These eras when creedal politics supplant interest-group politics are relatively rare, but the system does contain an ongoing institution that is at the heart of the civil religion—the UnitedStates Supreme Court. The Court is the priestly interpreter of holy writ, the one agency in government that has the assigned duty to respond to the claims of individuals that the rights they have been promised have not been realized. With the Constitution as a sacred text of the American civil religion in place, we can now turn to the establishment of the agency that, in time, would become not only the priestly interpreter of that text but a continuing force in promoting national unity and in securing and expanding the ambit of the protection of individual rights. More than any other single institution, the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates has been responsible for making the Constitution a vital document that continues to command the allegiance and faith of the American people. 89
The case studies of France, Japan, and Germany have each individually provided lessons on the implementation of high-speed rail, policy implementation, demographics, and more; however, focusing on the case studies at the individual level does not provide the optimum setting for analysis. This section will consist of a cross-case analysis, a triangulation of the three cases to better understand the important lessons that are applicable to the UnitedStates. The structure of this section will remain consistent with the structure of the case studies; examining the similarities and differences from each of the six questions. The three HSR systems studied provide empirical insight into the strength’s and weaknesses of the US Department of Transportation HSR plan.
As noted by various critics, however, this apology suggests that U.S. complicity was a regrettable mistake rather than knowing and deliberate support of the atrocities. Perhaps more vexing, the UnitedStates did not attempt to make amends for the suffering its conduct caused.
Head trauma encompasses a wide variety of injuries with differing severities, ranging from trivial head wounds to traumatic brain injuries. In the UnitedStates, a large emphasis has been placed on traumatic brain injuries (TBIs); more than 1.7 million TBIs are estimated to occur each year in the U.S., 75 % of which are con- cussions or other mild traumatic brain injuries [1, 2]. A diverse array of injury mechanisms have been associated with TBIs, including falls, motor vehicle crashes, assaults, and sports-related injuries [2, 3]. Though many patients who suffer a mild TBI recover rapidly and fully, long-term symptoms after injury, including fatigue [4, 5], sleep
The data are ﬁtted separating vector-boson-mediated processes, VBF and VH, from gluon-mediated processes, ggF and ttH, involv- ing fermion (mainly top-quark) loops or legs. 5 Two signal strength parameters, μ ggF f + tt H = μ ggF f = μ tt H f and μ VBF f + V H = μ VBF f = μ V H f , which scale the SM-predicted rates to those observed, are intro- duced for each of the considered ﬁnal states ( f = H → γ γ , H → ZZ ∗ → 4 , H → WW ∗ → ν ν ). The results are shown in Fig. 7. The 95% CL contours of the measurements are consistent with the SM expectation. A combination of all channels would provide a higher-sensitivity test of the theory. This can be done in a model- independent way (i.e. without assumptions on the Higgs boson branching ratios) by measuring the ratios μ VBF + V H / μ ggF + tt H for the individual ﬁnal states and their combination. The results of the ﬁt to the data with the likelihood Λ( μ VBF + V H / μ ggF + tt H ) are shown in Fig. 8. Good agreement with the SM expectation is ob- served for the individual ﬁnal states and their combination.
This distinction between security cooperation exercise and NATO exercise may seem like nothing more than semantics. However a misunderstanding of the semantic nuances had potential negative strategic consequences. Estonia shares a border with Russia and former Soviet military forces occupied Estonia prior to the 1991 Singing Revolution. Diplomatic tensions between Estonia and Russia remain tense and Estonia is constantly defending its territorial waters in the Baltic Sea against Russian naval vessels. During the exercise a Russian frigate and a Russian submarine attempted to violate Estonia’s territorial water. In response, Estonia deployed a small portion of its Navy to block the Russian vessels and force a return to internationally recognized neutral waters shared by countries bordering the Baltic Sea. This level of international tension between Estonia and Russia is constant. If the participants of a security cooperation exercise were to describe the event as a NATO exercise, it would be interpreted by Russia as a signal that NATO forces, led by the UnitedStates, were rehearsing air, land, and sea strategies in the Baltic Sea that would support an amphibious assault against the Russian city of St. Petersburg. This instance and many others like it demonstrate that the improper use of military terminology can have unintended negative consequences.
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA- DSM / IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Por- tugal; MNE / IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, UnitedStates of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Ho- rizon 2020 and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d’Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Région Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Ger- many; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.
Part I provides an overview of technology-based standard setting and its shortcomings as an environmental regulation, and compares it with market- based alternatives. Part II explains the background of the environmental consumerism movement. As consumers demanded eco-friendly products and the industry responded by producing products claiming to be eco- friendly, various stakeholders—including non-governmental organizations, federal agencies, and state governments—contemplated methods for protecting consumers from unsubstantiated environmental claims. Part III evaluates three mainstream ecolabel programs in the UnitedStates: UnitedStatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) Organic for agricultural products, ENERGY STAR for appliances, and Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) for buildings. After an overview of the program, each ecolabel will be evaluated based on how consumers comprehend the ecolabel and whether the ecolabel program suffers from regulatory issues rooted in traditional command and control environmental theory. Finally, Part IV concludes by advocating for hybrid regulatory controls as effective strategies in promoting consumer comprehension.
public; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; EPLANET, ERC and NSRF, European Union; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH Foundation, Germany; GSRT and NSRF, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Mo- rocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; BRF and RCN, Norway; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MERYS (MECTS), Romania; MES of Russia and ROSATOM, Rus- sian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, UnitedStates of America.