Example collocations logo

States in sentence

7075 examples of States in a sentence

By contrast, many Sunni Arab states have provided varying degrees of support to the largely Sunni opposition, a hodgepodge of groups that include the Muslim Brotherhood and other sectarian forces similar to Egypt’s ultra-conservative Salafis.
At the same time, the biggest threat to the international order comes from failing, failed, post-conflict, and conflict-ridden states.
First, there are political and structural risks to the EU if more member states leave.
But if the bloc loses more member states, it starts to look like negligence, mismanagement, or a fundamental design flaw.
Opinion polls show that support for the EU has surged in many member states since the UK’s referendum.
But, because this “nuclear option” requires a unanimous vote by all EU member states, everyone knows that it will never be used.
Because member states must recognize each other’s court judgments, the populist takeover of the Polish and Hungarian judiciaries undermines the entire EU’s legal order.
Ultimately, everything depends on individual member states’ political will.
Second, the G20 must crack down on economic abuses that weaken states and markets, and erode public trust.
Its introduction was delayed for a decade by the now-ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who, as Chief Minister of Gujarat, argued that it would encroach on states’ rights and rob them of revenue.
Complicating matters further, there are significant omissions, because the Modi government yielded to the states’ demands to retain some taxation powers on high-yielding sources of revenue.
But that would have required the central government to work with states to develop a rational and simpler system, with the rate capped, as the opposition Congress party demanded, at 18%, rather than the ultra-high 28% the BJP chose (for as many as 30% of all items, no less).
Similarly, a European plan must be accompanied by a global response, under the authority of the United Nations and involving its member states.
This would distribute the burden of the Syrian crisis over a larger number of states, while also establishing global standards for dealing with the problems of forced migration more generally.
The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs – and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.
It is equally important to allow both states and asylum-seekers to express their preferences, using the least possible coercion.
These figures are well within range of pledges already made by the EU for the Stability Pact and they could be easily accommodated within the confines of the Berlin Accord on the EU budget for 2000-2005 if EU member states agree to a reallocation of unspent funds.
Should Iran possess the ultimate weapon, it might embrace a new restraint in its foreign policy; nuclear-weapons states, precisely because they confront the prospect of nuclear retaliation, have historically tread with caution.
The model of a federal union that emerged from its history consists of a single currency managed by a federal agency; closely integrated markets for products, labor, and capital; a federal budget that partly, but automatically, offsets economic disturbances affecting individual states; a federal government that assumes responsibility for tackling other major risks, not least those emanating from the banking sector; and states that provide regional public goods but play virtually no role in macroeconomic stabilization.
More recently, the eurozone has begun to create a system of mutual insurance among member states.
So a specific pattern is emerging: states help each other.
Unlike in America, however, EU member states’ governments – and, increasingly, their parliaments – are calling the shots.
Because assistance does not rest on federal resources, but rather on the pooling of national resources, creditor states inevitably demand more power in exchange for providing more support to their neighbors.
In the US, the federal government acts as an overall shield against common risks and provides automatic, unconditional support to states in trouble; but, in the end, it does not come to the rescue of a defaulting state, nor does it take over its government.
In Europe, by contrast, there is almost no aggregate shield and almost no automatic support for member states in trouble – better-off states simply extend a conditional helping hand to prevent default.
So, while US states compete with the center for power, in Europe they increasingly compete with each other.
Under a truly international paradigm, the principles underlying a peace deal – two states along the 1967 border (with territorial swaps to accommodate Israel’s settlement blocs), two capitals in Jerusalem, an agreed solution to the refugee problem, and robust security arrangements – could be enshrined in a Security Council resolution.
Even now, Palestine is a relatively minor security challenge for Israel; the more formidable threats, which have compelled Israel to build up its military considerably, come from the Arab states that surround it.
All hoped that Scotland would pave the way for the peaceful breakup of their own states.
In Ottawa, the Canadian parliament has called for similar measures, including asset freezes against those responsible for Magnitsky's death, as has the European Parliament, which has called for the European Union’s member states to take collective action.
BackNext