More often than not has the principle of self determination been considered as neither a non derrogable nor inalienable right. Although taken from the decolonization perspective self determination refers to the exercise of the people’s free will to determine and pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development without external interference.
Suffice it to say that the subjection of people to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation would amount to a violation of the principle as was noted in the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations. Thus far, a number of United Nations and declarations have discussed the relevance of the principle justifying the use of force, where reasonable means they are out of reach. Essentially, the International Law Commission suggested that the principal of self determination was of universal application. These and more of the dynamics of the principle will be discussed later on.
Although non derogable and inalienable, the right to self determination; whether exercised by aggression or peaceful Measures, is not to override, nor meant to derogate from territorial integrity. Essentially, this norm serves to protect boundary or territorial integrity and framework of sovereign states under what is referred to as the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris. This is achieved by freezing the territorial boundaries as at the time of independence, unless altered upon the mutual consent of the state parties concerned. Such boundaries as were in existence at the time of independence cannot be altered lest relevant parties consent to the change.
Although the two principles have some similarity in their application, in essence, the two are infact distinct. The relationship and meaning of the two principles is the main focus of this essay, making reference to the circumstances under which the principles may apply and may be disregarded, yet also discussing the effect of decided cases. The differences and efficacy of both principles will also be considered herein, before drawing any conclusions as to whether any one of the principles overrides the other, and if so under what circumstances.
In the last part of the paper, I maintain that although provided for as a universal right; the principle of self determination, indeed is somewhat restricted to a specific category of persons, and thus far, fails to achieve its universal applicability.
Globalization of financial markets refers to the liberalization of international transactions in financial instruments through many countries. The concept underlying this, being that of international financial markets liberalization which would consequently foster an amalgamation of different markets, bringing investors and regulators in a rather mutual field, to invest in and regulate respectively the same market with a cosmopolitan nature.
Possible consequences of such an undertaking, however; would see cross boarder regulatory institutions creating a regulatory framework of a ‘spill over’ nature; employ a wide variety of ‘vehicles’ through which investors and regulators alike have their roles affected as the circumstances may dictate. The concept of globalization of financial markets, as discussed in this paper is not such a novel one, although worth asking would be; ‘why hasn’t much progress been realized despite its popularity? A number of obstacles to this progress are discussed in this paper, focusing on the regulatory framework and other structures that loom within the financial markets and services industry, the world over. In this paper, I argue that although a lot of emphasis has more often than not been targeted towards streamlining the state regulatory institutions and machinery, this is only an addition to the problems, and as such, suggest a self regulated environment. International cooperation in the regulation of financial markets is yet another tool that, I suggest to be used in the streamlining of the financial markets; among others. Because not many of the jurisdictions would not be willing to adopt international integration of financial markets without understanding the merits in them, through this study, I discuss the immensity of the benefits to be ripped from international financial markets, although also highlighting the possible shortfalls thereof.
As will be noted, this paper discusses the concept of globalization of financial markets from a developed market economy perspective, for reasons, as I argue; that that is where much of the wealth creation takes place, and that the structures of financial markets in the developing market economies take after those in the developed market economies either from a regulatory or other perspective.
Are Incompetent Directors Dealt with Too Leniently on a Company’s Insolvency in the UK
Since time immemorial, courts have been able to go after directors of a company, notwistanding the concept of limited liability, as can be noted from some of the earlier cases. There may be many reasons to which this may be attributed; however, central to these is the fact that directors are considered as quasi trustees and should therefore, be held liable for mismanaging the company. Among other liabilities that a director may suffer is a disqualification order. This paper seeks to examine the nature of liability that errant directors would be liable to, which I argue to be rather ineffective in so far as encouraging corporate governance, yet also very harsh. This paper discusses the concept of director disqualification and other liabilities accruing there to; while making reference of the relevant regimes in mainly the United Kingdom, in trying to analyse the subject matter.