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.

scholarly journals A comparative analysis of the information duties in Belgian and American occupational pensions

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-63
Author(s):  
Marjolein Denys ◽  
David Pratt ◽  
Yves Stevens
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Occupational Pension ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Occupational Pensions ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Right

Both the United States of America and Belgium attach great importance to communication duties in occupational pensions. Several legal sources in both countries provide the right to be informed to participants. The legislation in both countries seeks to ensure accurate, correct, transparent and understandable communication. Despite this resemblance, there are some differences in communication. The countries can learn from one another. Based on a theoretical framework developed in and for the European Union, the communication rights and duties in the USA and Belgium are analysed. This analysis leads to a better understanding of the different legal responsibilities, transparency rules, simplification efforts and technical correctness of the types of occupational pension information analyzed.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical innovations patenting: the experience of the Russian Federation, the United States of America, the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-275
Author(s):  
Diana A. Lebedeva
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Innovative Solutions ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction. When patenting pharmaceutical innovations, in the context of rapid technological progress, pharmaceutical companies often have to face identifying patentable objects both in the Russian Federation and in the United States of America and the European Union. The aim of the study is to review the possibilities for patenting pharmaceutical innovations in the Russian Federation, the United States of America and the European Union, as well as to identify the advantages and disadvantages of legal regulation of innovative solutions of pharmaceutical companies in the context of the specifics of legal systems. Material and methods. The national legislation in patenting medical innovations was studied, and the relevant experience of the USA and the European Union was analyzed. The methodological basis of the research is made up of both general scientific and private scientific legal methods: systemic, method of concretization, methods of synthesis and analysis, as well as the comparative-legal method. Results. Depending on the legislator’s position, a basis is being formed for the legal regulation of innovative solutions of pharmaceutical companies, which may not yet be named in regulatory legal acts due to their fundamental novelty. Legal gaps and conflicts in the US and the EU are resolved through in-depth analysis and consideration of each specific dispute by the court. In Russia, the settlement of this issue is on the way to solving it through local regulations and the position of the relevant federal executive bodies. Conclusion. Patenting in the pharmaceutical field is mainly of a stimulating nature, since it allows protecting innovative solutions at the stage of their development. However, the legislator has particular difficulties in identifying patentable objects in the context of rapid technological progress.

scholarly journals Two Grand Old Ladies Face to Face: The United Kingdom and the United States of America Constitutions Compared

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Patrono ◽  
Justin O Frosini
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty

This article discusses the Constitution of the United Kingdom and then draws some comparisons between it and the Constitution of the United States of America. It touches on issues such as how the United Kingdom's commitment to parliamentary sovereignty has been affected by the country's relationship with the European Union.

MIDDLE EAST POLICY COMPONENT OF THE USA, CHINA AND RUSSIAN FEDERATION: POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (part 1)

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 126-149
Author(s):  
D. V. GORDIENKO ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Usa ◽  
East Component ◽  
The Military ◽  
Middle East Policy ◽  
The Impact

The paper assesses the impact of the middle East component of the policy of the United States of America, the people's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on ensuring the national security of these countries. We propose an approach to comparing this influence, which allows us to identify the priorities of Russia's policy in the middle East and other regions of the world. The results of the work can be used to justify recommendations to the military and political leadership of our country. It is concluded that the middle East component of the policy of the United States, China and Russia is gaining a significant role in the implementation of the current economic and military policies of the countries of the middle East region.

Tiptoeing the Line Between National Security and Protectionism: A Comparative Approach to Foreign Direct Investment Screening in the United States and European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-117
Author(s):  
Jason Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
National Security ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The U.S

AbstractWeaponization of state-backed, foreign investments by China is an emerging national security threat in the United States and the European Union. The U.S. and E.U. have espoused similar policy goals—to address the threat without closing their markets to foreign direct investment—while fostering increased cooperation between allied partners in screening transactions.On the surface, the recent, China-specific measures taken by the U.S. and the investment screening framework adopted by the E.U. appear reflective of an alignment of those policy goals. Indeed, many commentators have suggested that is exactly what is happening. However, closer examination reveals a stark divergence. The U.S. has a robust screening mechanism that has evolved into a weapon of economic warfare. The E.U. meanwhile, remains a patchwork of conflicting—or nonexistent—national regulations overlaid by a comparatively toothless investment screening framework.There is a tendency to attribute this divergence to structural differences between the United States and European Union. This in-depth comparison of U.S. and E.U. investment screening mechanisms exposes a split that goes beyond application and into actual policy. This revelation should temper expectations that the E.U. is equipping itself to block transactions that are of concern to the U.S.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document