The Experts below are selected from a list of 104814 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Stephan W Schill - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the european union s foreign direct Investment screening paradox tightening inward Investment Control to further external Investment liberalization
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Stephan W SchillAbstract:This article analyzes the justification for the recent enactment in the European Union (EU) of a regulation establishing a framework for the screening of inward foreign direct Investment (FDI). It argues that the new regulation, which constitutes a first step for a more comprehensive EU Investment screening system, should not be considered to be exclusively aimed at protecting the internal market and defensive Union or Member State interests. Instead, the regulation has a tangible external economic policy justification and outlook because it can be seen as a starting point to build up, at the Union level, possibilities to limit inward FDI, which in turn can be used by the EU as a bargaining chip in its trade and Investment negotiations with economically powerful countries, such as the United States or China, in order to achieve, on the basis of reciprocity, better access of EU investors to foreign markets. Paradoxically, establishing a framework for the screening of inward FDI at the Union level can therefore be seen as serving the EU’s constitutionally enshrined goal to achieve further Investment liberalization, rather than as shielding the internal market from undesired external influence.
-
the european union s foreign direct Investment screening paradox tightening inward Investment Control to further external Investment liberalization
Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 2019Co-Authors: Stephan W SchillAbstract:This article analyses the justification for the recent enactment in the European Union (EU) of a regulation establishing a framework for the screening of inward foreign direct Investment (FDI). It argues that the new regulation, which constitutes a first step for a more comprehensive EU Investment screening system, should not be considered to be exclusively aimed at protecting the internal market and defensive Union or Member State interests. Instead, the regulation has a tangible external economic policy justification and outlook because it can be seen as a starting point to build up, at the Union level, possibilities to limit inward FDI, which in turn can be used by the EU as a bargaining chip in its trade and Investment negotiations with economically powerful countries, such as the United States or China, in order to achieve, on the basis of reciprocity, better access of EU investors to foreign markets. Paradoxically, establishing a framework for the screening of inward FDI at the Union level can therefore be seen as serving the EU’s constitutionally enshrined goal to achieve further Investment liberalization, rather than as shielding the internal market from undesired external influence. This article analyses the justification for the recent enactment in the European Union (EU) of a regulation establishing a framework for the screening of inward foreign direct Investment (FDI). It argues that the new regulation, which constitutes a first step for a more comprehensive EU Investment screening system, should not be considered to be exclusively aimed at protecting the internal market and defensive Union or Member State interests. Instead, the regulation has a tangible external economic policy justification and outlook because it can be seen as a starting point to build up, at the Union level, possibilities to limit inward FDI, which in turn can be used by the EU as a bargaining chip in its trade and Investment negotiations with economically powerful countries, such as the United States or China, in order to achieve, on the basis of reciprocity, better access of EU investors to foreign markets. Paradoxically, establishing a framework for the screening of inward FDI at the Union level can therefore be seen as serving the EU’s constitutionally enshrined goal to achieve further Investment liberalization, rather than as shielding the internal market from undesired external influence. This article analyses the justification for the recent enactment in the European Union (EU) of a regulation establishing a framework for the screening of inward foreign direct Investment (FDI). It argues that the new regulation, which constitutes a first step for a more comprehensive EU Investment screening system, should not be considered to be exclusively aimed at protecting the internal market and defensive Union or Member State interests. Instead, the regulation has a tangible external economic policy justification and outlook because it can be seen as a starting point to build up, at the Union level, possibilities to limit inward FDI, which in turn can be used by the EU as a bargaining chip in its trade and Investment negotiations with economically powerful countries, such as the United States or China, in order to achieve, on the basis of reciprocity, better access of EU investors to foreign markets. Paradoxically, establishing a framework for the screening of inward FDI at the Union level can therefore be seen as serving the EU’s constitutionally enshrined goal to achieve further Investment liberalization, rather than as shielding the internal market from undesired external influence.
V Rachamadugu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
managing security and privacy integration across enterprise business process and infrastructure
IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, 2008Co-Authors: J A Anderson, V RachamaduguAbstract:Managing information security and privacy assurance are fiduciary responsibilities of all government and commercial organizations, but standing up a comprehensive fully-assured environment from the onset may be technically or financially impossible. Many organizations inadequately address this challenge from a 'bottom-up' or piece-meal perspective, certifying and accrediting individual systems or focusing on perimeter systems and portals. A systematic enterprise-wide risk-management approach to information security and privacy is both practical and economically feasible, but must holistically integrate such requirements into both business process management and the technical infrastructure to be effective. The authors' development of the roadmap for information security across the enterprise (RISE) methodology establishes a systematic approach to security and privacy management by leveraging enterprise architecture approaches, and ensures implementation Control by integrating the processes and responsibility with enterprise-level portfolio management. RISE defines an iterative threat assessment and response cycle and integrates it with capital planning and Investment Control (CPIC) for both operational and infrastructure initiatives. This paper describes how RISE ensures risk-informed continuous process improvement and capital planning by maintaining an architecturally founded knowledge base supporting strategic planning and Investment review.
J A Anderson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
managing security and privacy integration across enterprise business process and infrastructure
IEEE International Conference on Services Computing, 2008Co-Authors: J A Anderson, V RachamaduguAbstract:Managing information security and privacy assurance are fiduciary responsibilities of all government and commercial organizations, but standing up a comprehensive fully-assured environment from the onset may be technically or financially impossible. Many organizations inadequately address this challenge from a 'bottom-up' or piece-meal perspective, certifying and accrediting individual systems or focusing on perimeter systems and portals. A systematic enterprise-wide risk-management approach to information security and privacy is both practical and economically feasible, but must holistically integrate such requirements into both business process management and the technical infrastructure to be effective. The authors' development of the roadmap for information security across the enterprise (RISE) methodology establishes a systematic approach to security and privacy management by leveraging enterprise architecture approaches, and ensures implementation Control by integrating the processes and responsibility with enterprise-level portfolio management. RISE defines an iterative threat assessment and response cycle and integrates it with capital planning and Investment Control (CPIC) for both operational and infrastructure initiatives. This paper describes how RISE ensures risk-informed continuous process improvement and capital planning by maintaining an architecturally founded knowledge base supporting strategic planning and Investment review.
Lu Gang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Investment Control in capital construction project item
Shanxi Architecture, 2003Co-Authors: Lu GangAbstract:In this paper the Investment Control objectives in different stages in capital construction project are elaborate from project setting, technical design, construction, contract judgement and final account. At the same time the relationships among Investment Control, quality and schedule Control are analyzed to realize dynamic Control and management for capital construction project.
Steve Batdorff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
sp 800 65 integrating it security into the capital planning and Investment Control process
2005Co-Authors: Joan Hash, Nadya Bartol, Holly Rollins, Will Robinson, John Abeles, Steve BatdorffAbstract:Traditionally, information technology (IT) security and capital planning and Investment Control (CPIC) processes have been performed independently by security and capital planning practitioners. However, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002 and other existing federal regulations charge agencies with integrating the two activities. In addition, with increased competition for limited federal budgets and resources, agencies must ensure that available funding is applied towards the agencies' highest priority IT security Investments. Applying funding towards high-priority security Investments supports the objective of maintaining appropriate security Controls, both at the enterprise-wide and system level, commensurate with levels of risk and data sensitivity. This special publication introduces common criteria against which agencies can prioritize security activities to ensure that corrective actions identified in the annual FISMA reporting process are incorporated into the capital planning process to deliver maximum security in a cost-effective manner.
