Volume 23 (2019): Edition 37 (June 2019)

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.

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.

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 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.