Suchergebnisse

The United States and Canada have had a more or less parallel economic development throughout their histories and they have emerged from World War II as the two most important creditor nations of the world. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that their foreign economic policies and objectives are similar in character. Our countries are the leading champions of liberal trade policies and of a world system of multilateral payments. They constitute the vanguard in the fight against economic blocs and restrictive exchange and trade practices. Not only is a large portion of the foreign trade of both Canada and the United States dependent upon a system of multilateral payments but trade between Canada and the United States requires settlement by means of a Canadian surplus with third countries.The differences in our approach to international economic problems stem largely from the difference in the relative importance of foreign trade in the two countries. In 1938 Canada's total foreign trade amounted to nearly 40 per cent of her national income, while total exports and imports of the United States were only 8 per cent of United States national income. On the other hand, United States exports in 1938 were three and a half times the value of Canadian exports and the world supply of United States dollars has been generally recognized as the most important single factor in world trade. (I believe that in the future when we speak of a "dollar shortage" it will not be necessary to differentiate between United States and Canadian dollars.) Canada, therefore, has the greater immediate economic interest in world trade, but the United States has, in a sense, the greater responsibility. Canada must adjust her economy to a given international economic environment while, at the same time, co-operating with other countries in the creation of a more favourable world environment. The primary concern of the United States must be with the environment itself. Needless to say the task of our administration in promoting a worldwide liberal trade programme would be far easier if United States foreign trade were 40 per cent of our national income instead of less than 10 per cent.

Foucauldian notions, such as the critique of governmental reason, the regime of truth, and juridification, are enlightening for comprehending the phenomenon of justification in international relations. My use of Foucault is intended to be non-relativistic. These notions shed light on a process of justification based on a utilitarian reason of consequences, which is today very significant in international affairs. In this article I attempt to reconcile a genealogical approach with an abstract philosophical approach that sets the limits of one kind of ethical reason. Adapted from the source document.

Traditional international trade models explain comparative advantage and describe aggregate gains for a country from trade and from terms-of-trade improvement but do not address the politics of international trade policy. A positive or predictive model that studies the politics of trade policy requires two premises, both with public choice origins: (1) that political self-interest underlies policy determination of trade policy rather than social-welfare objectives, and (2) politically assignable rents are preferred to budgetary revenue from trade restrictions and aggregate gains from terms-of-trade improvement. Originating political-economy models of protectionism and reciprocal trade liberalization acknowledge on both premises. Subsequent popular (and popularly replicated) models of trade policy include the first premise but not the second. The popular models are inconsistent with the actual conduct of trade policy. We also present public-choice perspectives on strategic trade policy, the most-favored nation clause, preferential trading, duty-free zones, globalization, and direct voting on trade policy, and we review and interpret empirical evidence.

"Intellectual Property Regulation under International Law" published on by Oxford University Press.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Detailed Table of Contents -- Abbreviations and Treaty Common Names -- Key Websites -- Selected General Readings -- Introduction -- 1 General Framework -- 2 Regulatory Techniques and Environmental Rights -- 3 The Atmosphere -- 4 Biological Diversity -- 5 Species and Habitats -- 6 Hazardous Wastes, Chemicals and Pesticides, and Nuclear Energy -- 7 Military Activities -- 8 Marine Environment, Marine Resources and International Watercourses -- 9 Trade, Finance and Intellectual Property -- 10 Liability and Redress -- 11 Dispute Settlement and Compliance

Dieser Bericht betrachtet die Behandlung von Gefangenen in Mosambik seit der Unabhängigkeit 1975 unter dem Blickwinkel der Interessen von amnesty international und beschreibt neueste Gesetzesreformen, in denen Vorkehrungen eingeführt wurden, um die Gefangenen vor Übergriffen zu schützen. Außerdem beschreibt er amnesty internationals fortlaufendes Interesse an dem Land und empfiehlt weitere Schutzmaßnahmen für die Menschenrechte. Im Anhang ist ein Brief des mosambikanischen Justizministers Ossumane Aly Dauto an amnesty international abgedruckt