Academic literature on the topic 'Avoidable consequences doctrine'

The present study aims to consider in parallel the different legal consequences, rights and obligations of the involved subjects in a contract of travel combined in the case of modification, cancellation and withdrawal of the contract. On the one hand, the modification or cancellation by the Organizer will allow analysis of avoidance of the contract at the request of the consumer, who does not accept the significant modification of some essential element of the contract the organizer has been forced to introduce. Be on the other hand, when it is the consumer who decides that the trip not be effect or as the law says "nullifies the services requested or contracted" we taken the existence of a "right of withdrawal" and its consequences. Ultimately, the possibility of cancellation by the organizer and the consequent rights of refund or completion of another trip and the right to compensation for breach of contract will be weighed with the reflection on the existence of a real right of withdrawal of the tourist to subject certain penalties is obliged to justify its decision. The doctrine will be used to achieve this goal, and recent within the regime of safeguards jurisprudence for the tourist and the consumer is regulated in specific legislation.

Purpose A taxpayer who gets caught under Part VII of the Mauritius Income Tax Act is subjected to a corrective measure only in the form of payment of the amount of tax that would have been due in the absence of the avoidance arrangement, but the consequences set out in the same section do not result in any disincentive to the taxpayer that would ensure the prevention of the occurrence of such type of anti-avoidance practices in the future. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the anti-avoidance provisions in the Mauritius legislation as a weapon against impermissible tax avoidance, and the study also intends to critically analyse the remedies available against taxpayers who enter into impermissible tax avoidance transactions. Design/methodology/approach The methodology adopted for this qualitative study consists of a critical analysis and comparative legal review of the relevant legislation, case laws and literature. The anti-avoidance provisions of the Mauritius legislation will be compared with similar provisions of legislations of countries that have rigid preventive rules for anti-avoidance practices, and the selected countries are the UK and Australia because each country has been successful in diminishing the tax avoidances practices further to the imposition of penalties for impermissible tax avoidance. The black letter approach will also be used through which existing legal provisions, judicial doctrines, scholar articles and budget speeches governing anti-avoidance provisions for each country identified will be analysed. Findings Further to an analysis of the substantial differences between Mauritius anti-avoidance legal provisions and those of the UK and Australia, it is found that the backing of corrective actions by penalties act as a disincentive to prohibit impermissible anti-avoidance practices. The study concludes that, where there is abuse of law, the law needs to provide for penalties that must be suffered by the abuser, and hence, the study calls for an amendment in the Mauritius Income Tax Act to strengthen anti-avoidance provisions, by adopting similar provisions of the laws of Australia and the UK. Originality/value At present, there is no Mauritius literature on the researched topic, and this study will be one of the first academic writings on the subject of penalties for impermissible tax avoidance in Mauritius. The study is a new and unique topic in Mauritius, and for that reason, the study will largely rely on foreign sources that deal with penalties for impermissible tax avoidance, and this will include the Australian Taxation Administrative Act 1953, Australian case laws and the UK Finance Act 2016. This study is being carried out with the view to provide insightful recommendations to the stakeholders concerned in Mauritius to enhance the revenue collection avenues and methodologies for the Mauritius revenue authorities.

AbstractShould we use the language of international criminal law (ICL) to discuss, analyze, and address Western policies of migration control? Such policies have included or resulted in indefinite and inhumane detention, deportations, including through practices of push- and pull-backs and numerous deaths of migrants attempting to cross land or sea borders. And yet, recourse to ICL's conceptual and rhetorical apparatus, often reserved for “unimaginable atrocities,” may seem ill-fitting and an emotive stretch of doctrine. Drawing from international strategic litigation practice on Australian and European policies, this article examines whether the legal concept of crimes against humanity can apply to the deaths, detention, and deportation of migrants, as part and consequence of Western policies of migration control. As migration control policies involve increasingly sophisticated practices of outsourcing and responsibility avoidance, I further ask whether the tools ICL has developed to describe system criminality can trace individual liability against the distance created by such policies. I also inquire into the potential that the transnational nature of migration and the spreading of anti-migration policies have in activating the jurisdiction of courts and the prioritization of the role of the International Criminal Court. Finally, I consider the danger of fetishizing an international punitive approach, before offering some thoughts that aim to bridge a critical approach to international criminal law with its use in meaningful strategic litigation. Throughout the Article, I argue that applying the categories of ICL to Western policies of migration control can contribute to revealing both the potential and the limits of the regime and its institutions, as well as the structures of asymmetry and injustice present both in anti-migration policies and in international criminal law itself.

The article describes and debates main points and recommendations of the Report-2015 of the Independent High Level Group on the UN Peace Operations. The author analyses doctrinal innovations and practical guidelines suggested by the Group and debates consequences of the recommended “politicizing” of the UN operations (assuring the leading role for the UN in any political peace process supported by UN peacekeepers, and avoiding operations where the UN role is limited to passive disengagement of conflict sides). Necessity for and limits of reconsidering traditional principles of peacekeeping, such as impartiality, consent of conflict parties, and use of force for self-defence are questioned. Trends in UN operations are compared with trends in operations related to conflicts in the Post-Soviet space (South Ossetia/Georgia, Abkhazia/Georgia, Tajikistan, Transnistria/Moldova, etc.). The author advocates timeliness for an extended interpretation of the “defence of the mandate” formula instead of the classical “self-defence of the contingent”. It is suggested to practically erase the dividing line between operations of the “peacekeeping” type under the UN DPKO, and “political missions” under the UN Political Department. The arsenal of the UN instruments for conflict resolution must be widened from non-intrusive observation missions, conflict prevention and mediation, through support of ceasefire agreements and implementation of peace accords, down to coercive peace enforcement, offensive elements, and UN Charter Chapter VII-based collective operations against aggressive regimes and states. Poorly defined functions and insufficiently clarified use of force limits for the SC-mandated “UN Intervention Brigade” in Democratic Republic of Congo lead to unnecessary involvement of the UN into coercive actions. The experience of the UN “infrastructural hubs” establishing, like the one in Entebbe (Uganda) used for supplying eight African UN operations, is described. New technology for peacekeeping, like the use of unpiloted flying drones, opens new opportunities, but creates legal and practical problems. A distinction of functions between “blue helmets” (specially trained multinational UN contingents) and “green helmets” (regular national armies used by states in foreign conflicts) is recommended, including avoidance of counter-terrorism tasks and strong coercive tasks for the UN peacekeepers. Parallel and interfaced “partnerships” between the limited UN operations and more forceful national/coalition operations in the same areas are suggested instead.

Den skadeståndsrättsliga principen om den skadelidandes skyldighet att begränsa sin skada ärväl känd och vedertagen i svensk rätt. Principen åberopas ofta som invändning iskadeståndstvister av alla slag, och har därmed stor praktisk betydelse. Principens köprättsligaoch försäkringsrättsliga motsvarigheter är generöst behandlade i doktrinen. På denskadeståndsrättsliga sidan förhåller det sig annorlunda – det här är första gången som ämnetblir tillägnat ett eget arbete i Sverige. Det finns många rättsfall där skadebegränsningsskyldigheten aktualiseras, men på grund avdomskälens utformning är rättsfallens värde som vägledning begränsat. Jag anser emellertid attuppmärksamheten inte bör överfokuseras på dessa. Intar man ett framåtblickande perspektiv,finns det gott om material och idéer att hämta från den övriga civilrätten, från rättsekonominoch – inte minst – från utlandet. Arbetets strukturella och metodologiska ramverk är utformatså, att största möjliga nytta kan dras av främmande källor utan att en djupgående (och oftastointressant) komparativ utredning av dessa källor behöver göras. Det huvudsakliga syftet med undersökningen var att definiera skadebegränsningsprincipensansvarsgräns. Med hänsyn till framställningen omfattning, hade det inte varit möjligt att göragrundliga utredningar av enskilda delproblem. Istället är arbetet fokuserat på att utrönaallmängiltiga riktlinjer, tankemönster och ledtrådar, dels för skadebegränsningsbedömningen isig, och dels för den tänkbara rättsutvecklingen. Ett flertal sådana riktlinjer har kunnatdefinieras, något utspridda över principens tillämpningsområde, och ibland även i sammanhangdär det inte är uppenbart att det är skadebegränsningshänsyn som styr. Samtidigt har åtskilligasystemiska problem uppdagats såväl i principens tillämpning som i den underliggandenormbildningen. Jag har ödmjukt lagt fram några lösningsförslag, med ändamålet att främja enmer rättssäker tillämpning av principen, dels på grundval av gällande rätt, och dels på grundvalav den tänkbara rättsutvecklingen på området.
The doctrine of avoidable loss is a generally recognized principle in Swedish law. The doctrine is often invoked in damage claim disputes of all kinds, and is therefore important in practice. There is plenty of legal literature where the doctrine is treated in the context of sales law and insurance law. On the tort law side, however, there is nothing – this is the first dedicated work on the subject in Sweden. There are many tort cases where the question of avoidable loss is actualized, but due to the way the courts articulate the grounds for their rulings, the cases provide little guidance for the future, and therefore have little value as precedent. This is not necessarily an obstacle to the study. On the contrary, when looking outwards, I have found a wealth of ideas and study material in other areas of civil law, in law and economics, and in foreign law. The structural and methodological framework of the thesis was designed to allow for extraction of material from foreign sources without needing to conduct a thorough (and often uninteresting) comparative study. The main purpose of the investigation was to define the boundaries of the claimant’s liability as imposed by the doctrine. Considering the limited scope of the thesis, it would not have been possible to deconstruct the subject into details and conduct thorough investigations of those. Instead, the work was focused on determining general guidelines, thought patterns and clues; both de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Multiple such guidelines could be defined in various contexts where the doctrine is applied, but also, interestingly, in certain contexts where it is not obvious that considerations of avoidable loss are decisive. Multiple systemic issues have also been found, both in the application of the doctrine and in the underlying norms. I have humbly put forward several suggestions on how these issues could be alleviated to promote legal certainty in the doctrine’s application, both today and in the future.