World Trade Organization telah menetapkan Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement Sebagai mekanisme baru dalam pengaturan terkait hak kekayaan intelektual. Tetapi, penerapan TRIPs Agreement banyak menimbulkan kontroversi di bidang agrikultur. Masalah yang terjadi adalah hak paten jelas memberikan perlindungan yang kuat dan tidak beralasan bagi industri bioteknologi. Hal itu bisa dimanfaatkan oleh perusahaan besar dan juga negara-negara maju untuk memonopoli benih transgenik yang dampaknya akan merugikan para petani-petani lokal-khususnya di negara berkembang-yang berdampak pada ketahanan pangan global. Dengan mendasarkan Analisa pada pendekatan Global Governance, tulisan ini membahas mengenai bagaimana posisi Global Governancedalam hal ini WTO-dalam penerapan TRIPs Agreement dengan mengambil studi kasus monopoli benih transgenic oleh Monsanto. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode kualitatif dengan mengumpulkan data-data sekunder. Tulisan ini berargumen bahwa WTO sebagai Global Governance masih belum bisa mengatasi masalah monopoli benih transgenik karena sampai saat ini pun pembahasan ini belum selesai di dalam internal WTO sendiri. Dalam pembuatan regulasinya, WTO kurang memperhatikan prinsip-prinsip dasarnya dalam melindungi dan memberi manfaat bagi negara-negara berkembang sehingga cenderung menguntungkan negara-negara maju atau perusahaan besar yang memiliki power.
This study aims to analyze funding decisions on capital structure through trade off theory in property and real estate companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015-2018. Profitability is measured using the return on equity ratio, asset structure is measured by fixed assets ratio and funding decisions are measured by debt. to equity ratio. The population of this research is property and real estate companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015-2018. The data analyzed is secondary data in financial reports or annual reports. The sample selection used purposive sampling method and the sample obtained in this study were 40 data from 10 companies. In this research, the analytical method used is descriptive statistics, classical assumption test, multiple regression analysis and statistical test. The results of the analysis in this study indicate that there is no effect of profitability on funding decisions, there is an effect of asset structure on funding decisions. This shows that the asset structure influences the company's decision making in funding.
In recent years, Russia has developed a hybrid warfare strategy as a tactic to carry out war operations to achieve their national interests. Estonia is considered the most vulnerable country in the face of the threat of a Russian hybrid warfare strategy. In this case, Estonia has historical, geopolitical and political value for Russia. Estonia has received signs of the Russian threat manifested through their aggressive actions in Estonia with hybrid projections that have been projected in a real way. Thus, the Russian hybrid warfare strategy can influence the perception of the Estonian threat which was finally responded through a policy to stem the threat of hybrid itself. Underlying the analysis of the Threat Perception theory proposed by Raymond Cohen, this paper will explain how the Estonian threat is perceived by the Russian hybrid warfare strategy by looking at the threatening cue and responses to the threats. This paper has the argument that the hybrid warfare strategy is a threat to Estonia. The historical factor of Russian-Estonian relations and past experience of threats is a sign of a threat that influences the perception of Estonian threats. Estimation of the threat was then manifested by Estonia in the form of anticipatory actions through increased cooperation with NATO, an increase in Estonia's military capabilities, and other non-military approaches in counter Russian warfare hybrid strategy. Keywords: Hybrid Warfare, Russia, Estonia, threat perception, threatening cue, asymmetric threat, cyber security, disinformation, NATO
The 2014 Gaza War is the third largest armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. After Hamas fired rockets and mortars into strategic areas of Israel, the latter launched Operation Protective Edge as a counterattack. The use of military force by both sides led to enormous collateral damage, especially in the Gaza Strip. Operation Protective Edge is considered by many to have violated International Humanitarian Law; its conduct is seen as inconsistent with the principles in Just War. In explaining why the violations of International Humanitarian Law in Operation Protective Edge can be justified by Israel, this study grounds its analysis on thorough examination of the principle of Just War. The paper argues that the following factors bolster Israel's justification: 1. The strength of the the right to self-defense argument; 2. Depiction of Operation Protective Edge as a proportional military operation; 3. Predication of the war between Israel-Hamas as an asymmetric conflict; 4. U.S. support, which finds basis on UN Security Council resolutions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.