The European Union is in the process to establish “public country-by-country reporting” as a new and wide reaching obligation for multinationals to disclose tax-relevant numbers to a global audience, going beyond the OECD consensus which combined cross-border exchange of reports with confidential treatment by tax authorities. From a legal and institutional point of view the main issue is the correct legal basis for the new directive under the European treaties. Is this a matter of accounting law – which would allow legislation by a qualified majority of Member States under Art.50 TFEU – or is this a matter of tax law – which would require unanimity under Art.115 TFEU? The article shows how the treatment of these issues has been driven rather by political than by legal concerns including a deliberate modification of the directive’s preamble in order to secure a majority vote under Art.50 TFEU.
{"title":"Public Country-by-Country Reporting: Corporate Law, Fiscal Law and the Principle of Unanimity","authors":"W. Schoen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3914704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3914704","url":null,"abstract":"The European Union is in the process to establish “public country-by-country reporting” as a new and wide reaching obligation for multinationals to disclose tax-relevant numbers to a global audience, going beyond the OECD consensus which combined cross-border exchange of reports with confidential treatment by tax authorities. From a legal and institutional point of view the main issue is the correct legal basis for the new directive under the European treaties. Is this a matter of accounting law – which would allow legislation by a qualified majority of Member States under Art.50 TFEU – or is this a matter of tax law – which would require unanimity under Art.115 TFEU? The article shows how the treatment of these issues has been driven rather by political than by legal concerns including a deliberate modification of the directive’s preamble in order to secure a majority vote under Art.50 TFEU.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"15 3-4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114027931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we explore the cross-country implications of climate-related mitigation policies. Specifically, we set up a two-country, two-sector (brown vs green) DSGE model with negative production externalities stemming from carbon-dioxide emissions. We estimate the model using US and euro area data and we characterize welfare-enhancing equilibria under alternative containment policies. Three main policy implications emerge: i) fiscal policy should focus on reducing emissions by levying taxes on polluting production activities; ii) monetary policy should look through environmental objectives while standing ready to support the economy when the costs of the environmental transition materialize; iii) international cooperation is crucial to obtain a Pareto improvement under the proposed policies. We finally find that the objective of reducing emissions by 50%, which is compatible with the Paris agreement's goal of limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius with respect to pre-industrial levels, would not be attainable in absence of international cooperation even with the support of monetary policy.
{"title":"No Country is an Island: International Cooperation and Climate Change","authors":"M. Ferrari, M. Pagliari","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3870019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3870019","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we explore the cross-country implications of climate-related mitigation policies. Specifically, we set up a two-country, two-sector (brown vs green) DSGE model with negative production externalities stemming from carbon-dioxide emissions. We estimate the model using US and euro area data and we characterize welfare-enhancing equilibria under alternative containment policies. Three main policy implications emerge: i) fiscal policy should focus on reducing emissions by levying taxes on polluting production activities; ii) monetary policy should look through environmental objectives while standing ready to support the economy when the costs of the environmental transition materialize; iii) international cooperation is crucial to obtain a Pareto improvement under the proposed policies. We finally find that the objective of reducing emissions by 50%, which is compatible with the Paris agreement's goal of limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius with respect to pre-industrial levels, would not be attainable in absence of international cooperation even with the support of monetary policy.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129597721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) prohibits civil litigation against foreign states, their agencies, and instrumentalities unless one of several enumerated exceptions to immunity applies. The most important of these exceptions is for the commercial activity of foreign sovereigns. While most scholars and practitioners of the FSIA acknowledge the centrality of the commercial activity exception and its general relationship to capitalism, few have explored in much detail the relationship between the commercial activity exception, or the FSIA more generally, and the capitalist system. This Article fills this gap. Applying a political economy lens, it shows how the statutory framework for private litigation against foreign sovereigns has long been aligned with interests and prerogatives associated with capitalism—as evidenced by the historical evolution of foreign sovereign immunity doctrine and the FSIA’s eventual passage; the central role of the commercial activity exception in the foreign sovereign immunity scheme; and the ways courts have interpreted the commercial activity exception to privilege particular corporate interests and plaintiffs over other types of claims and claimants. While capitalism’s influence on the FSIA is a story that has yet to be fully told, its telling benefits and enriches legal analysis and understanding of the FSIA itself.
{"title":"The Political Economy of Foreign Sovereign Immunity","authors":"M. Jamshidi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3799676","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3799676","url":null,"abstract":"The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) prohibits civil litigation against foreign states, their agencies, and instrumentalities unless one of several enumerated exceptions to immunity applies. The most important of these exceptions is for the commercial activity of foreign sovereigns. While most scholars and practitioners of the FSIA acknowledge the centrality of the commercial activity exception and its general relationship to capitalism, few have explored in much detail the relationship between the commercial activity exception, or the FSIA more generally, and the capitalist system. This Article fills this gap. Applying a political economy lens, it shows how the statutory framework for private litigation against foreign sovereigns has long been aligned with interests and prerogatives associated with capitalism—as evidenced by the historical evolution of foreign sovereign immunity doctrine and the FSIA’s eventual passage; the central role of the commercial activity exception in the foreign sovereign immunity scheme; and the ways courts have interpreted the commercial activity exception to privilege particular corporate interests and plaintiffs over other types of claims and claimants. While capitalism’s influence on the FSIA is a story that has yet to be fully told, its telling benefits and enriches legal analysis and understanding of the FSIA itself.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122260777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The United Nations is a complex system exhibiting a number of various approaches to regulating, governing and enforcing extraterritorial obligations (ETOs). This chapter focuses on the activity of five U.N. treaty-based bodies aimed at monitoring the implementation of the core international human rights treaties – the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the manner in which they have reformed international law relating to ETOs. The chapter provides a general overview of the U.N. treaty bodies’ interpretation and classification of ETOs as well as their approach to regulating and enforcing remedial extraterritorial obligations and global obligations, including obligations of extraterritorial cooperation and assistance. Following that, it explores the U.N. treaty bodies’ methods of assigning ETOs to states and non-state actors and their role as accountability mechanisms capable of holding states responsible for breaching their ETOs.
{"title":"Extraterritorial Obligations in the United Nations System: U.N. Treaty-Based Bodies","authors":"E. Pribytkova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3839494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3839494","url":null,"abstract":"The United Nations is a complex system exhibiting a number of various approaches to regulating, governing and enforcing extraterritorial obligations (ETOs). This chapter focuses on the activity of five U.N. treaty-based bodies aimed at monitoring the implementation of the core international human rights treaties – the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the manner in which they have reformed international law relating to ETOs. The chapter provides a general overview of the U.N. treaty bodies’ interpretation and classification of ETOs as well as their approach to regulating and enforcing remedial extraterritorial obligations and global obligations, including obligations of extraterritorial cooperation and assistance. Following that, it explores the U.N. treaty bodies’ methods of assigning ETOs to states and non-state actors and their role as accountability mechanisms capable of holding states responsible for breaching their ETOs.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123950256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-05-18DOI: 10.31014/aior.1991.03.02.182
Muhammad N Akhter, Liu Yuan
At the time the traditional and non-traditional security issues in South Asian and regional dynamics mounting into a complex geopolitical space, India and China are gearing up their regional political and economic outlook somewhat country-specific. For India and China, Afghanistan has been a grey area. Being positioned at the heart of Asia, Afghanistan directly influences the logistic arteries of the whole of Asia. In the framework of possible US withdrawal and ensuing traditional geopolitical rivalry in the region, this article focuses on how India and China carried out or would likely to carry out their joint relations in Afghanistan. It would be interesting to observe the rationale behind their renewed engagement and either it is heading to more people-oriented or towards the new ‘Great Game’. Within this context, this article aims to outline a comprehensive and comparative analysis of India and China’s policy in Afghanistan after 9/11. In which this article argues that despite having some differences in approaches, there is a great possibility for cooperation. This analysis considers both countries’ contemporary political, economic and security engagements, and geopolitical dynamics as a base – which are key variables shaping their present foreign policy towards Afghanistan.
{"title":"China India in Afghanistan","authors":"Muhammad N Akhter, Liu Yuan","doi":"10.31014/aior.1991.03.02.182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1991.03.02.182","url":null,"abstract":"At the time the traditional and non-traditional security issues in South Asian and regional dynamics mounting into a complex geopolitical space, India and China are gearing up their regional political and economic outlook somewhat country-specific. For India and China, Afghanistan has been a grey area. Being positioned at the heart of Asia, Afghanistan directly influences the logistic arteries of the whole of Asia. In the framework of possible US withdrawal and ensuing traditional geopolitical rivalry in the region, this article focuses on how India and China carried out or would likely to carry out their joint relations in Afghanistan. It would be interesting to observe the rationale behind their renewed engagement and either it is heading to more people-oriented or towards the new ‘Great Game’. Within this context, this article aims to outline a comprehensive and comparative analysis of India and China’s policy in Afghanistan after 9/11. In which this article argues that despite having some differences in approaches, there is a great possibility for cooperation. This analysis considers both countries’ contemporary political, economic and security engagements, and geopolitical dynamics as a base – which are key variables shaping their present foreign policy towards Afghanistan.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"39 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141204454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-20DOI: 10.11575/SPPP.V12I0.68098
M. Dawson
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is now over sixty years old and remains one of the principal institutions in both Canada-U.S. defence relations and the bilateral relationship more generally. Through active participation with our more powerful neighbour in the defence of North America in NORAD, Canada achieves key strategic goals: "defence against help" (from the U.S.) and a voice in our own defence. NORAD's missions have evolved with the changing geostrategic and technological contexts but remain centred around aerospace warning, aerospace control against air-breathing threats, including terrorist use of aviation and most recently, maritime warning. Two factors necessitate significant modernisation of NORAD's capabilities. First is the challenge posed by revisionist national policies in Russia, China and the so-called rogue states of North Korea and Iran. The second is the adoption in Russia and to a lesser extent in China of a new generation of precision weaponry including long range, stealthy cruise missiles and bombers, low-yield nuclear weapons and advanced conventional weapons. Russia, in particular, has articulated a doctrine of nuclear use suggesting that nuclear weapons might be used to terminate armed conflicts (through escalation) threatening the Russian homeland and neighbourhood. Both North Korea and Iran are developing long range ballistic missiles and North Korea is now a nuclear weapons power; while neither of these states is irrational, their behaviour could be unpredictable. The ability to blunt coercive strikes directed against North America would be essential to allow time for diplomacy before retaliatory use of force might be politically necessary for a U.S. president. NORAD's existing warning systems and fighter-interceptors are reaching the end of their lives. Their replacement will pose significant policy questions, including choices of technologies, location of sensors, possible public-private partnerships and new or modernised airfields in the Far North of Canada, among others. The Canadian Government in its defence policy statement, Strong, Secure, Engaged, has placed a high priority on replacing the existing North Warning System and the RCAF fighter fleet. Given the bi-national nature of NORAD, Canadian follow through on these commitments will be closely watched in Washington by those charged with homeland defence.
{"title":"NORAD: Remaining Relevant","authors":"M. Dawson","doi":"10.11575/SPPP.V12I0.68098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11575/SPPP.V12I0.68098","url":null,"abstract":"The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is now over sixty years old and remains one of the principal institutions in both Canada-U.S. defence relations and the bilateral relationship more generally. Through active participation with our more powerful neighbour in the defence of North America in NORAD, Canada achieves key strategic goals: \"defence against help\" (from the U.S.) and a voice in our own defence. \u0000 \u0000NORAD's missions have evolved with the changing geostrategic and technological contexts but remain centred around aerospace warning, aerospace control against air-breathing threats, including terrorist use of aviation and most recently, maritime warning. Two factors necessitate significant modernisation of NORAD's capabilities. First is the challenge posed by revisionist national policies in Russia, China and the so-called rogue states of North Korea and Iran. The second is the adoption in Russia and to a lesser extent in China of a new generation of precision weaponry including long range, stealthy cruise missiles and bombers, low-yield nuclear weapons and advanced conventional weapons. Russia, in particular, has articulated a doctrine of nuclear use suggesting that nuclear weapons might be used to terminate armed conflicts (through escalation) threatening the Russian homeland and neighbourhood. Both North Korea and Iran are developing long range ballistic missiles and North Korea is now a nuclear weapons power; while neither of these states is irrational, their behaviour could be unpredictable. \u0000 \u0000The ability to blunt coercive strikes directed against North America would be essential to allow time for diplomacy before retaliatory use of force might be politically necessary for a U.S. president. NORAD's existing warning systems and fighter-interceptors are reaching the end of their lives. Their replacement will pose significant policy questions, including choices of technologies, location of sensors, possible public-private partnerships and new or modernised airfields in the Far North of Canada, among others. \u0000 \u0000The Canadian Government in its defence policy statement, Strong, Secure, Engaged, has placed a high priority on replacing the existing North Warning System and the RCAF fighter fleet. Given the bi-national nature of NORAD, Canadian follow through on these commitments will be closely watched in Washington by those charged with homeland defence.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"6 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125147737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Physicists have pursued the Theory of Everything (TOE) for centuries. Not much credible progress has been made towards the final theory so far. By extending the computability theory in mathematics, this paper proves a fundamental theorem of theoretical physics, which implies 21 structural features that TOE should have. The main result of this paper is that existing quantum gravity theories are not TOE; a unification theory of physics and social sciences/humanities, called “Choice Axiomatic System”, can be established even when the problem of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics still remains unsolved; a prototype of TOE, which covers all existing human knowledge about the observable universe, can be created by the unification of physics and social science/humanities with a potential quantum gravity theory as an important component; unlike quantum gravity theories, Choice Axiomatic System has many important practical applications and its predictions can be tested with empirical data; Choice Axiomatic System can substantially narrow down the search for potential quantum gravity theories. This paper should be interesting to researchers working on the foundation of physics, social science, and humanities.
{"title":"A Mathematical Analysis Reveals Some Structural Features of the Theory of Everything","authors":"James J. Wayne","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3490351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3490351","url":null,"abstract":"Physicists have pursued the Theory of Everything (TOE) for centuries. Not much credible progress has been made towards the final theory so far. By extending the computability theory in mathematics, this paper proves a fundamental theorem of theoretical physics, which implies 21 structural features that TOE should have. The main result of this paper is that existing quantum gravity theories are not TOE; a unification theory of physics and social sciences/humanities, called “Choice Axiomatic System”, can be established even when the problem of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics still remains unsolved; a prototype of TOE, which covers all existing human knowledge about the observable universe, can be created by the unification of physics and social science/humanities with a potential quantum gravity theory as an important component; unlike quantum gravity theories, Choice Axiomatic System has many important practical applications and its predictions can be tested with empirical data; Choice Axiomatic System can substantially narrow down the search for potential quantum gravity theories. This paper should be interesting to researchers working on the foundation of physics, social science, and humanities.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"38 Suppl 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134091523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper shows and highlights the broad development friendly ties between Afghanistan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) and wants to investigate the effective factors which affect the relationship with the help of theoretically informed sources and historical narratives. The study shows the relationship that started with the ancient Silk Road that passed through Afghanistan, to recent cooperation represented by Afghanistan's membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, AIIB, and OBOR, altogether indicate the continuation of this relationship with the friendly and neighboring country of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, the study tries to explain the differences between Afghan-China relations in comparison with Afghan-American relations. The study adopts Copenhagen school theories based on geopolitics context. Also, this paper tries to respond to this question that, which factors are more important for shaping strength in the relationship of Afghanistan and China based on Afghan- American relation? And is based on the assumption that Afghanistan and China are two neighboring countries with shared values and interests, and these common interests play an effective role in the security, economy, and stability of Afghanistan.
{"title":"A Comparative Study on the Afghan-China Relation Based on Afghan-US relation","authors":"Zabehullah Bashardost","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3413684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3413684","url":null,"abstract":"This paper shows and highlights the broad development friendly ties between Afghanistan and the People's Republic of China (PRC) and wants to investigate the effective factors which affect the relationship with the help of theoretically informed sources and historical narratives. The study shows the relationship that started with the ancient Silk Road that passed through Afghanistan, to recent cooperation represented by Afghanistan's membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, AIIB, and OBOR, altogether indicate the continuation of this relationship with the friendly and neighboring country of the People's Republic of China. Moreover, the study tries to explain the differences between Afghan-China relations in comparison with Afghan-American relations. The study adopts Copenhagen school theories based on geopolitics context. Also, this paper tries to respond to this question that, which factors are more important for shaping strength in the relationship of Afghanistan and China based on Afghan- American relation? And is based on the assumption that Afghanistan and China are two neighboring countries with shared values and interests, and these common interests play an effective role in the security, economy, and stability of Afghanistan.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125028612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Resource allocation is a grand strategic choice; strategic autonomy requires resources and defense industrial autonomy. The allocation of resources and the sharing of defense burdens among members of the transatlantic security community is thus a fundamental component of the liberal international order. While economists have shed much light on cross-country variation in burden-sharing behavior, only qualitative work in the security studies field has addressed the nature of contributions to shared priorities, and neither field has adequately addressed sources of within-country variation, which is of primary interest to policy-makers aiming to mitigate burden-shifting tendencies in alliances. I find the larger the weight of arms production is in its national economy, the more a state spends on shared transatlantic priorities. This finding suggests that the strategic effects of defense industrial policy, and particularly the distribution of defense industries across Europe, extend beyond the production of defense articles and into the politics of burden sharing.
{"title":"Arms Without Influence? Spatial Distribution of Defense Industrial Activity, Transatlantic Burden Sharing, and Strategy","authors":"Jordan Becker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3343493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3343493","url":null,"abstract":"Resource allocation is a grand strategic choice; strategic autonomy requires resources and defense industrial autonomy. The allocation of resources and the sharing of defense burdens among members of the transatlantic security community is thus a fundamental component of the liberal international order. While economists have shed much light on cross-country variation in burden-sharing behavior, only qualitative work in the security studies field has addressed the nature of contributions to shared priorities, and neither field has adequately addressed sources of within-country variation, which is of primary interest to policy-makers aiming to mitigate burden-shifting tendencies in alliances. I find the larger the weight of arms production is in its national economy, the more a state spends on shared transatlantic priorities. This finding suggests that the strategic effects of defense industrial policy, and particularly the distribution of defense industries across Europe, extend beyond the production of defense articles and into the politics of burden sharing.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125269648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The U.S.-China economic relationship has reached a critical juncture. Over the past year, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports and China has retaliated, raising tariffs on U.S. exports. The U.S. concerns that underpin these bilateral trade tensions stem from specific practices endemic to China’s economic model that systematically tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese companies domestically and globally. Progress on specific trade issues will require China to comply with its World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and to make certain reforms that will likely touch on areas of state control over the economy. In addition, new trade rules are needed to address China’s economic practices not covered by its WTO commitments, including in areas such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs), certain subsidies, and digital trade. These issues also come at a time of increasing U.S. concern over the national security risks China presents, particularly with respect to technology access. Despite the challenges the U.S. has had at the WTO, the WTO should be central to resolving U.S.-China trade tensions. From this perspective, we outline a multipronged strategy, including bilateral, multilateral, and unilateral actions, as well as working with allies, that together would constitute positive next steps for this critical economic relationship.
{"title":"The US-China Economic Relationship: A Comprehensive Approach","authors":"Joshua P. Meltzer, Neena Shenai","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3357900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3357900","url":null,"abstract":"The U.S.-China economic relationship has reached a critical juncture. Over the past year, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports and China has retaliated, raising tariffs on U.S. exports. The U.S. concerns that underpin these bilateral trade tensions stem from specific practices endemic to China’s economic model that systematically tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese companies domestically and globally. Progress on specific trade issues will require China to comply with its World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and to make certain reforms that will likely touch on areas of state control over the economy. In addition, new trade rules are needed to address China’s economic practices not covered by its WTO commitments, including in areas such as state-owned enterprises (SOEs), certain subsidies, and digital trade. These issues also come at a time of increasing U.S. concern over the national security risks China presents, particularly with respect to technology access. Despite the challenges the U.S. has had at the WTO, the WTO should be central to resolving U.S.-China trade tensions. From this perspective, we outline a multipronged strategy, including bilateral, multilateral, and unilateral actions, as well as working with allies, that together would constitute positive next steps for this critical economic relationship.","PeriodicalId":141296,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Studies: International Cooperation eJournal","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122310673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：