scholarly journals Baby, Bye, Bye, Bye

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-566
Author(s):  
Jojuan F. Gross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Consumer Products ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Chinese Market ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
Counterfeit Goods ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Christian Louboutin. Manchester United. Agent Provocateur. In a world where trademarks have become more than brand identifiers, counterfeit versions of brands should be easily identifiable. Yet counterfeiting regimes from Asian countries continue to funnel counterfeit goods through the United States and European Union borders. Both regions continue to impose stricter anti-counterfeiting laws and regulations. Nevertheless, companies in the United States, Italy, and France are drastically affected by counterfeiting, losing billions per year in revenue. The International Chamber of Commerce’s (“ICC”) Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (“BASCAP”) and the International Trademark Association (“INTA”) estimate that the value of international and domestic trade in counterfeit and pirated goods in 2013 ranged from $710–$917 billion. BASCAP and INTA predict that by 2022, the value of business in counterfeit and pirated goods could reach $991 billion. Asian countries produce more than 70% of all counterfeit goods with the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and Hong Kong as the leading provenance economies for counterfeiting. China’s proliferation of counterfeit goods stems from economic, social, and political forces that influence China’s socialist market economy. On average, 20% of consumer products in the Chinese market are counterfeit goods. The counterfeiting industry continues to cripple various countries including the United States, Italy, and France, costing corporations billions in revenue and placing consumers in significant financial and health risk. The substantial impact of counterfeiting on the global economy has spurred the United States, Italy, and France to impose strict anti-counterfeiting laws and regulations. The United States anti-counterfeiting arsenal to protect trademark owners includes civil enforcement under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1051 and criminal enforcement under 18 U.S.C. § 2320. Italy and France impose similar laws and regulations but also take their anti-counterfeiting mechanism further by seeking stricter criminal penalties for manufacturers, distributors, and consumers. This Article explains the regulatory and legal anti-counterfeiting mechanisms adopted by the United States and the European Union, specifically Italy and France, to illustrate the international legal and regulatory tools used to reduce the economic hardships of counterfeiting.

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.

scholarly journals States, firms, and security: How private actors implement sanctions, lessons learned from the Netherlands

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Francesco Giumelli ◽  
Michal Onderco
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
For Profit ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Private Actors

Abstract While the current practice of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the United States leans towards imposing only targeted sanctions in most of the cases, private actors often complain about inability to process financial transactions, ship goods, or deliver services in countries where sanctions targets are located. The impact of sanctions often ends up being widespread and indiscriminate because sanctions are implemented by for-profit actors. This article investigates how for-profit actors relate to the imposition of sanctions, how they reflect them in their decisions, and how they interact with the public authorities. The findings of our research show that for-profit actors, with the possible exception of the largest multinationals, do not engage with public authorities before the imposition of sanctions. The behaviour of for-profit actors in the implementation phase is in line with the assumption of firms and business as profit-maximisers. Weighting the profits from business against the costs of (non-)compliance and make the decisions that in their view maximise their profit. Indeed, de-risking seems to be the most common approach by the companies due to the uncertainties produced by the multiple and overlapping sanctions regimes imposed by the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document