Evaluations on Several National Injury Surveillance Systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 321-324 ◽  
pp. 2596-2601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Zhang ◽  
Jin Xing Wang ◽  
Yoshiki Mikami
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Surveillance System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Injury Surveillance ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Evaluation Result ◽  
On Line ◽  
The U.S

On-line Queries were conducted on three injury surveillance systems implemented in Japan, the United States and the European Union. Attributes such as simplicity, representativeness, and data quality of each surveillance system were evaluated. The evaluation result shows that the system in the U.S. has a better performance.

ICTs and Border Security Policies in the United States and the European Union

2011 ◽  
pp. 373-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Shields
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Border Security ◽  
Surveillance Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Life Chances ◽  
Management Regime

ICT-related initiatives have dominated the border security strategies of the United States and the European Union in recent years. One set of surveillance systems fortifies the borderline. Another set is creating new frontiers away from the traditional boundary. The objectives of this chapter are to provide a detailed mapping and critical assessment of this two-pronged approach. With respect to the assessment, two arguments are made. First, there are good reasons to believe the approach is not enabling the authorities to deter identified border threats. Second, the approach is contributing to a border management regime that is having an increasingly divergent impact on the mobility and life chances of different groups and populations. In conclusion, it is suggested the inefficacy of the approach is due to contradictions and blind spots embedded in policy maker’s approaches to security issues. Remarks are offered as to why US and EU decision makers emphasize the role of ICTs as they seek to reconstitute their respective borders.

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.

scholarly journals A Weaponized Court of Justice in Schrems II

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Jeffery Atik ◽  
Xavier Groussot
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Data ◽  
The U.S

The U.S.-EU conflict over the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to U.S.-based digital platform companies is marked by a startling legal development: the insertion of a constitutional court squarely into the heart of the dispute. The engagement of the EU’s top court - the Court of Justice (CJEU) - in the Schrems I and Schrems II cases - has significantly inflamed the dispute. The CJEU has now twice struck down GDPR accommodations reached between the United States and the European Union. In doing so, the Court has rebuked both U.S. and EU officials. By transfiguring provisions of the GDPR with constitutional (that is, treaty-based) and human rights values, the Court has placed out of reach any accommodation that does not involve significant reform of U.S. privacy and national security provisions. Heated trans-Atlantic disputes involving assertions of extraterritorial extensions of regulatory power is an inappropriate place for a constitutional court like the CJEU to throw its declarative weight around. 

A Comparative Analysis of E-Collaboration Research Funding in the European Union and the United States

2009 ◽  
pp. 40-48
Author(s):  
Ned Kock ◽  
Pedro Antunes
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Government Funding ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Government Investment ◽  
Research Tradition ◽  
Steady Growth ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Much of the funding for research and development initiatives in the area of e-collaboration comes from government agencies in various countries. Government funding of e-collaboration research in the European Union (EU) and the United States (U.S.), in particular, seems to be experiencing steady growth in recent years. In the EU, a key initiative to promote governmental investment in e-collaboration research is the Collaboration@Work initiative. This initiative is one of the EU’s Information Society Technologies Directorate General’s main priorities. In the U.S., government investment in e-collaboration research is channeled through several government branches and organizations, notably the National Science Foundation. There are key differences in the approaches used for government funding of e-collaboration research in the EU and U.S. Among other differences, the EU model appears to foster research that is aligned with the action research tradition, whereas the U.S. model places emphasis on research that is better aligned with the experimental research tradition.

US Perspectives on the EU Medical Device Approval System, and Lessons Learned from the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-464
Author(s):  
Christa Altenstetter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
The United States ◽  
Interdisciplinary Studies ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

The literature on the regulation of drugs at the FDA and the European Union is substantial, yet little research has provided comparative analyses and robust empirical data on the regulation of medical devices in the United States and the European Union. As medical and health markets become increasingly globalized, and the U.S. and the EU compete for leadership and recognition, salient domestic regulatory issues are becoming increasingly international and transnational policy issues. Building on Carpenter's (2010) work on drug regulation at the FDA, but taking a slightly narrower yet at the same time a broader approach by drawing on interdisciplinary studies instead of limiting ourselves to only the Political Science literature, this comparison focuses on key aspects of risk regulation and governance of medical devices in the U.S. and the EU, and shows how and why individual and organizational learning is imperative in each case.

Brexit Diplomacy, Trump, and the uk’s “Special Relationship” with the United States

Diplomatica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Larres
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Conservative Party ◽  
The United States ◽  
Special Relationship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
And Control ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Theresa May

The much-praised “special relationship” between the US and the UK has had little, if any, relevance for President Donald Trump. After the Brexit referendum of June 2016 Prime Minister Theresa May and many of the “Brexiteers” in the Conservative Party hoped that a rejuvenation of relations with the U.S., perhaps by means of free trade treaty, would counter-balance any loss of political and economic influence due to the UK’s departure from the European Union. Some of Trump’s rhetoric seemed to indicate this. He repeatedly praised the country for its desire to get back “its sovereignty” and “control over its borders.” In reality Trump was so focused on the realization of his “America First” policy that it was unlikely that he would be inclined to grant any special favors or generous trade terms to the UK, “special relationship” or not.

scholarly journals Der militärische Arm der Europäischen Union

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (144) ◽  
pp. 381-395
Author(s):  
Guglielmo Carchedi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
European Currency ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Real Danger

This essay examines whether the European Union, already the most powerful economic and financial rival of the United States, can develop its military arm to a level compatible with its economic and financial weight. It concludes by suggesting a parallel between European currency and the European military. The ECU started as virtual money that evolved into the Euro to become a real danger for the U.S. dollar. At this point, the nascent EU army is only a potential threat to a still unchallenged U.S. military power, but a parallel and ominous evolution is under way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document