of general rules known as formal law, and excludes legislation either directly aimed at particular people, or at enabling anybody to use the coercive power of the state for such discrimination. It means, not that everything is regulated by law, but, on the contrary, that the coercive power of the state can be used only in cases defined in advance by the law and in such a way that it can be foreseen how it will be used ( Friedrich August Hayek, 2006 ). but in all state actions that have effects on a whole nation.
Even though Hayek’s idea on that kind of
Articles 31– 33. See Territorial Dispute (Libya/Chad) , Judgment of 3 February 1994, ICJ Reports 1994, pp. 21–22, para. 41. In any case, a different customary international law existed in 1962, when the International Law Commission (ILC) initiated work aimed to codify international rules on treaty interpretation. If claims are made that the rules laid down in Articles 31–33 of the VCLT are identical with customary rules on treaty interpretation, consequently, this cannot explain why Articles 31–33 are always relevant for the interpretation of tax treaties concluded by
to put forward a revised CCCTB proposal in autumn 2016, but it seems to anticipate that an agreement on this proposal cannot be obtained quickly. Accordingly, the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package, including the ATA Directive, should represent a pragmatic approach that sets out initiatives, which can take effect prior to agreement and introduction of the CCCTB.
Having the aim of combating tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, the ATA Directive, thus, lays down anti-avoidance rules in the following six specifc fields
Decisions to invest, withdraw, or transfer capital in different foreign markets have become a fixed part of management pragmatics in contemporary companies. The results of the 2017 Global Corporate Divestment Study show that multinational enterprises (MNEs) from particular parts of the world tend to see the main reasons behind their decisions on FDI (foreign direct investment) and FD (foreign direct divestment) in a slightly different manner. Insofar as internationalization processes and FDI have been relatively thoroughly studied and discussed in world and Polish literature, the concept of de-internationalization pursued through the prism of divestment still requires further analysis and consideration. The article aims to present the general framework of the process involving FDI, FD, and the major factors behind it in Poland and Latvia. Theoretical considerations are supplemented with the analysis of statistical data coming from the UNCTAD database as well as the database of Poland’s and Latvia’s central banks, illustrating foreign investment flows. The article uses the method of critical analysis of world and Polish literature, analysis of reports on relevant issues, and desk research analysis.