Florin Dumiter, Ștefania Amalia Jimon and Florin Gheorghe Bene
International double taxation represents one of the main problems’ for which taxpayers have to deal within a world fulfilled with globalization, uncertainty, risk, asymmetrical information and moral hazard. In this sense, in this article it is provided a qualitative overview regarding the appearance and evolution of the main double taxation conventions and their legal framework. In this article it is tackled some important issues, namely: the rationale behind the construction and engaging in double taxation conventions; the need for a coherent and just application of those conventions; the historical appearance and evolution of the double taxation conventions, as well as the quid pro quo OECD Model Convention and UN Model Convention. The conclusions of this article highlight the importance and ultimately need for construction of best practices new and complex multilateral tax convention at the UE level in order to diminish the contagious effects of the treaty shopping practices. The case study presented in this article from the Romanian jurisprudence highlights the multi-faced concept of double taxation and the comprehension approach which must be undertaken in order to solve the complex issues of the international taxation via double taxation treaties.
Seyyed Ahmad Mir Khalili, Abbas Kalantari and Fatemeh Rezaei Zarchi
The disguise of truth as one of the main sources of blameworthy in the Qur’an and the customs has been extremely condemned and has cautioned the concealer. In light of the Quranic documentation and the legitimacy of the disguise of reality, it has been acknowledged and acknowledged that instances of household and outside business sectors that reason doubt of merchants and uncertainty in the monetary space have been a wellspring of perplexity by the gatherings to the agreement. In Iran’s law, regardless of the expectation of common risk, including pay and end for hiding reality, no assurance of criminal requirement has been predicted. In this article, alluding to the refrains and portrayals, the standard of wellbeing and the guideline of the supply of products reality in contracts where the purposeful camouflage causes unsalvageable harm, by adjusting the components of wrongdoing, notwithstanding thoughtful risk, for hiding criminal obligation.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is one of the post-Second World War international organizations set up to promote good international economic cooperation among states. Unlike international organizations like the United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (which succeeded the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1947), decision-making in the IMF is quite peculiar in that it is based on the joint stock company model where the value of shares determine the value of a member’s vote. Thus the principle of sovereign equality of states that underpins the one-member-one-vote system in the UN and WTO is absent in the IMF. This paper discusses the various decisionmaking organs in the IMF and concludes with a discussion on the sovereignty implications of the use of IMF conditionalities in the giving of loans, especially to developing countries.
The ability of foreign investors to sue host states without reliance on diplomatic protection is one of the most important developments in international investment law in the post-World War II era. The rise of investor-state dispute settlement under international regimes like the Convention Establishing the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) raises some concerns from states regarding loss of sovereignty. However, there are defences available to states when they intervene in their economies for purposes like public utility or the need to safeguard an essential interest. Thus in spite of treaty commitments that bind states to protect the investments of foreign investors within their domains, there are available defences for their intervention in their economies even if such interventions become inimical to the interests of foreign investors and could, prima facie, raise the possibility of infringements of the rights of foreign investors. One of such defences available to states is the principle of necessity. This article explores the principle of necessity in international law and how it operates as a defence for states in investor-state dispute settlement. It also conducts analysis of the Annulment Decision in the CMS v Argentina case to shed light on the principle of necessity.
One of the forms that cybercrime can take at present is illegal access to a computer system. From the very beginning, the world of computers and of the Internet was based on imperfections, defects, and sometimes on poorly understood processes. We might even call this fact “the original sin” of the Internet. In the end, it is not only computer scientists who have come to exploit such defects, but also criminals. In the real world, there are people who break into homes and take away everything they find valuable. In the virtual world, there are individuals who penetrate into computer systems and steal all valuable data.
The article is devoted to coverage features the use of public information in social networks. The author draws attention to the occurrence of criminal responsibility for public expression in social networks.
The article reveals the peculiarities of the normative and legal consolidation of the human right to life. The authors pay attention to the provisions of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine that carry out the interpretation of the human right to life.
The interface between securitization law and insolvency law is the central legal concern in designing securitization transactions. The complex structure of these transactions under the Securitization Act of 2004 should be understood within a specific legal context: the possible bankruptcy, insolvency, or liquidation of the “originator” (i.e. the entity requiring securitization financing), which may jeopardize the claims of asset-backed security investors. It is a solution to the risk that security holders with claim to specific assets may end up being subordinated to the interest of preferred creditors and ranked pari passu with, or even lower than, unsecured creditors in a rehabilitation or liquidation proceeding. Under present law, this risk may arise through the “substantive consolidation” and “clawback” provisions of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) of 2010. This risk is mitigated through the creation of a bankruptcy remote vehicle and true sale of receivables, and it is the lawyer’s principal role in the securitization process to isolate or ring-fence assets beyond the reach of creditors, and making them an exclusive claim of investors. How this works in theory and practice is the subject of this paper.
The present text is dedicated to analysing the situation of Member States’ compliance with EU law in the field of Internal Market because it is one of the most important aspects of the process of European consolidation. In the introductory part we presented the central role of the European Commission because it is the institution that monitors the implementation of the EU law in the national legal order of each Member State. At the centre of our analysis is the 2017 Annual Report of the European Commission. Here we presented in a schematic manner the European norms that the Member States had to implement in their legal order in 2017. We concluded our research by presenting the evolution of this complex process with reference to the data furnished by the Single Market Scoreboard. The situation did not know a significant improvement in the process of Member States’ compliance with EU law. We can see that things evolved but we consider that this evolution could have been better if Member States would have dedicated more attention to this process.
The prohibition of armed aggression under Article 2(2) of the United Nations Charter is one of the most important developments in international law and international relations in the modern era. The fact that the right to wage war is no longer accepted as falling within the sovereignty of the state has ushered in an appreciably stable international order based on the rule of law and not the rule of might. While states obviously still engage in warfare and numerous wars have been fought by states in the era of the UN, the very fact that the prohibition of armed aggression has assumed universal acceptance as customary international law is a notable achievement. In spite of the prohibition of armed aggression under the UN Charter, self-defence and collective action mandated by the UN Security Council serve as notable exceptions. The US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom) was peculiar because, the justification for the invasion hinged on the enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions. This justification thus brought to the fore whether, under international law, there was the right to unilaterally enforce Security Council Resolutions. In the current resurgence of unilateralism typified by the US Trumpled withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from multilateral systems of international governance and cooperation, it is important to reiterate the lessons of unilateralism epitomized by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the instabilities that have become offshoots of this invasion – e.g. the creation of monsters like the so-called Islamic State. This article discusses the resort to unilateralism under the guise of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. It also engages in a brief discussion on the justifications for war prior to the UN Charter and the provisions on the use of force prescribed in the Charter. It uses the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a case study to shed light on legality of unilateral enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions.