Suchergebnisse

The transition of the global financial governance system is a history of the rise and fall of the Western advanced countries in the post-war international political and economic system. Since the end of the Second World War, the International Monetary Foundation and the World Bank have always taken the dominant role in the field of global financial governance. However, after the beginning of the global financial crisis in 2008, many drawbacks have become apparent concerning these two significant institutions, such as the lack of representatives, the slow and ineffective response to the crisis, etc. Following a strong appeal from the developing countries (with the emerging powers as their representatives), the global financial governance system has experienced several rounds of reforms which have yet to yield acceptable results. Therefore, it is highly necessary to create a new institution which can play a complementary role in the existing financial governance system rather than overthrow it. Complying with the tide of history, the official establishment of the BRICS Bank can be of great significance to the reform of current global financial governance systems such as diversifying the global financial governance bodies, representing the interests of developing countries in a better way, enhancing the status and improving the importance of emerging economies in the international political and economic order. Admittedly, the BRICS Bank also faces great challenges and limits such as the lack of a core leadership and the absence of a unified currency, etc.

作為社會主義國家中央計劃的遺產,國民經濟和社會發展五年計劃/規劃是調節中國經濟社會與空間發展的重要工具。隨著中國政治經濟的轉型,五年計劃/規劃也經歷了多次顯著的轉變。尤其在"十一五"時期,五年規劃體系分別在三個地理尺度上加強了其中的空間規劃元素和地位。這包括在國家層面提出主體功能區劃,在區域層面加強區域空間規劃功能,在市縣層面進行規劃體制改革。 ; 目前,學術界還未有對五年計劃/規劃在中國轉型中所扮演的角色展開深入研究,特別是空間規劃如何轉變和行使空間管治功能。基於此,本論文採用管治的視角,構建一個基於過程的概念分析框架,以揭示五年計劃/規劃體系中的空間規劃元素轉變的基本原理和機制,也即在於探討各利益主體、制度、規劃管理和機制如何作用於五年規劃中空間規劃的發展,以及空間規劃在地方具體管治事務上的成效。具體而言,論文試圖回答以下三個相關研究問題。第一,五年規劃為何要植入新的空間規劃方法?第二,"十一五"期間,將空間規劃植入五年規劃體系的機制是什麼?第三,植入的空間規劃是否能有效的進行空間管治?通過分析空間規劃內容在國家五年計劃/規劃體系中的演變特點,以及結合江蘇省"十一五"期間的兩個案例(區域和城市兩個尺度)的研究,論文得出以下結論: ; 隨著市場化改革和經濟權力下放,中國空間發展的政治經濟環境發生了重要變化。這在客觀上需要五年計劃/規劃體系中的空間規劃內容做出相應的調整。初期,空間規劃的形式體現在以部委主導的發展項目;改革開放到"十五"計畫期間,空間規劃的形式主要體現在劃定特殊的政策區域;"十一五"規劃以來,空間規劃則以空間分類引導與約束並舉的空間發展政策框架形式出現。"十一五"以來轉變的目的是使經濟規劃與空間規劃的結合更加緊密,以克服中國當前空間管治的各種困境。但是,這種在空間規劃方法上的創新也受到了來自地方層級政府和不同規劃部門的挑戰,為其實施帶來了一些不確定因素。 ; 在區域尺度上,論文選取了江蘇省五年規劃體系中的沿江規劃作為案例。研究發現,作為省政府自上而下引導區域協調發展和區域經濟整合,約束空間無序開發的手段,沿江規劃的發展高度依賴於地方的政治經濟環境,反應了省內複雜的空間管治機制。沿江規劃稍早於省"十一五"規劃出臺。隨後,省政府將沿江規劃進行調整並植入五年規劃體系。其主要目的是為了加強沿江規劃的政治地位,以克服其早期實施時出現的危機。調整後的沿江規劃進一步突出了空間管治、區域協調發展和可持續性的目標。但是,在規劃實際實施中,沿江規劃戰略成為區內城市政府為資本積累推動新的發展項目的工具,而區域協調發展和空間可持續性問題反而被一再忽略。 ; 在城市尺度上,論文選取了國家發改委主導的蘇州"十一五"市縣規劃改革作為案例。其改革的目的主要是加強規劃協調和發展控制。然而,蘇州"十一五"時期的發展表明,市"十一五"規劃中所植入的空間規劃框架儘管加強了空間發展約束和引導的內容,但實際上其無力調整市域部門分割的空間管治關係。這主要是因為,地方的空間規劃受到來自中央規劃部門的條例、法規和指標控制等垂直管理體系的約束。另外,為了創造土地財政和刺激地方發展,城市政府試圖突破自上而下的規劃控制指標和操縱地方規劃的資料,尤其是土地開發。為此,蘇州"十一五"規劃中的空間規劃處於一個嵌套的規劃管理環境。空間規劃進而成為中央和地方在空間管治理念上博弈的犧牲品。這種空間規劃的創新,不但無法融合部門割裂的規劃功能,更不能觸動地方政府對土地財政依賴,因此無法建立空間管制的機制。 ; 總體上,經濟增長仍然是地方最為重要的規劃管治問題,進而決定了空間規劃中政治的走向。目前的空間規劃理念還主要是緩解經濟增長的限制性因素,如土地供應緊張和環境門檻提升等,而非為了建立有效的空間管治機制。 ; As a legacy of the socialist state with central planning, Five-Year Planning (FYP) is very important in regulating socio-economic and spatial development even in post-reform China. Along with the changing context of political economy, the plan has experienced remarkable transformation in the last several decades. Particularly, during the 11th FYP Period, the FYP system emphasized spatial planning at different geographic scales, such as incorporating Major Function-Oriented Zoning (MFOZ) ...

It is generally acknowledged that Europe will not be a super power in the sense of a political-military ensemble on an equal footing with the United States or China. Europeans reject this possibility across the board. Moreover, even if they wanted to go that route, wouldn't it expose them to reproducing on a European scale what they have struggled to combat amongst themselves: the idea of becoming a great power with all the attributes of force and supremacy that such a project implies?So if Europe will not be a super power, how can it be a power at all? Probably by reinforcing what remains its major political resource: its capacity to produce and set up at the global level a system of norms as broad-sweeping as possible that can organize the world, discipline the interplay of its actors, introduce predictability in their behavior, develop among them a sense of collective responsibility, and offer those who engage on this path, particularly the weakest, at least the partial possibility to use these norms as an argument/force* against all, including the world's most powerful.The task may seem colossal, even outrageous. It probably is, but does Europe have any other choice but to assume its responsibility as a normative power? Probably not.[publisher's website]

It is generally acknowledged that Europe will not be a super power in the sense of a political-military ensemble on an equal footing with the United States or China. Europeans reject this possibility across the board. Moreover, even if they wanted to go that route, wouldn't it expose them to reproducing on a European scale what they have struggled to combat amongst themselves: the idea of becoming a great power with all the attributes of force and supremacy that such a project implies?So if Europe will not be a super power, how can it be a power at all? Probably by reinforcing what remains its major political resource: its capacity to produce and set up at the global level a system of norms as broad-sweeping as possible that can organize the world, discipline the interplay of its actors, introduce predictability in their behavior, develop among them a sense of collective responsibility, and offer those who engage on this path, particularly the weakest, at least the partial possibility to use these norms as an argument/force* against all, including the world's most powerful.The task may seem colossal, even outrageous. It probably is, but does Europe have any other choice but to assume its responsibility as a normative power? Probably not.[publisher's website]

by Littig, Irene Brigitta. ; "April 2000." ; Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2000. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 219-232). ; Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. ; Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, MI : ProQuest Information and Learning Company, [200-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. ; Mode of access: World Wide Web. ; Abstracts in English and Chinese.

Abstract: The year 2019 marks the 5th anniversary of Chinese President Xi Jinping's vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security. This article firstly makes a general summary of the progress made in national decision-making, policy oath and international recognition in the past five years since China put forward the vision of sustainable security.The article will then analyze the current challenges in global security governance. Based on the above information, the way forward for global security governance in the 21st century is discussed. Lastly, the vision of sustainable security is applied to practical issues of international security governance such as climate change and the future prospects of the Korean Peninsula. Additionally, a new security paradigm and specific resolutions for those problems are put forward. Keywords: Sustainable security; Global governance; International security; Climate change; Korean peninsula ; 2019是中国国家主席习近平提出共同、综合、合作、可持续安全观5周年。拙文首先就中国提出可持续安全观5年来,在国家决策、政策宣誓、国际认同方面取得的进展做一概要的总结;然后分析当前全球安全治理方面面临的挑战;在此基础上探讨21世纪全球安全治理的出路,将可持续安全观与气候变化问题、朝鲜半岛前景等国际安全治理的实际问题相结合,创造性地提出新的安全范式及解决问题的具体措施。 【关键词】可持续安全;全球治理;国际安全;气候变化;朝鲜半岛