Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
So Pik-ki. ; Thesis submitted in: October 2001. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2002. ; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 84-86). ; Abstracts in English and Chinese. ; Chapter I. --- INTRODUCTION --- p.7 ; Chapter II. --- LITERATURE REVIEW --- p.12 ; Chapter III. --- WTO ACCESSION --- p.27 ; Characteristics of WTO Accession --- p.27 ; Accession Procedure: --- p.28 ; Chapter IV. --- HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CHINA'S WTO ACCESSION (1986~1999) --- p.31 ; Phase 1: Encouraging initial stage (1986~1989 May) --- p.32 ; Phase 2: Years of Silence (1989 Jun ~1992 Feb) --- p.34 ; Phase 3: Dashing for WTO founding member status (1992 Feb ~1994 Dec) --- p.36 ; Phase 4: China changed negotiation ATTITUDE( 1995~1996 Mar) --- p.39 ; Phase 5: Stage towards success (1996 Mar~1999) --- p.42 ; 1996 --- p.42 ; 1997 --- p.45 ; 1998 --- p.46 ; 1999 --- p.48 ; Chapter V. --- HYPOTHESIS --- p.51 ; Hypothesis 1: China's economic growth is negatively related to China's aspiration for accession --- p.52 ; "Hypothesis 2: The desire to participate in forthcoming new negotiation forums as a WTO member boosted china's aspiration for accession, and thus lead to more concessions from china" --- p.58 ; Hypothesis 3: Increase in absolute value of US' trade deficit with China raised us' demand for china's concession; and this demand for concession aimed to reduce the value of trade deficit of us with china --- p.61 ; Hypothesis 4: DISTRIBUTIVE conflicts of benefits and costs associated with China's economic reform haMpered its accession into the WTO --- p.67 ; Chapter VI. --- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: --- p.80 ; BIBLIORGRAPHY: --- p.84 ; Table 1: Meetings of China working group of WTO and GATT --- p.87 ; Table 2: Progress of China's accession into the WTO --- p.89 ; Table 3: Events related to foreign countries --- p.108
BASE
In this report, the World Health Organization maps out what countries can do to modify their financing systems so they can move more quickly to universal coverage, and sustain the gains that have been achieved. The report builds on new research and lessons learnt from country experience. It provides an action agenda for countries at all stages of development and proposes ways that the international community can better support efforts in low-income countries to achieve universal coverage and improve health outcomes
In: Working Paper Series, No. 146
World Affairs Online
In: Terminology bulletin 15
World Affairs Online
ISSN: 2617-2879
In: China's Regulations on Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, 1992
World Affairs Online
The COVID-19 pandemic brought on the so-called "coronacrisis," a global crisis event enormous in size and force. The crisis questioned the ability of states and instruments of international governance to respond quickly and effectively to the global threats. It is noteworthy that there was no strong correlation between crisis management efficacy and the type of political system of a country. However, the countries with elaborated and well-financed health systems, were able to struggle with the devastating consequences of the coronacrisis better than those with systemic, structural and financial problems of their healthcare sectors. It is obvious that the ability to manage the coronacrisis is not related to the type of political governance or ideology, but to the state administrative resources and competence of the cabinet / leaders. That potentially gave an opportunity for countries with different ideological foundations to neglect their tensions and unite the efforts in the containment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (e.g. create mutual programmes of vaccination and medicine distribution). The main forces are the Transatlantic alliance, Russia and China. Unfortunately, no visible COVID-19-related agreement between them ever happened so far. Instead, the coronacrisis situation was used by the political rivals to intensify their aggressive rhetoric against each other (e.g., USA and Russia, USA and China) or profit from it in deepening international collaboration not connected with the pandemic itself (e.g., Russia and China). We do not observe any real mutual efforts of liquidating the pandemic consequences even within an ideological block, to say nothing about different blocks. The US–EU relationships worsened during the pandemic, especially at the background of Trump's cool attitude towards international organisations and his decision to leave the World Health Organization in the midst of the pandemic and his threatening words that US may also abandon the NATO. Likewise, John Bolton spoke of the EU as an entity hostile ...
BASE