China–US Trade Frictions Shaping New Equilibriums with the EU and the US

10.1142/11981 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xugang Yu ◽  
Mario Tettamanti ◽  
Cristiano Rizzi
Keyword(s):  
The Us ◽  
2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.


2012 ◽  
pp. 132-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Uzun

The article deals with the features of the Russian policy of agriculture support in comparison with the EU and the US policies. Comparative analysis is held considering the scales and levels of collective agriculture support, sources of supporting means, levels and mechanisms of support of agricultural production manufacturers, its consumers, agrarian infrastructure establishments, manufacturers and consumers of each of the principal types of agriculture production. The author makes an attempt to estimate the consequences of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization based on a hypothesis that this will result in unification of the manufacturers and consumers’ protection levels in Russia with the countries that have long been WTO members.


2013 ◽  
pp. 770-777
Author(s):  
Yelto Zimmer

The EU is about to abolish the sugar – and the isoglucose – quota system in 2016/17. Isoglucose made from corn occupies about 50% of the US sweetener market while its market share in the EU caloric sweetener market is less than 5%. Against this background, this paper analyses the economics of isoglucose production in Europe in order to understand its competitiveness vis-à-vis sugar. Key results: (1) Isoglucose will become a rather competitive product. The EU sugar industry will have to give up about 40% of its current processing and profit margin in order to sell sugar at the same price as isoglucose will be traded; (2) Once industrial sugar users move to isoglucose, they will tend to be “hooked-in,” giving the sugar industry a strong incentive to defend its market share; and (3) Since only about 30% of the current sugar market is able to switch to isoglucose, the sugar industry has the option to practice a mixed calculation. In an extreme scenario, the industry may even opt to cross-subsidize sales. Therefore it’s not clear whether investors in isoglucose will be able to gain a major market share in Europe.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-57
Author(s):  
FRANCO BRUNI ◽  

The article is devoted to problems in relations between the EU and Russia. Multiple methods are considered that are aimed at solving the problem of multilateralism in current conditions. The author selected and studied specific documents on essential aspects that are devoted to this topic. Studying the arising problems requires careful consideration since, in the modern world, cooperation between global actors such as the EU and Russia cannot be ignored. Despite all the challenges faced by the parties in their fields, all difficulties are conquerable, and the article provides specific methods for its solving. The article discusses some aspects and problems that require particular attention from specialists in this field. The author concludes that strong US–EU coalition could seem more coherent with history and with the traditional East–West divide. However, the recent evolution of the US attitude towards international relations weakens the probability of such coalition and its perceived payoffs. A more or less defensive Russia–China coalition has been tried with limited results; moreover, if it were possible and probable, the two western players would change their strategy to prevent it or to contain its depth. In fact, we live in a world where many talks of a serious possibility of G2 governance, a peculiar type of coalition where the US and China keep hostile and nationalistic attitudes but join forces to set the global stage in their favor, pursuing a qualitatively limited but quantitatively rich payoff. In such world, as a counterpart of this payoff, both the divided Europe and the economically much smaller Russia would lose power and suffer several kinds of economic disadvantages. Therefore, Greater Europe would be good for Russia and for the EU as well.


Author(s):  
Panagiotis Delimatsis

Secrecy and informality rather than transparency traditionally reign trade negotiations at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels. Yet, transparency ranks among the most basic desiderata in the grammar of global governance and has been regarded as positively related to legitimacy. In the EU’s case, transparent trade diplomacy is quintessential for constitutional—but also for broader political—reasons. First, even if trade matters fall within the EU’s exclusive competence, the EU executive is bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to inform the European Parliament, the EU co-legislator, in regular intervals. Second, transparency at an early stage is important to address public reluctance, suspicion, or even opposition regarding a particular trade deal. This chapter chronicles the quest for and turning moments relating to transparency during the EU trade negotiations with Canada (CETA); the US (TTIP), and various WTO members on services (TiSA).


Author(s):  
Shreya Atrey

Why has intersectionality fallen by the wayside of discrimination law? Thirty years after Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’, discrimination lawyers continue to be plagued by this question across a range of jurisdictions, including the US, UK, South Africa, India, Canada, as well as the UN treaty body jurisprudence and the jurisprudence of the EU and the ECHR. Claimants continue to struggle to establish intersectional claims based on more than one ground of discrimination. This book renews the bid for realizing intersectionality in comparative discrimination law. It presents a juridical account of intersectional discrimination as a category of discrimination inspired by intersectionality theory, and distinct from other categories of thinking about discrimination including strict, substantial, capacious, and contextual forms of single-axis discrimination, multiple discrimination, additive discrimination as in combination or compound discrimination, and embedded discrimination. Intersectional discrimination, defined in these theoretical and categorial terms, then needs to be translated into doctrine, recalibrating each of the central concepts and tools of discrimination law to respond to it—including the text of non-discrimination guarantees, the idea of grounds, the test for analogous grounds, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, the substantive meaning of discrimination, the use of comparators, the justification analysis and standard of review, the burden of proof between parties, and the range of remedies available. With this, the book presents a granular account of intersectional discrimination in theoretical, conceptual, and doctrinal terms, and aims to transform discrimination law in the process of realizing intersectionality within its discourse.


Pharmaceutics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Ioana Gherghescu ◽  
M. Begoña Delgado-Charro

Biosimilar medicines expand the biotherapeutic market and improve patient access. This work looked into the landscape of the European and US biosimilar products, their regulatory authorization, market availability, and clinical evaluation undergone prior to the regulatory approval. European Medicines Agency (EMEA, currently EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) repositories were searched to identify all biosimilar medicines approved before December 2019. Adalimumab biosimilars, and particularly their clinical evaluations, were used as a case study. In the past 13 years, the EMA has received 65 marketing authorization applications for biosimilar medicines with 55 approved biosimilars available in the EU market. Since the first biosimilar approval in 2015, the FDA has granted 26 approvals for biosimilars with only 11 being currently on the US market. Five adalimumab biosimilars have been approved in the EU and commercialized as eight different medicines through duplicate marketing authorizations. Whilst three of these are FDA-approved, the first adalimumab biosimilar will not be marketed in the US until 2023 due to Humira’s exclusivity period. The EU biosimilar market has developed faster than its US counterpart, as the latter is probably challenged by a series of patents and exclusivity periods protecting the bio-originator medicines, an issue addressed by the US’s latest ‘Biosimilar Action Plan’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document