Weaponizing Antitrust During the Sino-US Tech War

Author(s):  
Angela Huyue Zhang

This chapter demonstrates the close interdependence between the regulatory moves of the United States and those of China. Against the backdrop of the bitter Sino-US tech war, it applies game theory analysis of cooperation and conflict to examine the role of antitrust in China’s tit-for-tat strategy against the aggressive US sanctions. The US executive branch has wide discretion in prosecuting foreign businesses and individuals and has strategically used such legal discretion as an instrument of trade and foreign policy against China. China has retaliated in kind by invoking a number of regulatory measures. In particular, the Chinese antitrust authority has flexed its muscles by holding up large mergers between foreign multinationals, amending its antitrust law to allow for high monetary fines and potential criminal liabilities, and threatening to impose heavy sanctions on firms that boycott or refuse to supply key components to Chinese technology companies. As a result, the line between national security and antitrust policy, once belonging to separate spheres, has become increasingly blurred amid growing Sino-US tensions. However, similar to other countries that have applied countermeasures against US sanctions law, China faces significant economic constraints in weaponizing its antitrust law against US businesses.

Author(s):  
N. P. Gribin

Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, the President of the United States must submit to Congress each year a report on the national security strategy. This report under the name of “National Security Strategy” is intended to be a comprehensive statement anticipating the worldwide interests, goals and objectives that are deemed crucial to the national security of the United States. The new “National Security Strategy” (December 2017) lays out the strategic vision of the Presidential Administration under Donald Trump about ways and means by which the US seeks to deal with internal and external threats. The authors of the Strategy set themselves the main task of proving that American security is based on the realization that American principles are: “a lasting force for good in the World.”  The authors of the Strategy prioritize the protection of the American way of life and American interests all over the world. In that aspect, they see the main danger from the hostile states and non-states actors who are “trying to acquire different types of weapons”. In addition, the administration is demonstrating concerns about the activity of international terrorist organizations (jihadist), transnational criminal organizations, drug cartels and cybercrime. Different from previous similar documents, Trump’s Strategy makes an evident accent on economic security as an important part of national security. The task in that area is “to rebuild economic strength at home and preserve a fair and reciprocal international system.” In a rather confronting manner, the Strategy assesses the role of China and Russia in the international affairs. It underlines that between the main sets of challengers – “the revisionist powers of China and Russia and the rogue states of Iran and North Korea”, the United States will seek areas of cooperation with competitors but will do so from a position of strength. The Strategy pays great attention to restoring military capability of the US. It is stressed that military strength remains a vital component of the competition for influence. In a certain sense, the authors of the Strategy demonstrate a new approach to the role of diplomacy, and especially in regards to the tools of economic diplomacy, intended to protect the US “from abuse by illicit actors”. Pillar four of the Strategy outlines considerations for expanding US influence on a global scale and for supporting friendly partners. As stated in the Strategy, American assistance to developing countries should help promote national interests and vice versa. The US will use all means, including sanctions, to “isolate states and leaders that pose a threat to the American interests.” The Strategy pays much attention to the regional aspect of national security, and, from these positions, the situation in various parts of the world (the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, the Middle East, etc.) is assessed. The authors emphasize that changes in the balance of power at the world level can cause global consequences and threaten American interests and US security. On the contrary, “stability reduces the threats that Americans face at home.”


Author(s):  
Valentina Aronica ◽  
Inderjeet Parmar

This chapter examines domestic factors that influence American foreign policy, focusing on the variety of ways in which pressure groups and elites determine and shape what the United States does in the international arena. It first considers how US foreign policy has evolved over time before discussing the US Constitution in terms of foreign policy making and implementation. It then explores institutional influences on foreign policy making, including Congress and the executive branch, as well as the role of ‘orthodox’ and ‘unorthodox’ actors involved in the making of foreign policy and how power is distributed among them. It also analyzes the Trump administration’s foreign policy, taking into account the ‘Trump Doctrine’ and the US strikes on Syria.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-119
Author(s):  
E. A. Kuznetsov

The US space activities from their inception have been closely connected with the private sector. However, only in 2010s private space companies have come to play a prominent role not only on the global market of space services but in the field of international security as well. At the same time, this trend towards commercialization of outer space use and the growing role of the private space sector in ensuring national security is still understudied. This paper aims to partially fill this gap by assessing approaches to these issues adopted by the administration of D. Trump. In the first section the author notes that both conceptual and legal frameworks of private space activities lack clarity and proposes an operational definition of the phenomenon. The second section provides a brief overview of the key strategic policy documents of the Trump’s administration including those on commercial use of space in general and its implications for the US national security in particular. The third section identifies the trend towards the institutionalization of the US Space Forces as one of the priorities of the Trump’s administration military policy. The fourth section thoroughly examines key forms and areas of the public–private partnership in commercial use of space, including launch services, communication services, intelligence gathering, as well as production and maintenance of satellites. Finally, the fifth section assesses the prospects for private space activities given the current tightness of the space services market and growing competition. The author concludes that private space plays a subsidiary role within the US national security and is still heavily dependent on state support. Nevertheless, the scope of public–private cooperation is expanding and the models of interaction are changing. The Trump’s administration has contributed to the development of the industry through liberalization of regulations and involvement of private sector in the new large-scale projects, such as the Artemis program. The other important outcome of the space policy of the 45th President of the United States is anchoring of private space activities in the US national security strategy documents.


Author(s):  
James E. Baker

This article discusses covert action within the context of the U.S. law. The first section describes the main elements of the U.S. legal regime, including the definition of covert action and the “traditional activity” exceptions, the elements of a covert action finding, and the thresholds and requirements for congressional notification. The second section describes some of the significant limitations on the conduct of covert action. The third section discusses the nature of executive branch legal practice in this area of the law. And the last section draws conclusions about the role of national security law within the context of covert action.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda J. Bilmes

AbstractThe United States has traditionally defined national security in the context of military threats and addressed them through military spending. This article considers whether the United States will rethink this mindset following the disruption of the Covid19 pandemic, during which a non-military actor has inflicted widespread harm. The author argues that the US will not redefine national security explicitly due to the importance of the military in the US economy and the bipartisan trend toward growing the military budget since 2001. However, the pandemic has opened the floodgates with respect to federal spending. This shift will enable the next administration to allocate greater resources to non-military threats such as climate change and emerging diseases, even as it continues to increase defense spending to address traditionally defined military threats such as hypersonics and cyberterrorism.


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (7) ◽  
pp. 797-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brianne Suldovsky ◽  
Asheley Landrum ◽  
Natalie Jomini Stroud

In an era where expertise is increasingly critiqued, this study draws from the research on expertise and scientist stereotyping to explore who the public considers to be a scientist in the context of media coverage about climate change and genetically modified organisms. Using survey data from the United States, we find that political ideology and science knowledge affect who the US public believes is a scientist in these domains. Our results suggest important differences in the role of science media attention and science media selection in the publics “scientist” labeling. In addition, we replicate previous work and find that compared to other people who work in science, those with PhDs in Biology and Chemistry are most commonly seen as scientists.


Author(s):  
N. Gegelashvili ◽  
◽  
I. Modnikova ◽  

The article analyzes the US policy towards Ukraine dating back from the time before the reunification of Crimea with Russia and up to Donald Trump coming to power. The spectrum of Washington’s interests towards this country being of particular strategic interest to the United States are disclosed. It should be noted that since the disintegration of the Soviet Union Washington’s interest in this country on the whole has not been very much different from its stand on all post-Soviet states whose significance was defined by the U,S depending on their location on the world map as well as on the value of their natural resources. However, after the reunification of Crimea with Russia Washington’s stand on this country underwent significant changes, causing a radical transformation of the U,S attitude in their Ukrainian policy. During the presidency of Barack Obama the American policy towards Ukraine was carried out rather sluggishly being basically declarative in its nature. When President D. Trump took his office Washington’s policy towards Ukraine became increasingly more offensive and was characterized by a rather proactive stance not only because Ukraine became the principal arena of confrontation between the United States and the Russian Federation, but also because it became a part of the US domestic political context. Therefore, an outcome of the “battle” for Ukraine is currently very important for the United States in order to prove to the world its role of the main helmsman in the context of a diminishing US capability of maintaining their global superiority.


2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 815
Author(s):  
Clayton Bangsund

In both the United States and Canada, bankruptcy preferential transfer avoidance provisions are aimed at creating equality of distribution among similarly situated creditors. However, there is a key difference in the way each jurisdiction’s regime treats the notion of intent. An analysis of each regime, using examples, illustrates the way in which Canada’s regime effectually does violence to the distributive equality policy objective, while the US regime adheres to it.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
Matthew Dotzler

The conflict between Turkey and the Kurds is once again reaching a boiling point. Following the defeat of ISIL in northern Iraq and Syria, Turkey is now concerned that the returning Kurdish militias pose a threat to its national security. The United States, as an ally to both parties, finds itself in a unique position to push for diplomatic solutions and to mediate the conflict before it grows out of control once again. This paper will examine the history of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, the actors involved, and how US foreign policy can be used to try and deter yet another war in the region.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document