Convention for European Economic Cooperation, Signed at Paris, April 16, 1948

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 420-426 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom

The Governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey and the Commanders in Chief of the French, United Kingdom and United States Zones of Occupation of Germany

Organization For European Economic Cooperation

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 520-528
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
New Members ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Consultative Group

Council of OEECOn April 4, 1950, the Council of OEEC held its annual election. Dr. Dirk U. Stikker, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and political conciliator of OEEC, was elected chairman of the Council, thus combining the functions of those two OEEC offices. Representatives of Austria and Switzerland were elected as vicechairmen of the Council, while new members of the executive committee of OEEC were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom retained the presidency of this committee and France the vice-presidency and Turkey replaced Switzerland as rapporteur géndral. The Council also decided to do away with the consultative group of eleven which had proved to be unwieldy and to eliminate the practice by which the chairman and vice-chairmen had been expected to spend two days of every week in Paris. It was decided that: 1) the full Council should meet at the ministerial level on the first Friday of every second month; 2) whenever circumstances demanded, the executive committee could be convened at the ministerial level, with the participation of the chairman of the Council and possibly at his call; 3) the chairman was empowered to ask the vice-chairmen to meet with him in Paris at any time to review progress or to discuss action. In response to a request from the Council of Europe, the Council of OEEC appointed a subcommittee of three members to meet with a similar subcommittee from the Council of Europe to discuss closer cooperation. Sweden and Italy were named to the OEEC subcommittee with a third member to be announced later.

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.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-568
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Balance Of Payments ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Payments System ◽  
European Trade

The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, composed of cabinet members of the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands, held a series of secret meetings during May and June in an attempt to solve the problem of intra-European trade and the intra-European payments system which was scheduled to end June 30, 1949. The principal objections to the existing payments system were that it was originally formed in a series of bilateral agreements between each of the countries, that the original agreements were based on estimates of the expected balance of payments which had in some cases been erroneous, and that existing quotas had stifled trade.

Relationship of the production of the toxin, cerato-ulmin, to synnemata formation, pathogenicity, mycelial habit, and growth of Ceratocystis ulmi isolates

1980 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 658-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shozo Takai
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Radial Growth ◽  
The United States ◽  
Measurable Quantity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Forty-seven isolates of Ceratocystis ulmi collected from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and Iran were classified with respect to their ability to produce cerato-ulmin (CU) and synnemata, their radial growth, mycelial habit, and pathogenicity.Twenty-nine isolates clearly produced CU in a measurable quantity while 18 isolates produced it only in trace quantities. In general, the former produced fluffy mycelium and were active in synnemata formation. They were aggressive in pathogenicity with one exception. The latter group of isolates generally produced waxy, yeastlike mycelium and formed very few synnemata. They were all nonaggressive in pathogenicity. Radial growth was generally higher among the isolates that produced CU in larger quantities than among those producing CU in trace quantities. The relationship between CU production and pathogenicity affords a method for estimating isolate pathogenicity without the need for host inoculation.

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.

scholarly journals Scientific communication or a qualification for an academic career? What use is publishing papers in psychology journals?

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 166-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Osca-Lluch ◽  
Francisco González-Sala ◽  
Julia Haba-Osca ◽  
Francisco Tortosa ◽  
Maria Peñaranda-Ortega
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
The United States ◽  
Psychology Research ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Number Of Publications

This paper analyses all psychology journals included in the different categories of the JCR (SCI and SSCI) and SJR databases during the period 2014-2016 in order to identify the journals that are better positioned in the discipline, and the specialities and countries with the highest number of publications indexed in such databases. Method: The distribution of psychology journals by country, quartile, and subject category was studied in order to determine the total number and position of journals in each country, and to identify the countries with more journals of ‘excellence’ in psychology in the international scene. Results: The United States and the United Kingdom had the highest number of journals included in the databases, as well as the Netherlands, Germany, France and Spain. Only 11 countries have psychology journals in quartile 1 in JCR, and 14 in SJR databases. Conclusions: As a result of the application of new evaluation criteria in psychology research in Spain, the paper addresses the difficulties and consequences that some of these measures may have for the survival of psychology journals that do not have a position in quartile 1 or 2 in the databases used for the evaluation of professionals’ research in this discipline

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document