have taken place between Israel and neighboring Arab countries.
Desde então, têm ocorrido várias guerras e conflitos armados entre Israel e os países árabes vizinhos.

And the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, especially those Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, which are under Israeli control (although the Palestinians living there do enjoy some measure of self rule), remains marked by animosity, bitterness, and violence, all of which have been exacerbated by, among other things, Palestinian accusations of Israeli oppression (and encroaching occupation and colonization) and Israeli accusations of Palestinian terrorism and anti-Semitism.
E a relação entre israelitas e palestinianos, especialmente os palestinianos que vivem em Gaza e na Cisjordânia, que estão sob controlo israelita (embora os palestinianos que aí vivem gozem de algum grau de autonomia), continua a ser marcada pela animosidade, amargura e violência, tudo isto exacerbado, entre outras coisas, pelas acusações palestinianas de opressão israelita (e de ocupação e colonização invasivas) e pelas acusações israelitas de terrorismo e anti-semitismo palestinianos.

As for Zionism itself, it is still active as a movement encouraging Jews worldwide to immigrate to and take an interest in the Jewish state.
Quanto ao sionismo em si, ainda está ativo como um movimento que incentiva os judeus de todo o mundo a imigrar e a interessar-se pelo estado judaico.
********************************
TWO TERRORISMS
DOIS TERRORISMOS
By Henry Siegman

To a great extent, Jewish terrorism and war crimes marked the creation of Israel.
Em grande medida, o terrorismo e os crimes de guerra judaicos marcaram a criação de Israel.

Those who are told about this history dismiss it as a fabrication.
Aqueles que são informados sobre esta história descartam-na como uma invenção.

What they deny or ignore is that these charges have been fully documented not only by historians, including Israeli ones, but also by Israel’s own military.
O que negam ou ignoram é que estas acusações foram plenamente documentadas não só pelos historiadores, incluindo israelitas, mas também pelas próprias forças armadas de Israel.

The point of recognizing this history is not to justify terrorism by either Israelis or Palestinians, but to acknowledge the outrageous double standard that has been applied to the two parties and has undermined the possibility of a peace accord.
O objetivo de reconhecer esta história não é justificar o terrorismo por parte de israelitas ou palestinianos, mas reconhecer o escandaloso duplo critério que foi aplicado às duas partes e minou a possibilidade de um acordo de paz.

Without knowing that history, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the extent to which Israeli propaganda has succeeded in shaping a narrative about the creation of Israel that presents the Palestinians who were brutally expelled from their homes as the aggressors and the Jews as their victims.
Sem conhecer esta história, é difícil, senão impossível, compreender até que ponto a propaganda israelita conseguiu moldar uma narrativa sobre a criação de Israel que apresenta os palestinianos que foram brutalmente expulsos das suas casas como os agressores e os judeus como suas vítimas.

Without that history, it is impossible to understand the outrage Palestinians feel over having been portrayed as the bad guys for so long.
Sem esta história, é impossível compreender a indignação que os palestinianos sentem por terem sido retratados como os vilões durante tanto tempo.

Palestinians opposed the UN partition plan and started the 1948 war, but they did so not because of their hatred of Jews or their unhappiness with the partition plans, but because they didn’t want to accept exile, homelessness and disenfranchisement.
Os palestinianos opuseram-se ao plano de partilha da ONU e iniciaram a guerra de 1948, mas não o fizeram por ódio aos judeus ou por insatisfação com os planos de partilha, mas porque não queriam aceitar o exílio, a falta de habitação e a privação de direitos.

What other people would have reacted differently?
Que outras pessoas teriam reagido de forma diferente?

What other people would have agreed to go into exile to accommodate a group that came from outside its borders, claiming a homeland lost two thousand years ago, a principle of ownership that has no parallel in international law?
Que outras pessoas teriam concordado em exilar-se para acomodar um grupo que vinha de fora das suas fronteiras, reivindicando uma pátria perdida há dois mil anos, um princípio de propriedade sem paralelo no direito internacional?

Acceptance of Zionist claims necessarily meant exile for the Palestinians: the Jews of Palestine in 1948 were a minority and if the Jewish state was to be a democracy, it would need a Jewish majority, meaning that the 750,000 Palestinians who lived there would have been expelled even if they hadn’t rejected the partition plan or declared war on the new Jewish state.
A aceitação das reivindicações sionistas significava necessariamente o exílio para os palestinianos: os judeus da Palestina em 1948 eram uma minoria e, se o Estado judaico fosse uma democracia, necessitaria de uma maioria judaica, o que significa que os 750.000 palestinianos que aí viviam teriam sido expulsos mesmo que não tivessem rejeitado o plano de partilha ou declarado guerra ao novo Estado judaico.

As Benny Morris and other historians have written, the war crimes ordered by David BenGurion and executed by his generals were not intended for any purpose other than ensuring the departure of a panicked Arab population.
Como Benny Morris e outros historiadores escreveram, os crimes de guerra ordenados por David BenGurion e executados pelos seus generais não tinham qualquer outra finalidade que não fosse garantir a partida de uma população árabe em pânico.

The point is not that Israelis have no right to defend themselves against Palestinian terrorism, but that the Israeli argument that there is no moral equivalent between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli preventive and retaliatory violence is deeply flawed.
A questão não é que os israelitas não tenham o direito de se defenderem do terrorismo palestiniano, mas sim que o argumento israelita de que não existe um equivalente moral entre o terrorismo palestiniano e a violência preventiva e retaliativa israelita é profundamente falho.

The relevant comparison is between the way Jews acted during their struggle for statehood – not after they achieved it – and the way Palestinians, still very much in the midst of their hopeless struggle for statehood, are acting now.
A comparação relevante é entre a forma como os judeus agiram durante a sua luta pela criação de um Estado – não depois de o terem conquistado – e a forma como os palestinianos, ainda imersos na sua luta desesperada pela criação de um Estado, estão a agir agora.

It is also flawed because you cannot condemn terrorism if you do not offer people under occupation a credible route towards achieving viable statehood through non-violent means.
É também falho porque não se pode condenar o terrorismo se não se oferecer às pessoas sob ocupação um caminho confiável para alcançar uma criação de um Estado viável através de meios não violentos.

That is something Israel has never offered the Palestinians.
Isto é algo que Israel nunca ofereceu aos palestinianos.
Introduction

In the above passage, taken from the article “Two Terrorisms,” author Henry Siegman (himself a Jew and a refugee from The Holocaust, as well as president emeritus of the US/Middle East Project and a former senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations) discusses polemical aspects (both current and historical) of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
No excerto acima, extraído do artigo “Dois Terrorismos”, o autor Henry Siegman (ele próprio judeu e refugiado do Holocausto, bem como presidente emérito do Projecto EUA/Médio Oriente e antigo membro sénior do Conselho de Relações Exteriores) discute aspectos polémicos (actuais e históricos) do conflito entre israelitas e palestinianos.

After reading the separate Background section and then Siegman’s text, answer the questions below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but you must be consistent throughout.
Depois de ler a seção "Contexto" e, em seguida, o texto de Siegman, responda às questões abaixo. Recomendamos que leia as perguntas com atenção e dê respostas que sejam diretamente relevantes. Lembre-se: a sua resposta à Questão 1 deve ser escrita em português, mas as suas respostas às Questões 2 e 3 devem ser escritas em inglês. Com estas duas últimas perguntas, pode usar o inglês americano ou britânico, mas deve ser consistente em todas as suas partes.

(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)
(Esta questão testa a sua compreensão do texto, bem como a sua capacidade de identificar e parafrasear a informação relevante. A sua resposta deve preencher aproximadamente 15 a 20 linhas no espaço indicado.)

As outlined in both the Background and the passage, the year 1948 witnessed the founding of the State of Israel. In the opinion of the author of the passage, what circumstances characterized that founding? What measures did the Jews take to guarantee the creation and survival of Israel? How did the Palestinians react? Why, for example, do you think the author has entitled his article “Two Terrorisms”?
Tal como descrito tanto no Contexto como na passagem, o ano de 1948 testemunhou a fundação do Estado de Israel. Na opinião do autor da passagem, que circunstâncias caracterizaram esta fundação? Que medidas tomaram os judeus para garantir a criação e a sobrevivência de Israel? Como reagiram os palestinianos? Por que razão, por exemplo, acha que o autor intitulou o seu artigo "Dois Terrorismos"?

Last, does the author think the Palestinians have been treated fairly or unfairly during this conflict? What reasons does he give to support his opinion?
Por fim, o autor considera que os palestinianos foram tratados de forma justa ou injusta durante este conflito? Que razões apresenta para fundamentar a sua opinião?

In supporting your points of view, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, but please try to be as objective as possible.
Ao apoiar os seus pontos de vista, pode ter em conta considerações legais, éticas, práticas, históricas e até religiosas, mas tente ser o mais objetivo possível.

      RESPOSTAS EM PORTUGUÊS      :
  • Na opinião do autor, o terrorismo e os crimes de guerra por parte dos judeus marcaram a criação do Estado de Israel. Os palestinos foram brutalmente expulsos de suas casas, tratados como agressores, e os judeus, como suas vítimas.
  • Os judeus da Palestina, em 1948, eram uma minoria e, se o estado judeu tivesse que ser uma democracia, ele precisaria de uma maioria judaica, o que significa que 750.000 palestinos que lá viviam teriam que ser expurgados, ainda que não tivessem rejeitado o plano de divisão do Estado ou declarado guerra ao novo Estado Judeu.
  • Os palestinos se opuseram ao plano de divisão das Nações Unidas e começaram a Guerra de 1948, porém, eles assim fi zeram não por conta de seu ódio em relação aos judeus, mas porque eles não quiseram aceitar o exílio, a falta de moradia e a privação de seus direitos.
  • O autor intitulou o texto de “Dois Terrorismos” visto que, por um lado, os israelenses invadiram a Palestina a fim de transformar o país em um Estado Judeu, atacando e expulsando seus moradores com métodos terroristas e crimes de guerra; por outro lado, os palestinos se defenderam, desencadeando a Guerra de 1948. Assim, ambos os lados, Israelenses e Palestinos, podem ser considerados terroristas.
  • Segundo o autor, os palestinos foram tratados injustamente, visto que crimes de guerra foram ordenados por David Ben-Gurion e executados por seus generais, sem nenhum propósito, a não ser garantir a retirada da população árabe tomada pelo pânico.
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

In its 4 January 2018 issue, the London Review of Books presented an article (“The ‘New Anti-Semitism’”) in which the author, Neve Gordon, a Jew as well as a professor at Israel’s Negev University, points out that because of her active (but non-violent) support of Palestinian self-determination and her protests against what she considers Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights, she has been accused of a new kind of anti-Semitism.

In distinguishing between this “new anti-Semitism” and traditional anti-Semitism, Gordon writes the following: “The ‘new anti-Semitism,’ we are told, takes the form of criticism of Zionism and of the actions and policies of Israel, and is often manifested in campaigns holding the Israeli government accountable to international law… In this it is different from ‘traditional’ anti-Semitism, understood as hatred of Jews per se, the idea that Jews are naturally inferior, belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or in the Jewish control of capital etc.”

Gordon goes on to affirm that “The logic of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ can be formulated as a syllogism: (i) anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews; (ii) to be Jewish is to be a Zionist; (iii) therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.”

What is your opinion of the above syllogism? For example, do you think it is reasonable to insist that a sincere, conscientious Jew must also be a Zionist? Can one be a sincere, conscientious Jew, but have no interest in or even oppose the Zionist policies of the Israeli government? Moreover, considering the Israeli government’s often-harsh treatment of Palestinians, does concern for the Palestinian people – some of whom have certainly practiced acts of terrorism against Israelis – make anyone, even a Jew, automatically an anti-Semite, at least in the traditional sense? In your opinion, what would be some of the consequences for Jews around the world if Israel no longer existed?

In answering the above questions, you should support your points of view with clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons. And while you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, please try to be as objective as possible.

      RESPOSTAS EM INGLÊS      :
  • My opinion of the syllogism presented is that being a Jewish is not necessarily being a Zionist, since being a Jew means to follow a religion while to be a Zionist means to support the actions imposed by Israel´s government, its internal issues and foreign relations. One can be a devoted Jew but does not agree with the policies adopted by the Israeli government because it is possible that one may be in favour of two separate states in the region and that Jerusalem, which is disputed by the two sides, should be transformed into humanity heritage.
  • I believe that Palestinians receive the treatment from the government of Israel as they deserve it, because since Israel only retaliate the terrorist attacks and missiles sent from Gaza to the South of Israel. Even so, I am still in favour of two separate states, considering that every human being has the right to call a place his homeland, which does not make me an anti-semite.
  • Israel is considered the land for all the Jews around the world. If Israel no longer existed, the Jews would also be considered a people without a territory, which would mean that the Jews would be feeling the way the Palestinians do, which is diffi cult to grasp. Israel promotes several exchange programs for Jewish youngsters from around the world in order to show them every aspect of the country, cultural, political, social, in order to widen the knowledge of their off springs. If Israel no longer existed, Jewish culture would stop being thought to the next generations.
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. The quotations below underscore a crucial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Read the quotations and answer the question. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

Note: Given the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s great complexity, many experts favor the so-called two-state solution, which would enable an independent Palestinian state to co-exist alongside Israel. Unquestionably, a significant number of Israelis and Palestinians support this option. Nevertheless, not only do certain radical Palestinians refuse to recognize the Jewish state, but also many Israelis oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, as Henry Siegman makes clear in the following quotations taken from his article.
• “To this day, the official position of Likud, Israel’s ruling party for much of the past half-century, is that it will never allow the establishment of a Palestinian state anywhere in Palestine.”
• “The two-state solution died because [Israeli prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu and successive Israeli governments were determined to kill it, and those who could have prevented its demise lacked the resolve and moral courage to do so. America failed in the mission it thought itself uniquely qualified to accomplish because it failed to understand that the diplomatic objective of a great power, and particularly the world’s greatest power, should not be peace, a goal that Netanyahu dishonestly embraced, but justice – or at least the avoidance of injustice so egregious as to discredit the values and institutions on which the future of humanity depends.” 

Considering the above ideas and information (as well as the ideas and information presented in Question 1 and Question 2), why do you think the two-state solution is or is not the best option for a lasting and just peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

If you advocate the two-state solution, how do you think it could be implemented? Should the Palestinians and Israelis work out such an accord by themselves, or should the international community, led by the U.S. or by the UN (or both), exert diplomatic pressure and/or impose economic sanctions to force the Israelis and Palestinians to reach an agreement? If and when the two states become a fact, should an outside entity, such as the U.S., NATO, or the UN, guarantee the security of both countries or should they be left alone to defend their own borders?

If you are against the two-state solution – and assuming that you do not want the present situation, with all its attendant violence, injustice, and suffering, to continue – what solution would you propose and why?

In any event, whether you are for or against the two-state solution, considering the following questions may help you to formulate your answer:
• Can Palestinians and Israelis ever live together peacefully, or must they live separately in their own communities or countries?
• Considering that unfriendly and even hostile Arab countries already surround Israel, won’t the creation of an independent Palestine compromise Israel’s national security? Couldn’t a Palestinian state serve as a base for terrorists or to launch a military invasion?
• Should Israel be allowed to incorporate all of the Palestinian lands (including Gaza and the West Bank) into one Greater Israel, in which Palestinians residents are deprived of their civil rights?
• Since the majority rules in a democracy, if Palestinians living in Israel enjoy full civil rights, and if one day they outnumber Jews, can that country survive as a Jewish homeland?
• Do the Jews have an exclusive right to Palestinian territory merely because their ancestors occupied that land 2,000 years ago?
• Should the Palestinians get all of their original territory back and send the Jews on their way? (In pondering this question, you might ask yourself whether the descendants of European colonizers should hand Brazil over to the Indigenous peoples whose ancestors originally inhabited this land.)

In answering Question 3, you may take into account legal, ethical, practical, historical, and even religious considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible, supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.

      RESPOSTAS EM INGLÊS      :
  • The two-state solution is a plausible option for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, “two states for two groups of people”, an independente Israel and Palestine, it can be considered the mainstream approach to resolving the confl ict.
  • Israelis and Palestinians want to run their countries diff erently. Israelis want a Jewish state and Palestinians want a Palestinian one.
  • The implementation of this solution could be achieved with the help from the international community, especially the United States and the UNO.
  • The autonomy and the sovereignty of both nations should be guaranteed after the deal, so that both countries could implement its own rules to be followed by the people.
  • It is risky for the security of Israel in a strategic basis to have an Arab country so close, which could enable other Arab countries
  • to reach Israel with their war powers in an attempt to exterminate Israel, as Iran always states it will do. Anyway, it is even more hazardous to keep the situation as it is nowadays with innocent civilians dying in an endless confl ict that already lasts for decades. Let us try to leave in peace.

sábado, 16 de novembro de 2019

FGV 2019 – EAESP 1º SEMESTRE – LÍNGUA INGLESA

www.inglesparaconcursos.blog.br

❑  PROVA DE LÍNGUA INGLESA:
•  FGV-Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo-2019.1-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE-Aplicada em 02/12/18.
❑ ESTRUTURA-PROVA:
 15 MCQs (Multiple Choice Question) / 5 Options Each Question.

PROVA, TRADUÇÃO, GABARITO & MUITO VOCABULÁRIO

 TEXTO 1:


01-D,  02-B,  03-D,  04-A,  05-C
06-B,  07-A,  08-E,  09-E,  10-B
11-E,  12-C,  13-A,  14-D,  15-C


 TEXTO 1:
Anything can be rescinded
By Isabel Hull 

The Paris Peace Pact of 1928 is a treaty few remember and which is ridiculed by many of those who do. Otherwise known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact – after its authors, the US secretary of state, Frank Kellogg, and his French counterpart, Aristide Briand – its signatories agreed specifically to ‘condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another’. Lacking any means of enforcement, and seemingly swept aside by the Second World War only 11 years later, Kellogg-Briand has been seen as hopelessly utopian, as evanescent and dated as the Charleston (a popular dance of that period). But Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, in their book The Internationalists and Their Plan to Outlaw War, argue that it was revolutionary. By outlawing war, it laid the legal foundations for a ‘New World Order’ which still prevails, but which we fail to appreciate.

The book begins with a bleak description of the ‘Old World Order’, which rested on the right of states, in the absence of a world court, to resort to war to redress grievances or solve disputes. War was a legal mechanism. Hathaway and Shapiro’s study of more than four hundred declarations of war from the late 16th century to 1939 reveals that self-defence and the enforcement of treaty, international or succession laws were the reasons cited most often by states. In addition to permitting frequent armed conflict, the lawful status of war had other consequences for international relations. Since force could be used to resolve conflicts, the system rewarded the powerful, sanctifying the principle of ‘might is right’. It also legitimated conquest, both as compensation for injury and as the outcome of a contest of force in which the weaker side lost. It permitted the threat of force (gunboat diplomacy). It protected the decision makers who waged war and the soldiers who fought it, because both were engaged in a legal activity. Killing in war wasn’t murder. And, finally, lawful war required absolute impartiality from neutrals (for example, in their trade or commerce with belligerents), since they were not parties to the dispute. Economic sanctions were therefore illegal. This state of affairs lasted into the 20th century, and Hathaway and Shapiro see the First World War as its ‘terrible culmination’. Even the League of Nations ‘did not herald’ [anunciar] its end because its covenant still permitted member states to resort to war over serious, non-judiciable disputes after a three-month cooling-off period.

Hathaway and Shapiro’s premise is that since states seemed incapable of weaning themselves off [se desacostumar de] warfare, civil society had to intervene.

Among the ‘internationalists’ who helped broker, institutionalize and interpret the Kellogg-Briand Pact, one of the most significant was Hersch Lauterpacht, the Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge University. In the late 1930s, he rigorously and successfully argued that the KelloggBriand Pact had overturned the basic structures of the international order. Neutrals were no longer bound [amarrados, obrigados] to impartiality, permitting policies that helped victims of aggression. And because it resulted from a criminal act, conquest was now illegal. Individual leaders could be held responsible for waging [fazer, proseguir] illegal wars (the principle behind the Nuremberg Trials). And treaties extorted by coercion were invalid. Lauterpacht’s briefs [pareceres] to the US and British governments in the 1940s helped establish these principles, making him ‘the father of the New World Order’, which since 1945 has been characterized by remarkably few inter-state wars or annexations.

Hathaway and Shapiro’s point, then, is that ‘for all its problems, the New World Order is better than the Old.’

Adapted from the London Review of Books, 26 April 2018.

01
 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

Considering the information in the article, you can understand that the Paris Peace Pact of 1928 (also known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) most likely was 

(A) a private, non-governmental agreement elaborated by two important diplomats, one American and the other French.
(B) originally set up to involve only the United States and the nations of Europe.
(C) the first serious attempt to discourage countries from going to war.
(D) focused on international armed conflicts rather than on exclusively domestic violence confined within a country’s own borders.
(E) based on the assumption that war, by its nature, could never successfully resolve international disputes.

02 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

The information in the article most supports which of the following?
 
(A) In the end, the Paris Peace Pact must be considered a wellintentioned but ineffectual attempt to end war.
(B) Despite its historical significance, the Paris Peace Pact has in general failed to receive the recognition it deserves.
(C) It was only because of the devastation of the Second World War that the international community began to take the Paris Peace Pact seriously.
(D) If the Paris Peace Pact had been more widely accepted, the Second World War would never have taken place.
(E) The international community in general rejected the Paris Peace Pact not because it was too idealistic but because it was too revolutionary.

03 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

According to the information in the article, which of the following was most likely an aspect of the “Old World Order”?
 
(A) In war, the larger state inevitably conquered the smaller state.
(B) States found it easier to resolve their disputes through war than through diplomacy.
(C) Before 1939, empires rarely admitted that they went to war only to expand their territory.
(D) War was a continuation of politics by other means.
(E) Leaders of countries that had declared war were often executed as murderers.

04 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

In

The Internationalists and Their Plan to Outlaw War, authors Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro

most likely

(A) shed light on a little-known agreement that, despite many expectations to the contrary, has made the modern world in many ways more peaceful.
(B) attempt to prove that, in the Old World Order, illegal wars were inevitably more destructive than legal wars.
(C) committed a serious error by failing to present a detailed study of declarations of war issued after 1939.
(D) believe that, in elaborating the Paris Peace Pact, Kellogg and Briand had the audacity to assume a responsibility that in fact they had no legal right to assume.
(E) contend that if the Paris Peace Pact had been less revolutionary it would never have been so successful.

05 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

In paragraph 2, the phrase

“…lawful war required absolute impartiality from neutrals…”

would most likely refer to which of the following? 

(A) In the Old World Order’s view of lawful war, if one state was not an ally of another state, then it was an enemy.
(B) In the Old World Order, to avoid being drawn into a war a neutral state had to cut off relations with the two belligerent states.
(C) In the Old World Order, a state that wanted nothing to do with a war could not even make charitable gestures towards war victims on either one side or the other. 
(D) In the Old World Order, each state had to find its own definition of what constituted neutrality in a lawful war.
(E) In the Old World Order, the way a neutral state could act during a war was determined by whether that conflict had been judged lawful or unlawful.

06 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

According to the information in the article,

the Paris Peace Pact

(A) owes its survival to the efforts of key officials in several governments.
(B) was initiated by government officials, but owes much of its success to non-governmental advocates.
(C) made diplomacy more prestigious by making war less prestigious.
(D) would not have been implemented so quickly and successfully worldwide if the two world wars had been less destructive.
(E) was the last and most successful initiative to discourage violent solutions to international problems.

07 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

With respect to Hersch Lauterpacht, which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?

(A) It would be fair to state that, because of his efforts, the world before him and the world after him were different worlds in at least one important way.
(B) By working together with Kellogg and Briand, he made essential contributions to the creation of the Paris Peace Pact.
(C) He made an inestimable contribution to world peace by prosecuting Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials.
(D) He was the first international figure to recognize the revolutionary nature of the Paris Peace Pact.
(E) Because of his efforts, leaders of most militaristic states began describing their armed aggression as wars of defense rather than wars of territorial expansion.

08 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

As supported by the information in the article, which of the following is probably more common in the New World Order than in the Old World Order?

(A) National leaders who avoid disastrous wars out of fear of popular insurrections.
(B) States that sign disadvantageous treaties with other states.
(C) States that use force to make weaker states open their internal markets to foreign trade.
(D) Unscrupulous national leaders who make secret diplomatic agreements.
(E) People who, in accordance with the laws and customs of their times, may reasonably be characterized as war criminals.

R E S P O S T A :   E

• Conforme comprovado pelas informações do artigo, qual das alternativas a seguir é provavelmente mais comum na Nova Ordem Mundial do que na Velha?
(A) National leaders who avoid disastrous wars out of fear of popular insurrections.
• Líderes nacionais que evitam guerras desastrosas por medo de insurreições populares.
(B) States that sign disadvantageous treaties with other states.
• Estados que assinam tratados desvantajosos com outros Estados.
(C) States that use force to make weaker states open their internal markets to foreign trade.
• Estados que usam a força para fazer com que os Estados mais fracos abram seus mercados internos ao comércio exterior.
(D) Unscrupulous national leaders who make secret diplomatic agreements.
• Líderes nacionais sem escrúpulos que fazem acordos diplomáticos secretos.
(E) People who, in accordance with the laws and customs of their times, may reasonably be characterized as war criminals.
• Pessoas que, de acordo com as leis e costumes de sua época, podem ser razoavelmente caracterizadas como criminosos de guerra.

 TEXTO 2:

State-sponsored happiness
By Karen Greenspan 
1
Last November [2015], citizens of the tiny Himalayan nation of Bhutan were in a frenzy preparing for the sixtieth birth anniversary of their previous king, His Majesty the Fourth Druk Gyalpo (Dragon King) Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who had reigned from 1972–2006. This wise, benevolent, and innovative leader brought Bhutan into the modern age by implementing such public policies as free public education, free healthcare services, well-planned business development, internet connectivity, and vigorous environmental protections. In an unparalleled move, he launched the drafting of a constitution and shifted the country to democracy. He then abdicated the throne to his eldest son, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. According to many, the Fourth Druk Gyalpo made this move because he did not want his son to be thrust unprepared into the role of leadership as he had been at age sixteen when his father died suddenly and unexpectedly.
2
The Fourth Druk Gyalpo is probably most renowned, however, for introducing the concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH)—the government policy that measures the growth and development of the country by the happiness and contentment of its people. At the core of the policy are four priorities— equitable and sustainable development, protection of the environment, preservation and promotion of Bhutan’s unique cultural heritage, and provision of good and responsive governance.
3
In honor of the Fourth Druk Gyalpo’s birthday, the entire country observed three days of celebration from November 9-11. Because Bhutan is a Buddhist country, prayers and rituals were woven into the festivities. The Je Khenpo, spiritual leader of the country, wrote a special zhabten—a prayer for the long life of an individual composed by a senior spiritual figure whose power of speech is considered capable of turning word into reality. Other prayers and texts were to be recited across the country in fortresses, monasteries, temples, and seminaries. At Changlimithang Stadium in the capital city of Thimphu, one hundred monks rehearsed a sacred dance called Zheng Zhi Pem, which is a component of the Longevity Ritual. An elaborate ceremonial procession with military, monastic, and government officials, as well as an honor guard of one thousand army personnel, was presented three times to His Majesty.
4
Because the people of Bhutan are so happy – more than ninety-one percent of the population were scored as happy in a 2015 GNH survey – many of them wanted to participate in showing gratitude for His Majesty’s leadership. The currency [moeda] of gratitude in this land of happiness is dance. As a result, practically all of Bhutan took part in commemorating – mostly through dance – the birthday of the Fourth Druk Gyalpo. The release of thousands of colorful, biodegradable balloons and three cake-cutting ceremonies capped the celebrations.
5
What I understood, after witnessing these events in November, is that a government’s focus on the happiness of a country’s people can be a powerful transformative force, an instrument for positive social change. 
Adapted from Natural History, March 201

09 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

According to the information in the article,

in November 2015, the people of Bhutan 

(A) celebrated the 60th anniversary of the reign of Jigme Singye Wangchuk, the Fourth Druk Gyalpo.
(B) prepared for the 60th birthday festivities of the current king of Bhutan.
(C) started preparing for an important celebration that would involve the entire country in the years to come.
(D) planned several important ceremonies, including the coronation of their new king.
(E) held a three-day nationwide royal birthday celebration that included Buddhist religious elements.

10 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

With respect to the Fourth Druk Gyalpo, which of the following is least supported by the information in the article?
 
(A) He instituted a Bhutan government policy to offer free public healthcare services and free public education.
(B) He authorized the drafting of a new constitution that restored democracy to Bhutan.
(C) He modernized and improved Bhutan’s business environment.
(D) He willingly allowed his son to take over his governmental responsibilities.
(E) He became the hereditary monarch of Bhutan before he was 20 years old.

11 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

Which of the following is most supported by the information in the article?

(A) In Bhutan, 16 is the earliest age at which a person may assume the country’s throne.
(B) The Fourth Druk Gyalpo feared that his death, like the death of his father, would throw Bhutan into chaos.
C) The Fourth Druk Gyalpo put his oldest son on the country’s throne in order to avoid a dynastic conflict.
(D) In the past, the King of Bhutan was an absolute monarch; nowadays, because of recent democratic reforms, he has no real power.
(E) The Fourth Druk Gyalpo believed that he had not been ready when he became king and feared that the same thing could happen to his son.

12 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

With respect to the concept of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH), the article most supports which of the following?
 
(A) The GNH has made all other forms of socio-economic measurement in Bhutan obsolete.
(B) Although the Fourth Druk Gyalpo did not invent the GNH, he was the world’s first national leader to make it a public policy.
(C) The GNH is based partly on the belief that no other country in the world has a culture like that of Bhutan.
(D) Since it was specially designed for Bhutan’s reality, the GNH must be extensively modified to be instituted in other countries.
(E) Since it is a fair and inclusive measurement, the GNH can be instituted without modifications in other countries.

13 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

With respect to the Je Khenpo, as mentioned in paragraph 3, the information in the article most supports which of the following?

(A) The people of Bhutan may believe that the Je Khenpo is not the only person in the country able to make something happen by praying for it.
(B) The people of Bhutan believe that the Je Khenpo is the only person in the country with the religious authority to write a zhabten.
(C) Even though the Je Khenpo is the spiritual leader of Bhutan, he does not have to belong to the country’s main religious group.
(D) The Je Khenpo was one of the greatest allies of the Fourth Druk Gyalpo when he instituted his reforms of Bhutan’s socio-economic and political structures.
(E) To celebrate the Fourth Druk Gyalpo’s birthday, the Je Khenpo wrote not only a zhabten, but also numerous other prayers and texts, all of which were recited in public spaces around the country.

14 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

In paragraph 4, the sentence

“The currency [moeda] of gratitude in this land of happiness is dance”

most likely refers to which of the following?

(A) In Bhutan, dance is considered the purest and most spontaneous expression of happiness.
(B) In Bhutan, it is considered good manners to dance with others during celebrations to express a national feeling of gratitude.
(C) In Bhutan, dance is a widespread religious as well as social activity.
(D) In Bhutan, one of the most important ways to express thanks is by dancing.
(E) The people of Bhutan believe that to be truly happy, one must show gratitude by dancing.

15 – (FGV-2019/1-EAESP-VESTIBULAR-1º SEMESTRE)

You can most likely understand from the information in the article that

(A) the most important reason that Bhutan is a happy, prosperous country is its strongly Buddhist orientation.
(B) before the introduction of the GNH, few Westerners were aware of Bhutan’s high standard of living.
(C) although the GNH in Bhutan is an interesting innovation by itself, to be effective it depends on four priorities.
(D) the productive, mutually affectionate relationship that unites the Fourth Druk Gyalpo and his subjects is unique and cannot be replicated in other countries.
(E) before the Fourth Druk Gyalpo assumed the throne, the socioeconomic situation in Bhutan was both primitive and chaotic.