Freedom of Information and the United Nations

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carroll Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Good Life ◽  
The United States ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
The Good Life ◽  
Amount Of Information ◽  
The United Nations

Eight years ago the United States set out, at the request of American editors and press associations, to increase the amount of information available to its own and other peoples through international compacts. What began as a project for lowering barriers to the gathering and transmission of news soon developed into an effort to assure freedom of information and expression to all peoples in the belief that without such basic freedoms there can be no other enduring freedoms and very little progress towards the good life.

The 1980s to the Present

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Barton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Organic Farming ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Market ◽  
Health Food ◽  
Organic Certification ◽  
Organic Farmers ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Mainstream Press

While a few positive stories on organic farming appeared in the 1970s most mainstream press coverage mocked or dismissed organic farmers and consumers. Nevertheless, the growing army of consumer shoppers at health food stores in the United States made the movement impossible to ignore. The Washington Post and other newspapers shifted from negative caricatures of organic farming to a supportive position, particularly after the USDA launched an organic certification scheme in the United States under the leadership of Robert Bergland. Certification schemes in Europe and other major markets followed, leading to initiatives by the United Nations for the harmonization of organic certification through multilateral agencies. As organic standards proliferated in the 1990s the United Nations stepped in to resolve the regulatory fragmentation creating a global market for organic goods.

scholarly journals Introduction: International Institutions and Peaceful Change

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-459
Author(s):  
Kai He ◽  
T. V. Paul ◽  
Anders Wivel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Investment Bank ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The United Nations

The rise of “the rest,” especially China, has triggered an inevitable transformation of the so-called liberal international order. Rising powers have started to both challenge and push for the reform of existing multilateral institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and to create new ones, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The United States under the Trump administration, on the other hand, has retreated from the international institutions that the country once led or helped to create, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the Paris Agreement; the Iran nuclear deal; the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The United States has also paralyzed the ability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to settle trade disputes by blocking the appointment of judges to its appellate body. Moreover, in May 2020, President Trump announced his decision to quit the Open Skies Treaty, an arms control regime designed to promote transparency among its members regarding military activities. During the past decade or so, both Russia and the United States have been dismantling multilateral arms control treaties one by one while engaging in new nuclear buildups at home.

scholarly journals States, firms, and security: How private actors implement sanctions, lessons learned from the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Francesco Giumelli ◽  
Michal Onderco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
For Profit ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Private Actors

Abstract While the current practice of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the United States leans towards imposing only targeted sanctions in most of the cases, private actors often complain about inability to process financial transactions, ship goods, or deliver services in countries where sanctions targets are located. The impact of sanctions often ends up being widespread and indiscriminate because sanctions are implemented by for-profit actors. This article investigates how for-profit actors relate to the imposition of sanctions, how they reflect them in their decisions, and how they interact with the public authorities. The findings of our research show that for-profit actors, with the possible exception of the largest multinationals, do not engage with public authorities before the imposition of sanctions. The behaviour of for-profit actors in the implementation phase is in line with the assumption of firms and business as profit-maximisers. Weighting the profits from business against the costs of (non-)compliance and make the decisions that in their view maximise their profit. Indeed, de-risking seems to be the most common approach by the companies due to the uncertainties produced by the multiple and overlapping sanctions regimes imposed by the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document