Example collocations logo

States in sentence

7075 examples of States in a sentence

On other issues – notably immigration – Obama rejects claims of states’ rights and insists on federal authority.
And more US states will most likely either approve full-fledged marijuana legalization or its medicinal use (18 states already allow it).
The PRI retained power in those states: voters did not make them pay for their share of responsibility for the violence.
Indeed, no such precedent exists: there has never been a peaceful transfer of power in any of the Arab League’s 22 member states.
But banks are regulated and supervised nationally – as they must be, because any rescue in the event of a large bank failure becomes a fiscal issue, with the cost borne by taxpayers in individual states rather than by the EU as a whole.
The second obvious problem is the smallness of the EU’s budget relative to those of the member states.
In any case, it only ever worked for the larger states.
The smaller states could not do Keynesianism in a hand basin.
The difficulty with such a suggestion is that it would imply a relative weakening of the national states, including the largest, Germany and France.
Instead, the large states are now promoting informal groupings to look for worldwide solutions.
But it is precisely the lack of economic reform at home that has made Italy one of the least competitive states in the euro-zone economy.
In Syria and Yemen, there is civil war;Lebanon and Iraq could face a similar fate;Iran is both unstable and dangerous to others; and Afghanistan and Pakistan look increasingly like failed states.
While about 40 countries and 23 cities, states, and regions are using a carbon price, this covers only 12% of annual greenhouse-gas emissions.
As a result, international law came to recognize the “right of protection” against governmental arbitrariness and states’ crimes against their own people, even though enforcement remains quite uncertain.
With its establishment, resulting from long and terrible experience, the basic idea of modernity – that the power of states and their rulers should be subject to the rule of higher law, thus placing individual rights above state sovereignty – has taken a great step forward.
To be sure, states are still following traditional interest-oriented policies.
Such is the outcome of globalization, i.e., the mutual dependence of 6.5 billion people in a single global economy and system of states.
Since the Kremlin interrupted energy supplies to the Baltic states in 1990 in a futile attempt to stifle their independence movements, it has continued to use pipeline politics against countries such as Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania – all new EU members.
Although the EU Commission appears to be committed to building a more open, competitive energy market in Europe, action against Russia’s noncompetitive practices within the EU has taken a back seat to internal differences over takeover battles for national energy “champions” involving companies from other member states.
The question now is whether the EU’s status as an enterprise dominated by its member states is permanent.
The supremacy of member states – especially Germany – in EU decision-making is far from new.
In fact, with member states’ domestic politics playing a more important role than the European Council in driving whatever EU policy momentum exists, even an intergovernmental EU may be too much to hope for.
The reasons are well known: poor communication, a democratic deficit, finger pointing between member states and the Commission, a flawed institutional architecture.
But this moment of national navel-gazing among the member states may actually present an important opportunity for EU institutions to work on closing the legitimacy gap.
And, as if this were not enough, 25 of the 27 EU member states have just agreed on a new treaty (called a “fiscal compact”) that would oblige them never to have a cyclically adjusted budget deficit of more than 0.5% of GDP.
It took states about two decades to reach the first cooperative agreements in the nuclear era.
Instead, the US, Russia, and 13 other states agreed that the UN Secretary General should appoint a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), which first met in 2004.
Groups of experts are not uncommon in the UN process, but only rarely does their work rise from the UN’s basement to a summit of the world’s 20 most powerful states.
Over the years, as the number of GGE member states increased from the original 15 to 20 and then to 25, the group became more unwieldy, and political issues became more intrusive.
A first draft of a new report existed at the beginning of this year, and the able German chairman argued that the group should not rewrite the 2015 report, but try to say more about the steps that states should take in peacetime.
BackNext