Robin Jeffrey-Assa Doron: The great Indian phone book. How cheap mobile phones change business, politics and daily life: Hurst & Company, London, 2013, 293 oldal
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 31, Heft 3, S. 320-323
ISSN: 1588-2918
55 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 31, Heft 3, S. 320-323
ISSN: 1588-2918
In: Treaty series no. 748
This paper explores how Britain's and Colombia's privileged relations with the United States (U.S.) influenced their journey through the European Community (EC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The Anglo–American Special Relationship (AASR) was compatible with British participation in the European Single Market, but not with adherence to creating the EC's common currency, nor with leadership in building a European defence structure autonomous from NATO. Thus, since the start of the Iraq war, Britain played a rather obstructive role in what later was called European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The US–Colombia Partnership (USCP), based on a longstanding military association reinforced under Plan Colombia, naturally discouraged any meaningful Colombian participation in UNASUR's South American Security Council (CDS), a regional cooperative security project, promoted by Brazil. Cherished projects of the liberal CAP – such as triangular cooperation (to export Colombian security expertise to Central America with U.S. co-financing and oversight) and NATO partnership – also distracted Colombia's interest from UNASUR, diminishing the latter's relevance collaterally. A role for UNASUR – alongside the Organization of American States (OAS) – in South American security management was compatible with the liberal CAP, but not with the neoconservative CAP. Even a lopsided complementation – such as the one between NATO and the CSDP – proved unviable between the OAS and UNASUR.
BASE
In: Treaties and other international acts series: TIAS, Band 7641, S, S. 1-87
ISSN: 0083-0186
World Affairs Online
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 30, Heft 2, S. 125-137
ISSN: 1588-2918
In: Statisztikai hivatalok és nemzetközi szervezetek statisztikai tevékenységéből 68. sz
In: Társadalomkutatás, Band 29, Heft 3, S. 371-386
ISSN: 1588-2918
In: Treaties and other International Acts Series, 9652
World Affairs Online
In: Erdélyi jogélet, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 195-217
ISSN: 2734-7095
The corporate governance as a regulatory system has started a journey towards independence for a while, and sooner or later it will turn into a self-standing field of science. This process is facilitated not only by its transdisciplinary nature, which combines legal science with economic science, within the civil law, the corporate law, business economics, management and organizational science, but also, in the case of state-owned companies, with public administration and proceedings law. The timeliness of the topic is illustrated by the prolonged transition to market economy following the 1989 regime change, the controversial application of company law, the scandals around certain privatization processes, the bankruptcy of many important state-owned enterprises, all of these bringing about a willingness to establish a regulatory framework. Taking into consideration the above short presentation, the subject of our analysis is very complex; this article intends to limit the examination to the Bucharest Stock Exchange Corporate Governance Code, investigating it in comparison to the provisions of the Romanian legal system. At the same time, it sets as an objective to make use of a concrete example (the most important Romanian state-owned joint stock company listed at the Bucharest Stock Exchange), Romgaz, in order to present the reader the ways and circumstances of the implementation of the general principles and provisions to comply with , as included in the Code.
In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia. ; In recent decades, the United States has increasingly used the means of economic warfare in its geopolitical struggles. Among these instruments – in addition to the financial markets – it most often launches geoeconomic attacks in the oil market against its geopolitical adversaries. The United States can cause significant economic damage both for oil exporter (eg. Iran, Venezuela) and oil importer (eg. Cuba, North Korea) countries by restricting their access to oil markets.This paper analyzes the economic warfare in the oil market between the United States and Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Through these examples this paper demonstrates how the United States organizes and executes geoeconomic attacks in the oil market and how it handles country-specific problems. The United States has the means to organize broad international coalition alongside the oil market sanctions – even in the lack of UN Security Council resolutions.United Nations has decided on a number of economic sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. These sanctions reduced the supply in the world oil market and resulted in about 10-20% price increase, while Iran – despite of the sanctions – found the way to sell significant amount of oil, mainly to China and India.Russia is a member of the UN Security Council, so no UN sanctions can be imposed on it, nevertheless the United States and its allies launched a geoeconomics assault against Russia after the annexation of the Crimea. Russia was prepared for these economic sanctions and could effectively reduce the negative effects on its oil export, which could even increase after the western sanctions. North Korea is under UN sanctions since 2006 because of its nuclear program. The sanctions refer to oil and oil products as well, but has no significant effect on world oil market and oil price, because North Korea is a relatively small country with low oil consumption.North Korea is suffering a huge economic burden due to severe restrictions and its only way to circumvent the embargo – according to American accusations – is to smuggle some oil from China and Russia.
BASE
In: Acta Universitatis Szegediensis
In: Acta juridica et politica 66,15
In: Erdélyi jogélet, Band 1, Heft 4, S. 39-47
ISSN: 2734-7095
"A properly trained and experienced HR professional not only understands what kind of employees an employer needs but is also able to smooth out disagreements that can lead to the loss of valuable human labour or the weakening of the employer's economic position. The research examines the out-of-court settlement of conflicts in the field of employment in the strict sense, which can make labour conflict resolution not only more rapid but also cheaper than litigation and more effective than termination of employment. Last but not least, it also opens up space for innovation.
The literature on innovation is extensive, with many also researching how a company can grow through innovative solutions arising from exchange of views between employer and employee. However, little research is done on how workplace conflicts and their solutions can steer parties towards innovative corporate leadership. In resolving conflicts, new ideas, concepts, and strategies can emerge in both the employee and the employer that can become the key to shared development, and thus mediation as a hidden resource can participate in corporate operations."