Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-255 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Finance Minister ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Ministerial Council ◽  
Oecd Convention ◽  
International Obligations

The press reported that on September 30, 1961, the new Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) formally came into being with seventeen out of a possible twenty member nations having. deposited their instruments of ratification of the OECD convention. At the time of the entry into force of the convention, the following nations had deposited their ratifications: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany. Italy, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg shortly afterwards joined the organization. The OECD convention required members to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, nondiscriminatory basis in accord with international obligations. At the first meeting of the organization in Paris on September 30, 1961, Mr. Donald Fleming, Canadian Finance Minister, was elected chairman of the Ministerial Council, and Mr. Gunnar Lange, Swedish Commerce Minister, and Mr. Charles Arliotis, Greek Minister of Coordination, vice-chairmen. Mr. Thorkil Kristensen, the former Secretary-General of OEEC, was named Secretary-General of the new organization, and Mr. Charles Adair (United States) and Mr. Jean Cottier (France) were designated deputy Secretaries-General.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-360 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Underdeveloped Countries ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Free Trade Association ◽  
Set Up

The January 14, 1960, meeting of the Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was preceded by a meeting of representatives of the organization's eighteen members and of the United States and Canada to examine the resolutions adopted by a special economic conference. At this meeting, which ended with approval of a move sponsored by the United States that was designed to reorganize economic cooperation and transform the organization, it was decided, and subsequently approved by the OEEC Council and the United States and Canada, that: 1) four experts, representing respectively North America, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the European Economic Community (EEC) and other European nations, would prepare a report on the transformation of OEEC for consideration by senior officials of twenty countries, namely, the OEEC nations and the United States and Canada, at a meeting scheduled for April 19, 1960; 2) a preparatory meeting of representatives of the same twenty nations would be held in a month's time, when decisions would be taken to appoint a permanent chairman, a secretariat, and working parties to look into outstanding trade problems; and 3) a group, consisting of Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the United States, the United Kingdom, and a representative of EEC, would be informally set up to coordinate aid policies to underdeveloped countries. The outcome of the discussions was regarded as paving the way for a new Atlantic economic grouping, composed of the members of OEEC plus the United States and Canada, which would give priority to consideration of the problems between the two rival European economic groups, EEC and EFTA. Other matters discussed by the Council were the removal of discriminatory measures against imports from the dollar zone and the increase in assistance to underdeveloped countries.

An Empirical Review of the Design and Performance of Icebreakers

1989 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 145-159
Author(s):  
R. A. Dick ◽  
J. E. Laframboise
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Ship Performance ◽  
Selection Of

This paper utilizes available data on existing icebreaking ships to compile a review of the design features that influence ship performance. The data were extracted from a recently completed review of the state of the art of Arctic ship technology and include icebreaking ships from Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and West Germany. It is the aim of this paper to offer guidance in the initial stages of icebreaker design and thereby give confidence to the designer in the selection of dimensions, hull shape and propulsion.

Marketing Negotiations in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States

1988 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel C. G. Campbell ◽  
John L. Graham ◽  
Alain Jolibert ◽  
Hans Gunther Meissner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Laboratory Simulation ◽  
The United Kingdom

The determinants of marketing negotiations in four cultures are investigated in a laboratory simulation. One hundred thirty-eight businesspeople from the United States, 48 from France, 44 from West Germany, and 44 from the United Kingdom participated in two-person, buyer-seller negotiation simulations. The American process of negotiation is found to be different from that of the Europeans in several respects.

Significance and Distribution of Herbicide Resistance

1990 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jodie S. Holt ◽  
Homer M. Lebaron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Resistant Species ◽  
The United Kingdom

Herbicide-resistant weed species have become widespread in recent years. Fifty-five weed species, including 40 dicots and 15 grasses, are known to have biotypes resistant to the triazine herbicides. One or more resistant species have arisen in 31 states of the United States, four provinces of Canada, 18 countries in Europe, and Israel, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Resistance to other classes of herbicides is more restricted in distribution and recent in detection but is becoming more widespread. Trifluralin resistance has spread in the southeastern United States and has been detected in Canada, while 11 species with biotypes resistant to paraquat have been reported around the world. Diclofop-methyl-resistant weed species are problems in cereal production in Australia and have been found in Oregon, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Resistance to the substituted ureas also is present in the United Kingdom, West Germany, and Hungary. Within the last 2 yr, biotypes of at least four weed species resistant to the sulfonylurea herbicides have arisen following several annual applications of these herbicides in wheat. Some resistant biotypes have multiple resistance to different classes of herbicides, which greatly exacerbates the threat of resistance. Herbicide resistance has reached the level where more concerted efforts are needed in research, education, and development of effective management strategies to preserve herbicides as essential tools of agricultural technology.

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization

1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-514 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Director General ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

The second session of the Assembly of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) was held in London from April 5–14, 1961. Mr. W. L. de Vries, Director-General of Shipping in the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, was elected President of the session and Mr. Ove Nielson, Secretary-General of IMCO, acted as secretary. The Assembly elected Argentina, Australia, India, and the Soviet Union to fill out the sixteen-member Council on which Belgium, Canada, France, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States were already represented. The Assembly: 1) established a Credentials Committee consisting of Canada, Japan, Liberia, Poland, and Turkey; 2) adopted a budget for 1962–1963 of $892,-350; 3) approved Mauritania's application for membership by a two-thirds vote following the rule that non-members of the United Nations had to be approved by such a vote after recommendation by the Council; and 4) in view of the advisory opinion of June 8, 1960, of the International Court of Justice to the effect that the Maritime Safety Committee was improperly constituted, dissolved the committee and elected Argentina, Canada, France, West Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Liberia, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to the reconstituted committee. The Assembly during its second session also approved an expanded work program submitted by the IMCO Council including new duties connected with international travel and transport, with special reference to the simplification of ship's papers. The Assembly asked IMCO to study the arrangements for the maintenance of certain light beacons used for navigation at the southern end of the Red Sea which were being maintained by the United Kingdom with the help of the Netherlands. Also under consideration was a new convention on the safety of life at sea submitted to the Assembly by a Conference on Safety of Life at Sea and containing a number of recommendations to IMCO on studies relating to such matters as ship construction, navigation, and other technical subjects on safety at sea. The Assembly decided that in conjunction with United Nations programs of technical cooperation the UN should be informed that IMCO was in a position to provide advice and guidance on technical matters affecting shipping engaged in international trade.

Relief and Rehabilitation Organizations: Committee of European Economic Cooperation

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-160
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Joint Conference ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

On June 5, 1947, the Secretary of State of the United States, George C. Marshall, stated that the United States could not proceed much further with its plans to assist European recovery unless the countries themselves reached some agreement as to their requirements and to their own contribution to European recovery. Immediately following this speech at Harvard University, representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union met in Paris to discuss the possibility of a joint conference on the problem. After the Soviet representative (Molotov) withdrew, sixteen nations, upon the invitation of France and the United Kingdom, met in Paris from July 12 to September 22, 1947, to draw up a joint program for European reconstruction. Participating countries were: United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

The World Overseas

1965 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 22-32
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Industrial Production ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Real Output ◽  
Rapid Rise ◽  
Industrial Countries ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Actual Increase ◽  
The World

There was an increase of some 5 per cent in the real output of industrial countries between 1963 and 1964, but as far as Europe was concerned, much of the increase occurred during the second half of 1963. The actual increase during the year was only about 4 per cent (chart 7).Industrial production in the United States and Japan increased rapidly throughout the year, though at a somewhat declining rate. In Europe the pattern was more varied. Expansion was strong and accelerating in West Germany, but the rapid rise of the second half of 1963 was followed by stagnation in France and the United Kingdom and by an actual decline in Italy. Italian production began to recover towards the end of the year.

Conflict Resolution in Southern Africa: Why Namibia is not Another Zimbabwe

1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 37-45
Author(s):  
David F. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
South African ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The U.S

Despite continued American insistence that a negotiating impasse had not been reached, by the final months of 1982 it seemed clear that internationally-recognized independence for Namibia would not soon be achieved. While Washington claimed that negotiations between South Africa, Angola, and the Southwest African Peoples Organization (SWAPO) (with the U.S. as mediator) remain meaningful, there appears to have been a decisive move away from settlement. The latest round of negotiations, spearheaded by the United States as the leading element of the Western Contact Group (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, and Canada), has attempted to move South African-controlled Namibia to independence on the basis of Security Council Resolution 435 of September 1978.

The Redistributive Effect of Direct Taxes: A Comparison of Six LIS Countries

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Bishop ◽  
K. Victor Chow ◽  
John P. Formby
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Statistical Inference ◽  
The United States ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Lorenz Curves ◽  
Tax Progressivity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Redistributive Effects ◽  
Redistributive Effect

The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) is used to investigate the redistributive effects of direct taxes in six countries, Australia, Canada, Sweden, West Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom. Two periods are considered and comparisons are made among countries at different points in time and within countries across time. Lorenz curves are adapted and used to make ordinal comparisons of two very general measures of tax progressivity- so called “residual” and “liability” progression. Newly developed statistical inference procedures allow us to take the sampling variability inherent in the LIS data into account.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document