scholarly journals Charismatic, Transformational, and Servant Leadership in the United States, Mexico, and Croatia

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Suzana Dobric Veiss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Servant Leadership ◽  
Effective Leadership ◽  
Comprehensive Evaluation ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Leadership Theories ◽  
Cultural Leadership ◽  
Globe Study ◽  
United States Mexico

<p>Cross-cultural leadership attempts to understand how leaders function in a highly globalized market.  Certain dimensions of the three leadership theories: charismatic, transformational, and servant were endorsed as important for effective leadership. Major aspects of the leadership theories were compared and contrasted in three different cultures.  The cultures were selected by utilizing the GLOBE study: Anglo cluster with focus on the United States, Latin America cluster with focus on Mexico, and Eastern European cluster with focus on Croatia. While certain aspects of charismatic, transformational, and servant leadership were endorsed as important for effective leadership, only certain dimensions were endorsed across the three cultures studied.  Analysis of Croatia, not available in the original GLOBE study, provides a more comprehensive evaluation of leadership in the region, especially since Croatia has recently emerged as the latest country joining the European Union.  </p>

scholarly journals Addressing Domestic Regulation Affecting Trade in Services in CETA, CPTPP, and USMCA: Revolution or Timid Steps?

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 680-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Ortino ◽  
Emily Lydgate
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade In Services ◽  
Novel Approaches ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
Domestic Regulation ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The number of international agreements purporting to liberalise trade, mainly focused on reducing protectionist measures through the imposition of general principles, has increased greatly over the last 25 years. More recently, the United States and the European Union (EU) concluded comprehensive agreements covering trade in goods, trade in services, and foreign investment. This article inquires whether, and the extent to which, such agreements represent a departure from previous practice. It focuses on (a) the instruments employed to address domestic regulation affecting trade in services and (b) three specific agreements concluded between 2016 and 2018: the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. While these recent Preferential Trade Agreements put forward novel approaches to regulatory diversity affecting trade in services, it is too early to ascertain whether these will have any ground-breaking impact in terms of services trade liberalisation.

scholarly journals Trump Administration Continues Trade Negotiations with Major Trade Partners

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-142
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
Other Regarding ◽  
Trade Partners ◽  
Trump Administration

In the fall of 2019, the Trump administration reached several trade arrangements, some of them tentative, with important U.S. trade partners. On October 11, 2019, China and the United States announced a preliminary trade deal subject to finalization—one that came after more than a year of escalating tariffs. Just a week earlier, the United States had signed two trade agreements with Japan, one regarding tariff reductions and the other regarding digital trade. None of these deals appear to require subsequent congressional approval in the eyes of the executive branch, unlike the earlier United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA), which was signed in November 2018 and whose fate in Congress appears promising as of mid-December of 2019. In addition to these trade arrangements, the fall of 2019 saw several developments in trade relations between the United States and the European Union tied to the long-running trade disputes.

scholarly journals A Really Big Button That Doesn’t Do Anything? The Anti-NME Clause in US Trade Agreements Between Law and Geoeconomics

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-64
Author(s):  
Geraldo Vidigal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Original Design ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
United States Mexico ◽  
Legal Consequences

Abstract The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) features a clause, dubbed ‘anti-China’, which sets out legal consequences in case one of the parties negotiates or enters into a free trade agreement (FTA) with a nonmarket economy (NME). A similarly worded objective appears among the negotiating objectives of the US for FTAs with the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom. This article examines the anti-NME clause, arguing that its concrete legal consequences are less relevant than its symbolic effects. The USMCA clause itself is difficult to replicate in bilateral agreements, since it depends on cooperation between the two nonsigning parties. Its operation is nonetheless similar to that of two unilateral remedies available under the law of treaties, permitting a reasonable assessment that the clause, if it follows its original design, will aim to permit termination of bilateral US FTAs in response to the other party entering into an NME FTA. While such a clause would offer little in terms of concrete effects if added to agreements that already permit unilateral withdrawal, its greatest value may not be in its legal effects but in its legitimating and signaling properties, which push USMCA parties to establish a common front in the ‘geoeconomic’ dispute between the United States and China.

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT FRENCH FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-79
Author(s):  
Nargiza Sodikova ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Modern Time ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Interests ◽  
French Foreign Policy

Important aspects of French foreign policy and national interests in the modern time,France's position in international security and the specifics of foreign affairs with the United States and the European Union are revealed in this article

Ocena antykryzysowej polityki gospodarczej Stanów Zjednoczonych i wybranych państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej w latach 2005–2014

2016 ◽  
pp. 26-46
Author(s):  
Marcin Jan Flotyński
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
High Volatility ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Domestic Products

The global financial crisis in 2007–2009 began a period of high volatility on the financial markets. Specifically, it caused an increased amplitude of fluctuations of the level of gross domestic products, the level of investment and consumption and exchange rates in particular countries. To address the adverse market circumstances, governments and central banks took actions in order to bolster the weakening global economy. The aim of this article is to present the anti-crisis actions in the United States and selected member states of the European Union, including Poland, and an assessment of their efficiency. The analysis conducted indicates that generally the actions taken in the United States in response to the crisis were faster and more adequate to the existing circumstances than in the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document