Example collocations logo

Bilateral in sentence

1533 examples of Bilateral in a sentence

China’s hard bargaining with Russia has exposed the limits of the two countries’ bilateral cooperation, which has important geo-strategic consequences for Asia and the world.
Modi’s victory and Abe’s increased ability to stand by Japan’s allies can help to forge deeper bilateral ties and, if properly understood by China, foster a greater strategic equilibrium in the region.
This disparity between fact and perception reflects the root cause of the decay in the bilateral alliance: neither country fully appreciates the ongoing need for the alliance, or the political costs that it must bear for the sake of security.
To decouple concerns about the Osprey from the issue of crimes by US military personnel, bilateral agreements for criminal jurisdiction must be revised.
While the bilateral Status of Forces Agreement does not have to be amended per se, given that its key stipulations closely resemble those of its NATO counterpart, crucial details set under the auspices of the bilateral security pact curtail the scope of Japanese jurisdiction over US forces stationed in Japan.
China also resumed high-level bilateral military exchanges, which it suspended a year ago to protest US arms sales to Taiwan.
President Barack Obama will likely raise issues such as the bilateral trade imbalance, the Chinese government’s manipulation of the renminbi’s exchange rate, prevention of nuclear proliferation, recent tension on the Korean peninsula, international cooperation on climate change, and China’s poor human rights record.
As a result, the US, as the world’s strongest military power, wants to put bilateral military relations on the upcoming meeting’s agenda, along with bilateral economic relations and international political affairs.
That is where bilateral negotiations come in.
Bilateral negotiations between the US and Iran, however, might allow the US to make progress on the issues that are important to it – and, equally significant, to understand modern Iran better.
The final vital issue that must be addressed in any bilateral talks between the US and Iran is the latter’s military activity and, in particular, its missile programs.
Such efforts should be renewed as soon as possible; the US should agree to bilateral as well as six-party talks with the North, possibly in exchange for a moratorium on nuclear tests.
Does the UK really want to hang its future on bilateral agreements with a long list of individual trade partners?
The bilateral approach would demand a huge amount of time and resources, with UK negotiators engaging in a series of discussions with each and every country with which they wanted to do business.
After all, it is this approach that would enable UK firms to position themselves in well-developed and integrated supply chains, serving much larger markets than those to which a bilateral agreement would grant them access.
This experience demonstrates the limitations of bilateral agreements, especially in a world where supply chains and markets extend far beyond the countries involved.
The UK may negotiate a bilateral free-trade agreement with, say, Canada, but UK firms will secure few benefits, unless Canadian firms can sell products with UK components to their other trading partners.
That means pivoting away from bilateral deals, toward a multilateral approach that enables the country to rebalance and expand its trading arrangements around the world.
The urgency of this situation demands that the bilateral relationship move beyond narrow discussions of Turkey’s accession to the EU.
European leaders should also carefully monitor the possible revision of Turkish foreign policy, grasping opportunities to reignite bilateral dialogue on issues of common interest.
In this context, strengthening our countries’ administrative capacity is critical, for it will enable us to make the best possible use of the financial and technical assistance provided by bilateral and multilateral institutions.
Indeed, multilateral trade agreements were being eclipsed by bilateral deals, such as between the EU and various developing countries, long before the divisions over Iraq appeared.
But progress has been hampered by a congeries of bilateral political disputes between Western Balkan and EU countries, similar to when Slovenia, taking advantage of EU membership, temporarily blocked Croatia’s accession.
These bilateral relationships constitute much of the strategic undercurrent of East Asian security at a time when the region’s long-term geostrategic stability has come into question.
It points to America’s “rebalancing” strategy, to military and/or diplomatic support for those countries with which China has bilateral territorial disputes, and US support for Japan’s revision of its post-WWII “peace constitution” as a precursor for what China views as significant Japanese rearmament.
For these reasons, the bilateral strategic-trust deficit is growing.
At the same time, it is “constructive” in the sense of identifying areas of sufficient commonality to create new public goods, such as bilateral investment treaties, a non-nuclear Korean Peninsula, and a global agreement on climate change.
Just a few months ago, the bilateral relationship had sunk to an all-time post-war low, owing to a toxic cocktail of territorial disputes over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, Japan’s handling of its wartime history (particularly prime ministerial visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine), and Chinese fears about Japanese rearmament.
Moreover, with Japan and China facing increasing economic uncertainty, they have recognized that it makes sense for the world’s second and third largest economies to remove major political impediments to expanded bilateral trade and investment.
In fact, bilateral negotiations have enabled every major success of large-scale financial diplomacy.
BackNext