The role of States’ in the protection and delivery of fundamental rights was reintroduced in the international debate. The State is responsible for the implementation of the most relevant measures, mainly in emergencies such as the one we are facing now. Only coordinated measures with collective goals will have a real effect on the fight against the COVID19. The cries of "less state" began to be rethought. We may mention the example of the Brazilian health system, the SUS - Free and universal Unified Health System, which provided for health services for most cases of COVID19 in Brazil, despite a large private health services network across the country. At this moment, we hope that Brazilian authorities will become more aware of the importance of social controls of public money and demand transparency and efficiency of public measures and expenses.
The Post-COVID19 path to economic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean will demand both Domestic Revenue Mobilization measures and the promotion of domestic and foreign investment. Amid all the controversy surrounding the concession of tax incentives, the COVID-19 pandemic taught us a lesson: nothing is a sole economic issue. Public policies should address other concerns such as employment, health, environment, and education. A well-designed package of governmental measures may be a balanced proposal that includes diverse public interests to achieve optimal delivery of public goods. This post will focus on the granting of tax incentives for the digital economy in accordance with the GATT, the GATS, and the OECD’s recommendations on harmful tax competition.
This post is a dissection of the contents of and processes that culminated in my very first experience of teaching international law with a view to regulate cyberspace as a domain of conflict between States.
The result of combining international law and national law lecture materials by adopting legal issues at the local level turned out to be very interesting for Pattimura University students in their study of international law. This also motivated them to be more diligent in attending international law classes.
It is high time that pedagogical, methodological, ethical, and sociological challenges of this nature are discussed and addressed if IL is to be assessed for what it is without plummeting into the depths of myriad situated perspectives, colonialism, linguistic barriers, paucity of resources, and sheer divisions within the academic world.
While procedural reforms are important, substantive reform should be foregrounded. If substantive reforms cannot take place then African states should exit the ISDS scene.
We are excited about our forthcoming symposium which centres the voices of amazing scholars from the Global South on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform.
This paper examines the intra-national dimensions of the fiscal social contract, with a focus on the experience in developing societies. Helpfully, some more advanced societies have demonstrated a semblance of a positive relationship between taxation and the social contract, beyond the realm of mere potential or aspiration. Drawing guidance from such advanced societies, this paper also discusses what social, legal, and political pillars must be in place in society to support the framework of taxation from a social contractarian perspective.
I argue that it is time to explore the possibilities of a substantial reform, which should include: the renegotiation of the current 3,200 IIA; to stop signing treaties with arbitral clauses and extremely favourable conditions for investors; the promotion of an effective sovereignty States over the space that they should regulate; and the approval of binding obligations for companies. The failure to address substantive issues in ISDS, and to only focus on procedural aspects of reform, will lead to the consolidation and re-legitimatisation of this system, under the guise of “modernizing” it.
These cases are usually brought by public-spirited individuals, human rights lawyers, NGO’s and civil society groups; all of whom have been variously accused of inviting the court to put its jurisdictional treaty limits. Karua’s case, therefore, also invites the court to resolve and settle the debate on its express versus implied jurisdiction and powers in matters regarding human rights, democracy and rule of law.