基本信息

Wells-PPV(Pay Per View) 专题文献聚焦国内外政治、法律、经贸、国际关系、军事、外交等重大核心关切领域,由Wells对此类文献进行系统的收集和整理,然后采用Wells公司首创的“共享式翻译服务)(Shared Translation Service),以最低的翻译成本对国内外政治、法律、经贸、国际关系、军事、外交等重要文件进行最大限度的传播和分享给用户。Wells首创的”共享式文献翻译服务“的收费标准为市场价格的10%。更有,对于公开和无需版权许可的原文献,我们将尽量”免费“分享给用户。

全部文献(23)

  • 国际关系|International Relations拜登政府《过渡国安战略指南》(英文)

    当地时间3月3日,美国总统拜登发布任内第一份国家安全战略指南。拜登表示,这份指南传达了他对美国将如何与世界互动的看法,他将外交视为解决国家安全问题的第一个工具,且民主是最大财富。这份战略指南中多次提及中国大陆,并将中国视为唯一有能力,结合经济、外交、军事与技术能力,以对稳定和开放国际社会提出持续挑战的竞争对手。指南中声称,美国要战胜中国最有效方法,是投资人民、经济与民主。透过恢复美国的信誉与确保前瞻性的全球领导地位。美国将与其他国家共同制定新的全球规范和协议,促进利益并反映价值观。透过支持和捍卫盟友与合作伙伴网络,并进行国防投资。此外,这份指南中也表达了将与中国大陆开展务实,以结果为导向的外交。指南称:“欢迎中国政府在气候变迁、全球健康安全、军备控制与核武不扩散等议题合作。

    作者/编者:美国总统拜登 机构:Wells 日期:2021-03-05 10:06:46 浏览:939次 
  • 法律|Law美国人工智能安全委员会2021年度建议报告(英文)

    当地时间3月1日,美国国家人工智能安全委员会(NSCAI)投票通过,并向美国国会提交了长达756页的2021年度最终建议报告。该报告指出,中国在人工智能开发领域位于世界前沿,美国政府在应对人工智能的新威胁方面“毫无准备”,必须实施重大变革。NSCAI由谷歌前CEO埃里克•施密特领导,上周其在美国国会参议院听证会上极力渲染美国在科技领域对抗中国的“紧迫性”,认为中国在关键技术领域的领导地位所带来的威胁是一场国家危机。微软总裁布拉德•史密斯在该听证会的书面证词中表达了同样的担忧。

    作者/编者:美国国家人工智能安全委员会 机构:Wells 日期:2021-03-05 09:38:57 浏览:961次 
  • 经贸|Economics & Trade美国IT领域专家:与中国科技竞争战略(英文)

    据美媒报道,拜登政府正研美国IT领域专家制定的与中国进行科技对抗的计划。该计划名为“与中国高科技竞争的不对称战略”(Assymetric competition: A Strategy for China & Technology)。该份报告由15位参与者参与撰写,包括谷歌(Google)前任CEO及Alphabet公司顾问施密特(Eric Sc​​hmidt)、康多莉扎·赖斯(Condoleezza Rice)、曾担任希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)顾问的贾里德·科昂(Jared Cohen)等。

    作者/编者:wells 机构:Wells 日期:2021-01-28 10:34:19 浏览:957次 
  • 国际关系|International Relations美国国家安全委员会:印太战略框架(中英对照稿)

    2021年1月5日,特朗普总统的国家安全事务顾问奥布莱恩(Robert C. O'Brien)签字同意,提前21年解密了特朗普政府的《美国印太战略框架》的全文(少量敏感文字依然被涂黑)。该文献介绍了美国国家安全面临的三大挑战,美国的长远利益所在以及在印太地区的首要利益。美国根据其作出的假设,声明其期望的最终状态和努力方向,并针对印太国家和地区分别提出了具体目标和措施。

    作者/编者:美国国家安全委员会 机构:Wells 日期:2021-01-22 10:13:29 浏览:1017次 
  • 国际关系|International Relations美国国家安全战略报告(2017,中英对照)

    美国国家安全战略 2017年12月 白宫 华盛顿特区 我的美国同胞们: 美国人民选择了我来让美国再次变得强大。我承诺我领导的本届政府会把美国公民的安全、利益和福祉放在首位。我承诺我们将重振美国的经济,重建我们的军队,保卫我们的边境,维护我们的主权并推进我们的价值观。

    作者/编者:Wells公司 机构:Wells 日期:2020-07-10 00:00:00 浏览:2314次 
  • 军事与国家安全|Military & National Security美国国家安全战略报告(2017,中英对照)

    美国国家安全战略 2017年12月 白宫 华盛顿特区 我的美国同胞们: 美国人民选择了我来让美国再次变得强大。我承诺我领导的本届政府会把美国公民的安全、利益和福祉放在首位。我承诺我们将重振美国的经济,重建我们的军队,保卫我们的边境,维护我们的主权并推进我们的价值观。

    作者/编者:Wells公司 机构:Wells 日期:2020-07-10 00:00:00 浏览:2314次 
  • 经贸|Economics & Trade美国《2020年国家贸易评估报告》概要

    美国《2020年国家贸易评估报告》涵盖63个国家和地区,包括美国20个自由贸易协定(FTA)合作伙伴,以及美国商品出口的50个最大市场。报告主要聚焦关税、进口许可、数据流动、海关、农业配额、产业补贴、电信服务提供限制等美方关切问题。

    作者/编者:丁颖 机构:高文律师事务所 日期:2020-04-04 03:12:02 浏览:1610次 
  • 经贸|Economics & Trade美国《2020年国家贸易评估报告》概要

    美国《2020年国家贸易评估报告》涵盖63个国家和地区,包括美国20个自由贸易协定(FTA)合作伙伴,以及美国商品出口的50个最大市场。报告主要聚焦关税、进口许可、数据流动、海关、农业配额、产业补贴、电信服务提供限制等美方关切问题。

    作者/编者:Executive Office of the President of the United States 机构:美国政府 日期:2020-04-03 09:51:01 浏览:1496次 
  • 国际关系|International Relations美国1950国防生产法案:给国会的历史、效力及考量

    Congressional Research Service Summary The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA. Based on this definition, the scope of DPA authorities now extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. Some current DPA authorities include, but are not limited to  Title I: Priorities and Allocations, which allows the President to require persons (including businesses and corporations) to prioritize and accept contracts for materials and services as necessary to promote the national defense.  Title III: Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply, which allows the President to incentivize the domestic industrial base to expand the production and supply of critical materials and goods. Authorized incentives include loans, loan guarantees, direct purchases and purchase commitments, and the authority to procure and install equipment in private industrial facilities.  Title VII: General Provisions, which includes key definitions for the DPA and several distinct authorities, including the authority to establish voluntary agreements with private industry; the authority to block proposed or pending foreign corporate mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security; and the authority to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability and to establish a volunteer pool of industry executives who could be called to government service in the interest of the national defense. These are not the exclusive authorities of the DPA, but rather some of the most pertinent because of their historical or current use. The authorities of the DPA are generally afforded to the President in the statute. The President, in turn, has delegated these authorities to department and agency heads in Executive Order 13603, National Defense Resource Preparedness, issued in 2012. While the authorities are most frequently used by, and commonly associated with, the Department of Defense (DOD), they can be and have been used by numerous other executive departments and agencies. Since 1950, the DPA has been reauthorized over 50 times, though significant authorities were terminated from the original law in 1953. Congress last reauthorized the DPA in Section 1791 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232). This extended the termination of the act by six years, from September 30, 2019, to September 30, 2025, when nearly all DPA authorities will terminate. A few authorities of the DPA, such as the Exon-Florio Amendment (which established government review of the acquisition of U.S. companies by foreigners) and anti-trust protections for certain voluntary industry agreements, have been made permanent by Congress. The DPA lies within the legislative jurisdiction of the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The Defense Production Act of 1950 Congressional Research Service Congress may consider enhancing its oversight of executive branch activities related to the DPA in a number of ways. To enhance oversight, Congress could expand executive branch reporting requirements, track and enforce rulemaking requirements, review the activities of the Defense Production Act Committee, and broaden the committee oversight jurisdiction of the DPA in Congress. Congress may also consider amending the DPA, either by creating new authorities or repealing existing ones. In addition, Congress may consider amending the definitions of the DPA to expand or restrict the DPA’s scope, amending the statute to supersede the President’s delegation of DPA authorities made in E.O. 13603, or consider adjusting future appropriations to the DPA Fund in order to manage the scope of Title III projects initiated by the President.

    作者/编者:CRS 机构:Wells 日期:2020-03-19 08:42:05 浏览:1646次 
  • 经贸|Economics & Trade美国1950国防生产法案:给国会的历史、效力及考量

    Congressional Research Service Summary The Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950 (P.L. 81-774, 50 U.S.C. §§4501 et seq.), as amended, confers upon the President a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. The authorities can be used across the federal government to shape the domestic industrial base so that, when called upon, it is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense. Though initially passed in response to the Korean War, the DPA is historically based on the War Powers Acts of World War II. Gradually, Congress has expanded the term national defense, as defined in the DPA. Based on this definition, the scope of DPA authorities now extends beyond shaping U.S. military preparedness and capabilities, as the authorities may also be used to enhance and support domestic preparedness, response, and recovery from natural hazards, terrorist attacks, and other national emergencies. Some current DPA authorities include, but are not limited to  Title I: Priorities and Allocations, which allows the President to require persons (including businesses and corporations) to prioritize and accept contracts for materials and services as necessary to promote the national defense.  Title III: Expansion of Productive Capacity and Supply, which allows the President to incentivize the domestic industrial base to expand the production and supply of critical materials and goods. Authorized incentives include loans, loan guarantees, direct purchases and purchase commitments, and the authority to procure and install equipment in private industrial facilities.  Title VII: General Provisions, which includes key definitions for the DPA and several distinct authorities, including the authority to establish voluntary agreements with private industry; the authority to block proposed or pending foreign corporate mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers that threaten national security; and the authority to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability and to establish a volunteer pool of industry executives who could be called to government service in the interest of the national defense. These are not the exclusive authorities of the DPA, but rather some of the most pertinent because of their historical or current use. The authorities of the DPA are generally afforded to the President in the statute. The President, in turn, has delegated these authorities to department and agency heads in Executive Order 13603, National Defense Resource Preparedness, issued in 2012. While the authorities are most frequently used by, and commonly associated with, the Department of Defense (DOD), they can be and have been used by numerous other executive departments and agencies. Since 1950, the DPA has been reauthorized over 50 times, though significant authorities were terminated from the original law in 1953. Congress last reauthorized the DPA in Section 1791 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232). This extended the termination of the act by six years, from September 30, 2019, to September 30, 2025, when nearly all DPA authorities will terminate. A few authorities of the DPA, such as the Exon-Florio Amendment (which established government review of the acquisition of U.S. companies by foreigners) and anti-trust protections for certain voluntary industry agreements, have been made permanent by Congress. The DPA lies within the legislative jurisdiction of the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The Defense Production Act of 1950 Congressional Research Service Congress may consider enhancing its oversight of executive branch activities related to the DPA in a number of ways. To enhance oversight, Congress could expand executive branch reporting requirements, track and enforce rulemaking requirements, review the activities of the Defense Production Act Committee, and broaden the committee oversight jurisdiction of the DPA in Congress. Congress may also consider amending the DPA, either by creating new authorities or repealing existing ones. In addition, Congress may consider amending the definitions of the DPA to expand or restrict the DPA’s scope, amending the statute to supersede the President’s delegation of DPA authorities made in E.O. 13603, or consider adjusting future appropriations to the DPA Fund in order to manage the scope of Title III projects initiated by the President.

    作者/编者:CRS 机构:Wells 日期:2020-03-19 08:42:05 浏览:1646次