Regimes in sentence

1100 examples of Regimes in a sentence

Across the region, countless exchange-rate regimes have been tried – some succeeding, others failing abysmally.

That experience was marked by the attempt to use a fixed exchange-rate regime as the main policy instrument to control inflation; that attempt’s colossal failure; and the shift, over the last decade, to more flexible regimes, freeing the exchange rate from playing a central role in controlling inflation, but not necessarily allowing a pure float in world currency markets.

This, together with external shocks and severe recessions, made fixed exchange-rate regimes untenable, first in Mexico, later in Brazil, and then, spectacularly, in Argentina.

As a result, compliance with TB drug treatment is particularly weak, paving the way for the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) TB, which can no longer be treated by conventional therapeutic regimes.

Times columnist Thomas Friedman recently penned an open letter to the Chinese government telling them that, because the top “cause of death of Chinese regimes in history is greed and corruption,” a free press is more likely to help than hurt.

It is to deliver a form of decentralized punishment that makes it very costly for dictatorial regimes to violate other people’s rights with impunity and to create pliant cadres of henchmen who “only follow orders,” as if that exempted them from moral responsibility.

There are fragile states to contend with, as well as the dangers of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, authoritarian regimes, and the threat of extremism.

The US has, after all, overthrown or at least tried to overthrow non-nuclear regimes that it opposes, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and (unsuccessfully) Syria.

This is why, having regained their democratic regimes, Central and Eastern European countries unequivocally voted to join the continent's integration process.

Sadly, the US and other advanced countries have been pressing for stronger intellectual-property regimes around the world.

Such regimes would limit poor countries’ access to the knowledge that they need for their development – and would deny life-saving generic drugs to the hundreds of millions of people who cannot afford the drug companies’ monopoly prices.

But unbalanced intellectual-property regimes result in inefficiencies – including monopoly profits and a failure to maximize the use of knowledge – that impede the pace of innovation.

Human rights activists in the United States are calling for legislation that would prevent American companies from engaging in business practices that help repressive regimes stifle democratic movements.

Confronted with the spread of missile technology, and unpredictable regimes and leaders, we owe it to our populations to complement our deterrence capabilities with an effective missile-defense capability.

Europe’s governments are now much criticized for propping up autocratic Arab regimes, but their real failure has been one of omission: the lack of economic cooperation and development assistance offered to the region.

In the late 1980s, the leading industrialized countries – the United States, Europe, and Japan – began to push for stronger patent regimes that would boost their own pharmaceutical companies’ profits.

Kleptocratic regimes often channel some of their countries’ wealth into Swiss bank accounts.

Its malaise has raised questions about whether its democratic capitalism will survive the economic challenge posed by authoritarian and quasi-authoritarian regimes.

Beyond the obvious violation of individuals’ privacy implied by such activities lies the danger that these firms will later make a deal with authoritarian regimes in Russia or China, where little, if any, effort is made to preserve even the illusion of privacy.

Thus, they bear a striking similarity to the Nazi brown shirts, the Fascist black shirts, and the various “people’s militias” that were established under communist regimes.

In reality, the one thing that non-democratic regimes can never tolerate is independent workers’ organizations.

Despite their efforts, however, the US government soon became as venal as any of the old regimes in Europe – and, as Francis Fukuyama has argued, remained so for more than a century.

And floating and fixed exchange-rate regimes coexist uneasily, because volatility tends to affect the floating currencies (often the euro, and recently the Latin American currencies).

Or to pose the question more broadly, is it so clear that advisers should always steer clear of dictatorial regimes?

The conundrum that advisers to authoritarian regimes face is akin to a long-standing problem in moral philosophy known as the dilemma of “dirty hands.”

By requiring their diplomats to limit their contacts with “alternative” sources of information in a country, in order to avoid antagonizing despotic regimes, governments irremediably limit diplomats’ ability to see change coming, even when it is so close that nothing can be done.

When regimes lose legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens, it is not reasonable to derive one’s information mainly from that regime’s servants and sycophants.

The world urgently needs new drugs to replace the antibiotics, anti-malarial regimes, anti-retroviral AIDS and HIV medications, and tuberculosis treatments that are losing effectiveness.

Protracted conflicts in Ukraine and Syria hint at a new Cold War between the US and Russia, and the turmoil in those countries, as well as elsewhere, is increasingly disrupting national economies and security regimes.

It is the West’s acceptance of corruption – either open or tacit – that makes it an accomplice to too many nefarious regimes, and makes its espousal of democratic principles appear either hypocritical or contradictory.

Related words