The networks of administrative organs of intellectual property are the best public service platform for the demanders of intellectual property information service in our country.But at present,There exist a lot of problems of this type of intellectual property information service networks,for example,the service level of these networks is not balanced,these are much wasteful duplicate construction,resource integration and value-added service needs to be strengthened and so on.In terms of the traditional intellectual property fields,there are three modes of administrative organs' network information service,including the first type of separation of three kinds of information in China,the second type of coexistence of patents,trademarks and copyright information in the United States and the third type of synthetic information service of three kinds in Britain.The three modes have their own characteristics and advantages.We should learn from the experience of the three modes and promote the construction of our comprehensive intellectual property public information service platform as soon as possible,in order to implement intellectual property strategy and build an innovation-oriented country.
The authors propose the use of an interactive model to explain the way the central government and the local governments carry out the formulation and implementation of China's foreign economic policies. Case studies on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the China-Europe Railway Express (CERE) show a policy feedback loop between the central government and the local governments. While the local governments make adjustments to comply with the central government's directive, their policies and measures also have a significant impact on the central government's foreign policies. The findings suggest that neither the autonomy of local governments nor the authority of the central government in foreign economic affairs are eroded under Xi's leadership despite notable recentralisation in the past decade. Instead, both the central government and local governments engage in a continuous, interactive partnership to formulate and execute China's foreign economic policy.
The role of the World Health Organization (WHO) as a global health agency has come under mounting pressure since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.Many have linked the WHO's negligence and mistakes to the strong influence of the People's Republic of China (PRC) over the organization.However, this chapter argues that China's leadership potential in the WHO has been constrained by three factors: its insignificant contribution to the WHO compared to the traditional donors, its illiberal and fragmented domestic governance structures, and its assertive health diplomacy.Despite the US withdrawal from the WHO under the Trump administration, it would be incorrect to assume that China currently has sufficient resources to take on a leadership role in the WHO.
Asian countries have dealt with COVID-19 with varying levels of success. The WHO’s lack of effective leadership in the region has resulted in increasingly contested global health governance. The pandemic continues to undermine global health, and the highly interdependent economies in Asia have exposed the speed with which pandemics can now spread. The security of migrant workers is more precarious than ever. Millions have been stranded and face limited access to health services. Public Health in Asia during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Health Governance, Migrant Labour, and International Health Crises provides an accessible framework for understanding the COVID-19 pandemic in Asia through the lens of global governance in health and labour.
case of Japan.Across Asia we see that public opinion has a lasting effect on how effective governments can be in responding to new crises.Public trust is quickly eroded and there are only a few means by which governments can try to re-establish a higher level of legitimacy.Domestically, they might do this through transparent communication, rapid and strict responses, media effects, or scientific cooperation with the WHO.At the same time, however, we have to realize that public health and public trust are transnational.They cross borders, and this is where the politics between nation-states once again come to the fore.Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, this has forced multilateral and global institutions like ASEAN, the WHO, and the ILO to play a game of catch up, some more successfully than others.It is therefore paramount for policy makers, health specialists, and the public to realize that health governance is not simply a matter of scientific facts, but a goal that keeps changing, requiring policy makers and citizens alike to adjust to dynamic circumstances.If this volume can offer one takeaway, it would be this: Asia is diverse, and this diversity has practical, real-world consequences.Understanding the way that Asian countries and regions have variously responded to the COVID-19 pandemic goes beyond the binaries of 'success' and 'failure', 'national' and 'global'.The diverse responses showcase a mixture of causes and consequences that continuously come together or fall apart.We do not know when the next global health crisis will strike, but we know that the complexities of our interconnected world make such a crisis almost inevitable.This makes it essential to look at Asia, to learn lessons where they are available, and to ensure our societies are better prepared and more resilient the next time around.