Danka Moravčíková, Zuzana Ilková and Petra Štefeková
. [Cit. 2016-09-11.] Available through access to electronic sources of information of CVTI SR.
4. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. (2010). Communication Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union COM (2010) 546 final, 6.10.2010.
5. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. (2014). The role of public support in the commercialisation of innovations (Flash Eurobarometer 394). Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/fl ash/fl _394_en.pdf>
6. FORTUIN, F. (2007). Strategic alignment of innovation to business. Balancing exploration and
ALLEN, Mathew. Germany’s National Innovation System. In Encyclopaedia of Technology and Innovation . Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2009, pp. 375–389.
BAILY, Martin, BOSWORTH, Barry. US Manufacturing: Understanding Its Past and Its Potential Future. Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, 2014, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 3–26
BANERJEE, Supriya, WAHL, Mike, PANIGRAHI, Jayant. Technology, innovation and knowledge transfer: A value chain perspective. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET
The European Union was aware of unwanted side-effect of the free movement of persons which has been the equally free movement criminals. With regards to Tampere European Council conclusions the traditional extradition procedures were replaced by the surrender procedure within Member States of the European Union. Th e article answers the question how the surrender procedure differs from classic extradition. It deals with the comparison of the surrender procedure and the extradition mechanism focused on innovations of the European arrest warrant. It points out at necessity of simpler and faster procedure in the EU. Further, it focuses on the comparison of the legal basis of both procedures and on procedural issues.
Administrative law and process, 2015, Vol. 12, Issue 2, p. 321–332. [online]. Available at: < http://applaw.knu.ua/2015-2.pdf >.
KERIKMÄE, Tanel; HOFFMANN, Thomas; CHOCHIA, Archil. Legal Technology for Law Firms: Determining Roadmaps for Innovation. Croatian International Relations Review, 2018, vol. 24, no. 81, 91−112.
KERIKMÄE, Tanel, SÄRAV, Sandra. Legal Impediments in the EU to New Technologies in the Example of E-Residency, Baltic Journal of Law & Politics , 2016, vol 8, no. 2.
MESARČÍK, Matúš. Naozaj sa bojím tmy? Zopár úvah o technologickom
Australia’s copyright regime-but we have strengthened protection in certain circumstances-providing a platform for Australia to attract and incubate greater creativity and innovation. Hon. Mark Vaile, Minister for Trade, Reading Speech introducing the U.S. Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill 2004, House of Representatives Hansard (Jun. 23, 2004), 31218.
The principal political opposition party supported the legislation but identified several problems arising from enhanced copyright protection. Colette Ormonde, Copyright Overboard? The Debate After the Australia
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is touted as the “biggest global trade deal in twenty years”, Andrew Robb, Minister for Trade and Invt., Austl., Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Pact to Drive Jobs, Growth and Innovation for Australia , Media Release (Oct. 6, 2015). following on from the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Its 12 Pacific Rim countries are unusually diverse as regards geographic location, culture, interests, and level of development: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico
.L. 112-41, Oct. 21, 2011.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership
While the NAFTA has never been significantly modified or amended after more than 20 years, updating may finally be on the horizon indirectly through changes and other innovations in the TPP, many of which, as with investment, labor, environment and rules of origin, among others, would bring about major changes in NAFTA. That being said some 75%-80% of the content of NAFTA is found in most subsequent U.S. FTAs as well as in the TPP. Thus, for lawyers, academics and business persons who wish to understand
As far as I can learn, the express purpose of the [Philadelphia] [C]onvention was, to revise and amend , the [A]rticles [of Confederation]… Instead of this… they built a stately palace [new constitution] after their own fancies… Had they preserved only one article of the union [the Articles], and built the present [new] constitution to it, the objection of innovation would be unreasonable[.]
— Denatus, Virginia Independent Chronicle , June 11, 1788
Robert Natelson’s recent article, The Founders’ Origination Clause and Implications for
discrimination. On this rationale, marriage per se would be a secondary or derivative issue: the true question would be the acceptable bounds of State sponsored sexual orientation discrimination. Insofar as such a technique would demand judicial innovation, that innovation would be limited to making explicit what was obviously implicit in Windsor and arguably implicit in the earlier sexual orientation discrimination judgments in Romer v. Evans Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). and Lawrence v. Texas . Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
This was the approach taken
in a globalized economy because “[u]nclear, excessive, or duplicative regulatory requirements can impede new global production. In unbundled global supply chains, intermediate services and parts crisscross borders multiple times. As the number of countries and transactions multiply, so do the costs of inefficient and divergent regulations.” Thomas J. Bollyky, Better Regulation for Freer Trade, Council on Foreign Relations , Jun. 2012, Policy Innovation Memorandum 22, available at http://www.cfr.org/trade/better-regulation-freer-trade/p28508 . The next section