The New Approach to the United States Role in European Economic Stabilization

1948 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Edward S. Mason
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Approach ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Economic Stabilization

Stress Testing to Assess Recovery from Extreme Events

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. John Plodinec
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Financial Institutions ◽  
Extreme Events ◽  
Stress Testing ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Rapid Spread ◽  
Potential Benefits

Abstract Over the last decade, communities have become increasingly aware of the risks they face. They are threatened by natural disasters, which may be exacerbated by climate change and the movement of land masses. Growing globalization has made a pandemic due to the rapid spread of highly infectious diseases ever more likely. Societal discord breeds its own threats, not the least of which is the spread of radical ideologies giving rise to terrorism. The accelerating rate of technological change has bred its own social and economic risks. This widening spectrum of risk poses a difficult question to every community – how resilient will the community be to the extreme events it faces. In this paper, we present a new approach to answering that question. It is based on the stress testing of financial institutions required by regulators in the United States and elsewhere. It generalizes stress testing by expanding the concept of “capital” beyond finance to include the other “capitals” (e.g., human, social) possessed by a community. Through use of this approach, communities can determine which investments of its capitals are most likely to improve its resilience. We provide an example of using the approach, and discuss its potential benefits.

scholarly journals 107 Traceability

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 61-62
Author(s):  
John Butler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Animal Disease ◽  
Global Marketplace ◽  
Cattle Industry ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Traceability System ◽  
Competitive Disadvantage ◽  
Final Rule

Abstract Animal disease traceability—or knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they’ve been, and when—is important to ensuring a rapid response when animal disease events take place. Although animal disease traceability does not prevent disease, an efficient and accurate traceability system reduces the number of animals and response time involved in a disease investigation; which, in turn, reduces the economic impact on owners and affected communities. The current approach to traceability in the United States is the result of significant discussion and compromise. Federal policy regarding traceability has been amended several times over the past decade based on stakeholder feedback, particularly from the cattle industry. In early 2010, USDA announced a new approach for responding to and controlling animal diseases, referred to as the ADT framework. USDA published a proposed rule, “Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate,” on August 11, 2011, and the final rule on January 9, 2013. Under the final rule, unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) or other documentation. However, these requirements do not apply to all cattle. Beef cattle under 18 months of age, unless they are moved interstate for shows, exhibitions, rodeos, or recreational events, are exempt from the official identification requirement in this rule. We can do better. Our industry must recognize how vulnerable we really are, should we be subject to a disease such as foot and mouth. We must also understand what a competitive disadvantage the United States faces in the global marketplace without a recognized, industry-wide traceability system.

Towards a redefinition of the role of the court interpreter

Interpreting ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Mikkelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Formal Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
State Statutes

Various federal and state statutes in the United States define the role of the court interpreter with clear and unequivocal rules. This definition is based on the underlying principles of the U.S. legal system, which is derived from the Anglo-Saxon common-law tradition. Consequently, the distinctive features of that system, including the jury trial and the concept of adversarial proceedings, make the function of the court interpreter quite different from that of his/her counterparts in other countries. In recent years, the judiciary has made an effort to enhance the public's access to the justice system, but at the same time, the latest wave of immigration comprises individuals from societies in which cultural norms differ greatly from those of the United States. Moreover, many of these immigrants have received little or no formal education. As a result, judiciary interpreters feel somewhat constrained by the rules that govern their profession when they strive to bridge the cultural and linguistic gap. This paper reexamines the function of the court interpreter in light of these circumstances and an analysis of prevailing practices in other countries, and proposes a new approach to the interpreter's role.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 889-889 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Economic Community ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Community ◽  
European Economic

The 1960–1961 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Tariff Conference was brought to a conclusion on July 16, 1962. The decision to hold the 1960–1961 conference was taken in May 1959, following a proposal of the United States that such a conference should be held. Approximately 4,400 tariff concessions were negotiated at the conference. There were three separate elements in the 1960–1961 conference: 1) renegotiations with the European Economic Community (EEC); 2) the “Dillon” or general round of negotiations; and 3) negotiations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the General Agreement with countries wishing to accede to GATT.

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.

A Paradigm of ‘Crisis’ Decision Making: The Case of Synfuels Policy

1987 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed E. Ahrari
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
The United States ◽  
Crisis Response ◽  
Policy Option ◽  
The Self ◽  
Policy Response ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Crisis Conditions

In explaining the making and unravelling of the synfuels policy in the United States, a new approach—the ambivalent-majoritarian paradigm—is presented in this article. This paradigm fills a significant conceptual gap for the study of domestic policy formulated under crisis conditions.It is argued that the self-imposed necessity to respond to a crisis condition involving a policy decision is likely to force legislators to adopt a policy option that they would not adopt under normal conditions. The crisis response is likely to be passed by a ‘majoritarian’ crisis coalition which would also include a significant number of ‘ambivalents’, i.e., those legislators who have serious misgivings about the correctness or feasibility of the policy. In order for such a policy response to survive, it must withstand the scrutiny of ‘normal’ conditions involving that policy.

“The Death of Liberal Internationalism?: Donald Trump, Walmart, and the Two Koreas”

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-197
Author(s):  
Mitchell B. Lerner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Short Term ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Liberal Internationalism ◽  
The People ◽  
Modern Business ◽  
Short Time

The election of Donald J. Trump unsettled many areas of U.S. foreign policy, but few more than the nation’s relationship with Korea. This article argues that the Trump administration’s vision for the world represents a stark break from the tradition of liberal internationalism and instead seeks to take the United States down a path that reflects the modern business practices of giant American corporations. A suitable label for this vision, as the following pages will show, is “Walmart unilateralism.” This framework abandons the traditional American policies of nation building and alliances based on shared ideological values. Instead, it embraces a more short-term approach rooted in financial bottom lines, flexible alliances and rivalries, and the ruthless exploitation of power hierarchies. This new approach, this article concludes, may dramatically transform the American relationship with Korea. Walmart unilateralism in Korea almost certainly will have some short-time positive ramifications for the United States, but its larger failure to consider the history and values of the people living on the Korean Peninsula may generate serious long-term problems for the future experience of the United States in the region.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document