Approximation Algorithms for Energy Minimization in Cloud Service Allocation under Reliability Constraints

We consider allocation problems that arise in the context of service allocation in Clouds. More specifically, we assume on the one part that each computing resource is associated to a capacity constraint, that can be chosen using Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS) method, and to a probability of failure. On the other hand, we assume that the service runs as a set of independent instances of identical Virtual Machines. Moreover, there exists a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the Cloud provider and the client that can be expressed as follows: the client comes with a minimal number of service instances which must be alive at the end of the day, and the Cloud provider offers a list of pairs (price,compensation), this compensation being paid by the Cloud provider if it fails to keep alive the required number of services. On the Cloud provider side, each pair corresponds actually to a guaranteed success probability of fulfilling the constraint on the minimal number of instances. In this context, given a minimal number of instances and a probability of success, the question for the Cloud provider is to find the number of necessary resources, their clock frequency and an allocation of the instances (possibly using replication) onto machines. This solution should satisfy all types of constraints during a given time period while minimizing the energy consumption of used resources. We consider two energy consumption models based on DVFS techniques, where the clock frequency of physical resources can be changed. For each allocation problem and each energy model, we prove deterministic approximation ratios on the consumed energy for algorithms that provide guaranteed probability failures, as well as an efficient heuristic, whose energy ratio is not guaranteed

Forum non Conveniens and the EU rules on Conflicts of Jurisdiction: A Possible Global Solution

First paragraph: The Brussels Convention was concluded in 1968 between the original six Member States of what is now the European Union (EU). France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries did not have the doctrine of forum non conveniens as part of their private international law systems and therefore it is not surprising that the Brussels Convention did not adopt forum non conveniens. Instead, for conflicts of jurisdiction between courts in different Contracting States to the Convention the drafters adopted a lis pendens rule in Article 21: “Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Contracting States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion decline jurisdiction in favour of that court. A court which would be required to decline jurisdiction may stay its proceedings if the jurisdiction of the other court is contested.” This was a strict first come first served approach when the litigation in both countries involved the same parties and the same cause of action. One of the main aims of the drafters of the original Brussels Convention was to avoid irreconcilable judgments in different Member States of the EU. However, this risk does not just arise where there is complete identity of parties and cause of action as covered by the lis pendens rule. Therefore, even the original Brussels Convention, agreed by the six civil law founding members, sacrificed some legal certainty in the conflicts of jurisdiction rules to further reduce the risk of irreconcilable judgments. They did so by giving courts, other than the court first seised, a discretion to decline jurisdiction for related actions in Article 22 (where there was a risk of irreconcilable judgments) even though the parties or the cause of action were not identical : “Where related actions are brought in the courts of different Contracting States, any court other than the court first seised may, while the actions are pending at first instance, stay its proceedings. A court other than the court first seised may also, on the application of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if the law of that court permits the consolidation of related actions and the court first seised has jurisdiction over both actions

Statuskonkurransens grammatikk : internasjonale hierarkier som innenlandsk praksis

A burgeoning body of research has documented that status-seeking abounds in world politics. Yet the status hierarchies to which states respond and compete within are notoriously ambiguous and difficult to empirically ascertain. It is seldom agreed upon where states rank, even within particular policy domains. This ambiguity has begotten considerable disagreement among scholars over the nature of international hierarchies and led to a proliferation of structural theories of international status. Rather than theorizing and investigating the purported effects of fuzzy international social structures, this dissertation posits that international status can be studied via the theories of international status (TIS) that governments and their opponents themselves produce and use to interpret their state’s status. Treating these theories as productive of the world they purport to describe, such a TIS approach foregrounds the interpretative agency of domestic groups to develop and maintain “hierarchies of their own making”, which need not be recognized internationally to become crucial for policy legitimation domestically. In order to study TIS systematically, this dissertation develops a new meta-linguistic framework for identifying and mapping the use of TIS within domestic politics. Inspired by the Copenhagen School, this Grammar of Status Competition framework defines status competition by its peculiar processual-relational logic rather than substantive indicators. This enables the analyst to avoid reifying the rules of the hierarchy prior to analysis, and illuminate contestation and change in the TIS that circulate and inform policy debates. Further, because TIS are manifested and observable in discourse, this approach avoids prior works’ reliance upon proxies for inferring international collective beliefs. The usefulness and transferability of this approach is demonstrated via three deliberately different case studies: how rival TIS were involved in the (de)legitimation of (1) Norwegian education reforms at the turn of the 21st century; (2) the United States various negotiating positions during the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between 1969 and 1980, and (3) the prosecution of Britain’s war with the Boer between 1899-1902. Among, other insights, the dissertation provides plausible answers to three major puzzles in IR status research: why states compete for status when the international rewards seem ephemeral; how states can escape the zero sum game associated with quests for positional status; and how status scholars can overcome the methodological problem of disentangling status from other motivations. Finally, the dissertation argues that ambiguity around status is itself is a social good that international society would be prudent to cherish rather than strive to eliminate

L\u27Angelus : The Angel

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-ps/1364/thumbnail.jp

With My Love : Con Amore

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-ps/3138/thumbnail.jp

Private international law concerning children in the UK after Brexit: comparing Hague Treaty law with EU Regulations

Private international law applicable to children in intra-EU cases in the UK under EU law (the Brussels IIa and Maintenance Regulations) is compared with the regime that would apply to such cases if the UK were to fall back on the international treaty regime governing the UK and the EU after Brexit. The treaty regime is found in the Hague Conference on Private International Law's Conventions on Child Abduction (1980), Child Protection (1996) and Maintenance (2007). There is no 'cliff-edge' because the international regime is very sophisticated and can be regarded from a UK perspective as being at least as good as the EU regime. In particular, the international regime has the merit of everyone in the UK having to master one fewer legal regime (because the international regime for non-UK/EU cases exists anyway). The international regime avoids the unsatisfactory EU 'override' mechanism in child abduction cases, the overly rigid approach to recognition and enforcement of maintenance and access orders coming from other EU states, and the restrictive approach to declining or transferring jurisdiction in relation to third states. However, the EU regime creates greater legal certainty in UK/EU maintenance cases through lis pendens and broader party autonomy in parental responsibility and access cases

Between model and martyr: it's in the EU's interest for Brexit to go badly - but not too badly

The EU has good reason to hope that Brexit goes badly, writes Paul David Beaumont (Norwegian University of Life Sciences). That would continue to deter Eurosceptic parties on the continent from hardening their stance. But at the same time an unambiguously disastrous Brexit would risk depoliticising EU membership, and reduce the the incentive to address ... Continue

Saltarello

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-ps/3613/thumbnail.jp

Judgments Convention: Application to Governments

The Hague Judgments Convention 2019 makes the classic distinction between private law matters within its scope (civil or commercial matters) and public law matters outside its scope. It also follows the same position in relation to State immunity used in the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 (see Art. 2(5) in 2019 and 2(6) in 2005). The innovative parts of the 2019 Convention relate to the exclusions from scope in Article 2 relating to the armed forces, law enforcement activities and unilateral debt restructuring. Finally, in Article 19, the Convention creates a new declaration system permitting States to widen the exclusion from scope to some private law judgments concerning a State, or a State agency or a natural person acting for the State or a Government agency. This article gives guidance on the correct Treaty interpretation of all these matters taking full account of the work of the Hague Informal Working Group dealing with the application of the Convention to Governments and the other relevant supplementary means of interpretation referred to in Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties