Suchergebnisse

The article covers the issues of ensuring food security, reforms carried out by Uzbekistan in this regard and mutual cooperation, which are becoming one of the most pressing problems in the world today. The increase in the number of Population year-on-year, climatic changes, urbanization, economic, ecological factors adversely affect the volume and quality of food production. This, in turn, dictates the implementation of deep consistent reforms in the spheres of existing rural agriculture and food industry. In recent years, with the aim of accelerating the development of agricultural production and the food industry, addressing sectoral challenges, Uzbekistan has been working not only in domestic capacity but also with international organizations and developed countries. In particular, Uzbekistan joined the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOUN) on 2 November 2001. During this period, Uzbekistan has implemented a number of national and regional projects in collaboration with the UN. For example, Uzbekistan carried out 8 national and regional projects in the Republic during 2001-2015 in cooperation with this organization. On June 5-6, 2014 in Tashkent on the initiative of Uzbekistan held an international conference on the theme "significant reserves of Food Program Implementation in Uzbekistan". In addition, the FAOUN's 32nd regional conference for Europe is scheduled to be held in Uzbekistan for the first time among the countries of Central Asia on May 5-7, 2020. This is evidenced by the growing strengthening of cooperation with the FAOUN Organization of Uzbekistan.

Bernstein, A. H.: Beyond RIMPAC: prospects for multinational regional security cooperation. S. 3-14. Romberg, A. D.: U.S. security policy in Asia. S. 15-38. Kondo, S.: Japan's security interests and role in the Pacific rim cooperation. S. 39-52. Ahn Byung-joon: Korea's security interests and roles in the Pacific rim. S. 53-66. Job, B. L.: Canadian interests and perspectives regarding the emerging Northern Pacific security order. S. 121-146. Polomka, P.: Australia's security interests and role in Pacific rim cooperation. S. 147-164. Holborow, D.: Pacific rim security cooperation: a New Zealand view. S. 165-180. Lau Teik Soon: Pacific rim security cooperation: ASEAN perspective. S. 181-192

A growing literature touts the prominence of international cooperation among substate officials through so-called transgovernmental networks (TGNs). These networks are allegedly faster, cheaper and more flexible than conventional international treaty organizations (ITOs) (e.g. Slaughter, 2004). Yet, TGNs are not evenly distributed, either in terms of geography or issue-area. While some policyareas are characterized by networked cooperation, others continue to be dominated by formal ITOs. How can we explain such variation? I draw on recent network studies in public policy, economics and sociology to theorize the conditions in which states may prefer cooperation through TGNs. I have two main findings: First, TGNs are designed to deal with cooperation problems of a different nature than those addressed by ITOs. ITOs aim to reduce transaction costs, enhance credibility of interstate agreements and solve problems of incomplete contracting. By contrast, the chief benefit of TGNs is to provide policy flexibility and untie the hands of national executives, allowing them to bypass domestic and international constraints on policy. Second, TGNs are not a panacea for international problemsolving. Rather, they are useful tools in situations where states are reluctant to embrace treaty-based cooperation due to sovereignty concerns or environmental uncertainty. The argument is applied against three cases drawn from the ordinarily hierarchical realm of international security cooperation.