Checks and Balances

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-62
Author(s):  
Hans-Georg Bretschneider
Keyword(s):  
Checks And Balances

Why Adjudicate?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Steel Industry ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Chinese Intellectual ◽  
Trade War

The World Trade Organization (WTO) oversees the negotiation and enforcement of formal rules governing international trade. Why do countries choose to adjudicate their trade disputes in the WTO rather than settling their differences on their own? This book investigates the domestic politics behind the filing of WTO complaints and reveals why formal dispute settlement creates better outcomes for governments and their citizens. It demonstrates that industry lobbying, legislative demands, and international politics influence which countries and cases appear before the WTO. Democratic checks and balances bias the trade policy process toward public lawsuits and away from informal settlements. Trade officials use legal complaints to manage domestic politics and defend trade interests. WTO dispute settlement enables states and domestic groups to signal resolve more effectively, thereby enhancing the information available to policymakers and reducing the risk of a trade war. The book establishes this argument with data on trade disputes and landmark cases, including the Boeing-Airbus controversy over aircraft subsidies, disagreement over Chinese intellectual property rights, and Japan's repeated challenges of U.S. steel industry protection. The book explains why the United States gains better outcomes for cases taken to formal dispute settlement than for those negotiated. Case studies of Peru and Vietnam show that legal action can also benefit developing countries.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

Сирия (аш-Шам) в системе османских владений (XVI – начало XX в.)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.R. Zhantiev
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
19Th Century ◽  
Social Mechanisms ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Local Elites ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
The Face ◽  
High Level ◽  
The 19Th Century

Аннотация В статье рассматривается роль и место Сирии (включая Ливан и Палестину) в системе османских владений на протяжении нескольких веков от османского завоевания до периода правления султана Абдул-Хамида II. В течение четырех столетий османского владычества территория исторической Сирии (Билад аш-Шам) была одним из важнейших компонентов османской системы и играла роль связующего звена между Анатолией, Египтом, Ираком и Хиджазом. Необходимость ежегодной организации хаджа с символами султанской власти и покровительства над святынями Мекки и Медины определяла особую стратегическую важность сирийских провинций Османской империи. Несмотря на ряд серьезных угроз во время общего кризиса османской государственности (конец XVI начало XIX вв.), имперскому центру удалось сохранить контроль над Сирией путем создания сдержек и противовесов между местными элитами. В XIX в. и особенно в период правления Абдул- Хамида II (18761909 гг.), сохранение Сирии под османским контролем стало вопросом существования Османской империи, которая перед лицом растущего европейского давления и интервенции потеряла большую часть своих владений на Балканах и в Северной Африке. Задача укрепления связей между имперским центром и периферией в сирийских вилайетах в последней четверти XIX в. была в целом успешно решена. К началу XX в. Сирия была одним из наиболее политически спокойных и прочно связанных со Стамбулом регионов Османской империи. Этому в значительной степени способствовали довольно высокий уровень общественной безопасности, развитие внешней торговли, рост образования и постепенная интеграция местных элит (как мусульман, так и христиан) в османские государственные и социальные механизмы. Положение Сирии в системе османских владений показало, что процесс ослабления и территориальной дезинтеграции Османской империи в эпоху реформ не был линейным и наряду с потерей владений и влияния на Балканах, в азиатской части империи в течение XIX и начала XX вв. происходил параллельный процесс имперской консолидации.Abstract The article examines the role and place of Greater Syria (including Lebanon and Palestine) in the system of Ottoman possessions over several centuries from the Ottoman conquest to the period of the reign of Abdul Hamid II. For four centuries of Ottoman domination, the territory of historical Syria (Bilad al-Sham) was one of the most important components in the Ottoman system and played the role of a link between Anatolia, Egypt, Iraq and Hijaz. The need to ensure the Hajj with symbols of Sultan power and patronage over the shrines of Mecca and Medina each year determined the special strategic importance of the Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Despite a number of serious threats during the general crisis of the Ottoman state system (late 16th early 19th centuries), the imperial center managed to maintain control over Syria by creating checks and balances between local elites. In the 19th century. And especially during the reign of Abdul Hamid II (18761909), keeping Syria under Ottoman control became a matter of existence for the Ottoman Empire, which, in the face of increasing European pressure and intervention, lost most of its possessions in the Balkans and North Africa. The task of strengthening ties between the imperial center and the periphery in Syrian vilayets in the last quarter of the 19th century was generally successfully resolved. By the beginning of the 20th century, Syria was one of the most politically calm and firmly connected with Istanbul regions of the Ottoman Empire. This was greatly facilitated by a fairly high level of public safety, the development of foreign trade, the growth of education and the gradual integration of local elites (both Muslims and Christians) into Ottoman state and social mechanisms. Syrias position in the system of Ottoman possessions clearly showed that the process of weakening and territorial disintegration of the Ottoman Empire during the era of reform was not linear, and along with the loss of possessions and influence in the Balkans, in the Asian part of the empire during the 19th and early 20th centuries there was a parallel process of imperial consolidation.

Efficient use of subsidies in the financing of water and wastewater investments

2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 197-207
Author(s):  
A.J. Almagro
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Economic Agents ◽  
Economic Justification ◽  
Economic Rationale ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
Water And Wastewater ◽  
Investment Subsidy

Compliance with the European Union (EU) standards in the provision of water supply and wastewater services, as set forth in the relevant EU Directives, may require a significant investment effort for some countries and more specifically the new Member States. In order to ease this effort, these countries have the possibility of receiving subsidies from the European Commission to finance their investments. Using as a reference the standard methodology applied by the European Commission to define its intervention rate in a project, this paper focuses on the economic rationale and risks behind the investment subsidies in the sector. The questions asked are (a) what is the economic justification of this kind of investment subsidy and who are the target beneficiaries; (b) what factors may cause these subsidies to reach other economic agents; and (c) what measures would prevent those unexpected transfers of taxpayer resources. The results of the analysis indicate that, although the underlying methodology is economically sound, there is a significant risk that part of the subsidies may end up benefiting economic agents other than those originally targeted. However, this risk can be easily mitigated with some basic checks and balances during the calculation of the intervention rate. The views expressed in this paper are strictly personal.

Epilogue

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
José van
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Information Age ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Us ◽  
Autocratic Regime ◽  
Digital Strategy ◽  
National Governments ◽  
State Interference

The epilogue sketches a few scenarios on potential geopolitical consequences of the global paradigm shift toward multiple online platform “spheres.” Currently, the neoliberal US-based platform ecosystem dominates. This ecosystem revolves around the promotion of individualism and minimal state interference, leaving checks and balances to the market. On the other end of the ideological spectrum is the Chinese ecosystem, in which the autocratic regime controls the platform ecosystem via regulated censorship of tech corporations. Squeezed between the US and the Chinese models is the European Union, whose member states neither own nor operate any major platforms in either ecosystem. For European democracies to survive in the information age, its cities, national governments, and supranational legislature need to collaborate on a blueprint for a common digital strategy toward markets and public sectors.

Dangerous Liaisons

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Sajó ◽  
Renáta Uitz
Keyword(s):  
Executive Branch ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Functional Distribution ◽  
Governmental Functions ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
Divided Powers

This chapter examines the idea of separating distinct governmental functions into at least three branches (horizontal separation) as a means to safeguard individual liberty. The three branches of government have different functions: the legislature legislates, the executive branch executes the laws, and the judiciary administers justice. This corresponds to the functional distribution of essential governmental tasks and competences. The chapter explores how governments based on separated (or at least divided) powers work, in a perpetual balancing exercise as a result of the operation of checks and balances. Finally, it discusses independent agencies that are now routinely added to the old constitutional mix of powers and the problem of outsourcing public powers to private actors.

scholarly journals An Attack on the Separation of Powers? Strategic Climate Litigation in the Eyes of U.S. Judges

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (15) ◽  
pp. 8335
Author(s):  
Jasmina Nedevska
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Climate Politics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Research Plan

Climate change litigation has emerged as a powerful tool as societies steer towards sustainable development. Although the litigation mainly takes place in domestic courts, the implications can be seen as global as specific climate rulings influence courts across national borders. However, while the phenomenon of judicialization is well-known in the social sciences, relatively few have studied issues of legitimacy that arise as climate politics move into courts. A comparatively large part of climate cases have appeared in the United States. This article presents a research plan for a study of judges’ opinions and dissents in the United States, regarding the justiciability of strategic climate cases. The purpose is to empirically study how judges navigate a perceived normative conflict—between the litigation and an overarching ideal of separation of powers—in a system marked by checks and balances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document