China and Europe during the Middle Ages Essay Example for Free

China and Europe during the Middle Ages Essay Globalisation is not new, though. For thousands of years, people and, later, corporations have been buying from and selling to each other in lands at great distances, such as through the famed Silk Road across Central Asia that connected China and Europe during the Middle Ages. Likewise, for centuries, People and corporations have invested in enterprises in other countries. In fact, many of the features of the current wave of globalisation are similar to those prevailing before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. But policy and technological developments of the past few decades have spurred increases in cross-border trade, investment, and migration so large that many observers believe the world has entered a qualitatively new phase in its economic development. Since 1950, for example, the volume of world trade has increased by twenty times, and from just 1997 to 1999 flows of foreign investment nearly doubled, from $468 billion to $827 billion. Distinguishing this current wave of globalisation from earlier ones, author Thomas Friedman has said that today globalisation is further, faster, cheaper, and deeper. The current wave of globalisation has been driven by policies that have opened economies domestically and internationally. In the years since the Second World War, and especially during the past two decades, many governments have adopted free-market economic systems, vastly increasing their own productive potential and creating myriad new opportunities for international trade and investment. Governments have also negotiated dramatic reductions in barriers to commerce and have established international agreements to promote trade in goods, services, and investment. Taking advantage of new opportunities in foreign markets, corporations have built foreign factories and established production and marketing arrangements with foreign partners. A defining feature of globalisation, therefore, is an international industrial and financial business structure. Technology has been the other principal driver of globalisation. Advances in information technology, in particular, have dramatically transformed economic life. Information technologies have given all sorts of individual economic actors consumers, investors, businesses valuable new tools for identifying and pursuing economic opportunities, including faster and more informed analysis of economic trends around the world, easy transfers of assets, and collaboration with far-flung partners. Globalisation is deeply controversial, however. Proponents of globalisation argue that it allows poor countries and their citizens to develop economically and raise their standards of living; while opponents of globalisation claim that the creation of an unfettered international free market has benefited multinational corporations in the Western world at the expense of local enterprises, local cultures, and common people. Resistance to globalisation has therefore taken shape both at a popular and at a governmental level as people and governments try to manage the flow of capital, labour, goods, and ideas that constitute the current wave of globalisation. COCULSION: In sum, most distinctive conception sees globalisation as a fundamental transformation of human geography on the eve of the twenty-first century; world affairs have acquired a rapidly growing global dimension alongside the territorial framework of old. Of course and this point cannot be stressed too much it is not that territorial space has become wholly irrelevant in contemporary history. We live in a globalising rather than a completely globalised condition. Global spaces of the kind formed through telecommunications, transworld finance, and the like interrelate with territorial spaces, where locality, distance and borders still matter very much. Thus, for example, people have not while acquiring a global imagination discarded their affinities for particular territorial places. Similarly, global marketers have found on countless occasions that they need to tailor their products and promotions to local sensibilities. Globalisation is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and the governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well being in societies around the world. BIBLIOGRAPHY: www.globalisationguide.org

Dual Roles :: essays research papers fc

Dual Roles   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In many stories, it is often noticed that the writers use an allegorical figure to demonstrate abstract qualities as actual people. In these stories the allegorical figure holds a name that will tell you what his character is supposed to be representing. The allegorical figure is a cunning and unique way of taking a characteristic or an object and making it come alive to the readers. This can put an advantage upon your story when trying to get across a certain point, but most often a morality issue. Everyman is a play in which the writer went to great lengths to use allegorical figures to get across a lesson that concerns itself with the salvation of all men’s souls (Vignery p 111).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Good Deeds is an allegorical figure in Everyman. Good Deeds is represented not only as a person, but also as an abstraction. This dual role is clearly stated from the first time that Good Deeds speaks, until the time that Everyman and himself descend into the grave together. Good Deeds is portrayed excellently as a person. He is a person in the sense that he speaks out to Everyman and tells him how to redeem himself to be saved. He is a also a person in the sense that Everyman is asking Deeds for counsel like normal people ask for counsel in times of grief and great need. The â€Å"human† in Good Deeds comes out when he tells Everyman to call upon other allegorical figures to go with him on his long journey to the grave. The humanness appears again when Good Deeds is a true friend to Everyman. Good deeds shows the friendship quality when he refuses to leave Everyman, and promises to stick with him until the Day of Judgment. Good Deeds is just like a good fr iend who refuses to go home when a friend gets into trouble, and offers to help talk to the parents. He is also that true friend in the aspect that he offered and actually does speak to God for Everyman, just as a true friend would do (Everyman lines 309-455).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Good Deeds plays a second, or dual, role as an abstraction in the play also. An abstraction is a concept or an idea; in this case, the abstraction is more of an object. Good Deeds are special tasks that a person completes throughout their lifetime and will count as a point in their favor on the Day of Judgment.

One share one vote Essay

In 30% of Europe’s major companies, inadequate capitalist equality has strengthened middle power-holding groups and limited alternative shareholders’ kingdom of action. That is the close of a study by research firm Deminor, equipped on behalf of the Association of British Insurers (ABI). The study condemn the reality that 35% of all companies in the choose FTSE Eurofirst 300 index have some kind of method in position for defensive themselves next to the standard of ‘one share, one vote. Business reformers who want to put off corporate scandals have not embark upon this dilemma, in spite of the fact that parity is the most basic principle in politics. In Europe, this breakdown is a particularly solemn problem since the majority governments have opted to take out the proposals of the European Union, by means of the method of ‘obey or give details. ’ This classification has allowed them to keep away from writing set of laws that wrap all the ins-and-outs of good quality governance. As a substitute, companies that fall short to obey with a corporate principle have to clarify why they are doing so, and depiction themselves to likely penalty by their shareholders. If the ballot vote rights of minorities are limited, a comparatively useless reprimand is functional. â€Å"The formula of ‘obey or explain’ is merely feasible if all shareholders can work out their rights,† warns Mary Francis, general manager of the ABI, in the opening to the study. In her view, if authority holders in a high proportion of companies carry on to accumulate more power than they deserve, they could countenance lawful penalties from Brussels. Though, Vicente Salas, professor of economics and business organization at the University of Zaragoza, doesn’t consider it will be likely to inflict such penalties. Whilst empirical data is missing, Salas argues that this kind of behavior â€Å"will not be regulated until we arrive at the point where the standard (‘one share, one vote’) is severely imposed on every openly traded company in each country of the European Union. † (Guido 16-18) When voting rights are concerted in the groups that sprint the company, it distorts the actuality of the soak. Along with the 300 major companies in Europe, 35% of every voting right is given to those who possess 22% of the total shareholdings. There are more than a few ways this is gifted, and it depends on the country. Though, the preferred means to attain this attentiveness is to generate shares that have manifold voting rights. That occurs in 20% of Europe’s most important companies. Fairly a small number of companies (10% of the total) choose to border voting rights, and 5% of all companies favor to impose confines on share ownership. With that kind of loom, shareholders need to own a least amount number of shares [previous to they can vote. ] In contrast, â€Å"Golden Shares† [a golden share gives its shareholder refusal authority over changes to the company’s charter] have been trailing fame because they have frequently been fated by Brussels. In spite of the resistance of European regulators, a few companies uphold this method. Examples comprise BAE Systems and Rolls Royce, in which the British decision-making has a Golden Share. Similarly, the Portuguese chief executive has a Golden Share in Portugal Telecom. In Spain, the government does not have its own â€Å"Golden Shares. † though; it has maintained the authority to veto definite activities in Endesa, Repsol-YPF, and Telefonica, in spite of the reality that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg affirmed such vetoes against the law in May 2003. Study demonstrates that there is still an extended road in front before there is a self-governing system for all shareholders in European markets, director of investments at ABI. In his view, if companies make growth beside this road, they will shun the jeopardy of being subjected to stricter set of laws, such as those in result in the U. S. The solution to achieving this objective is to admiration the rights of shareholders, and build up just one market for [all] European shares,. Jean-Nicolas Caprase, a partner of Deminor, is not sure that companies will respond fast. There are a lot of exceptions to the standard of ‘one share, one vote,’ and the circumstances are altering too slowly. That marginal shareholders’ aptitude to take act is the principal bludgeon for avoiding the mistreatment of authority by groups that are in control. â€Å"The basic thing is to get better the performance of shareholder groups since that is one of the lone places where corporate directors are feeble. Bebchuk and Hart 11) Justifications and Exceptions Salas defends the idea of impending this from the point of view of self-regulation. Though, he recommends â€Å"prescribing standards that, as maintaining the liberty of companies, as well defend the interests of minority shareholders. When companies issue shares, they should be compelled to notify shareholders, in a completely translucent way, about the relationship between control over corporate incomes (where the parity principle applies) and have power over decision-making (where there may be a short of fulfillment because voting is biased. This association derives from the constitutional norms that each company establishes when it issues its shares. Formerly a company has gone public; any changes in pertinent statutes have to be approved by the general meeting of shareholders. Just then, if a transform is approved by preponderance, the company should offer to purchase out its dissenter shareholders, contribution them a fair price. † Companies protect their rights to carry on intent additional voting rights in just a few hands. They say this practice gives stability to their company’s shares, and prevents conjecture [in their shares]. Though, if we should inquire ourselves if insiders are more truthfully owners than alternative shareholders are, from a business point of view. After all, in many cases, minority shareholders invest today and put up for sale tomorrow. We should even ask ourselves if they are owners in terms of their obligation. (Edwards 7) Gratitude to a 1959 law, the German state of Lower Saxony controls 20% of the voting rights in Volkswagen, in spite of the truth it owns just 14% of the automaker’s shares. To promise shareholder constancy in the company, 80% of all votes were necessitate for adopting significant decisions. Additionally, the law set a 20% boundary on the voting rights of any single shareholder. Effectively, this guaranteed that no shareholder has a larger voice than lesser Saxony. Although this rule might have made sense 47 years previously, it has been fated by Brussels, which suppose that the state is using the innovative justification to assurance its control over the company. Companies offer another good reason for deploying mechanisms that set confines on corporate democracy. They say these requirements make investors more faithful to the company. For instance, in France, where 69% of all companies have some type of restraint, quite a few companies offer double voting rights to those investors who have held their shares for more than two years. The objective is to formulate these investors more faithful. Nevertheless, the Deminor study is decisive of this practice, at variance that it is being used to strengthen the position of groups that hold authority. Still if they want to alter, there are almost certainly some factions surrounded by the companies who fall short to fulfill with the principle, and protect the status quo, â€Å"One great example of disobedience with this principle is the survival of shares that have no voting rights. No one questions this put into practice, and no one qualm they can survive. † Shares with no voting rights are common between companies that are family owned; where the founders carry on to manage the majority of the shares, or a large portion. In such a case, the main goal of issuing shares is to gain right of entry to capital, with no altering managerial power of the company. Though, there are a number of economic reimbursements from owning shares that have no voting rights, together with special access to extra payments. (Berglof and M. Burkart, 172) Countries economic analysis All over Europe scholars have been discussing and researching on pros and cons of economic benefits, many have explained the positive side of it. In the economic side the public and private values are very important of any company. We can take an explain of it, as if a company has share ratio of 50 half of that relates to private value and half goes to public value, but public value becomes 40 if there is less competent team deficient. When Even though the in general landscape is fairly negative, there are important differences from country to country. Belgium provides the best instance of corporate democracy. No company in that country compel restrictions on minority voting rights, in spite of the fact that Belgian law recognizes some customs that such a objective could be achieved. Neighboring Holland is one of Europe’s most translucent countries, and a title holder of good governance. Though, Holland is the country that imposes the most limits on minority shareholders; 86% of every Dutch company has a number of systems for preventing minorities from imposing their views. They do this, very frequently, by issuing shares with manifold voting rights. Sweden, wherever 75% of all companies are â€Å"equipped† next to minority shareholders, is between the slightest democratic countries when it comes to corporate governance. In adding up, every Swedish company that sets restrictions on voting rights also has shares that have manifold voting rights. Germany is an individual case. German companies have two councils. One is composed of executives of the company. In the next council, partially of the members represent the workers. This set-up explains, in part, why no German company apart from Volkswagen sets limitations on voting rights. In most cases, this is because employees are also shareholders in the company. The United Kingdom, measured the example of good governance in Europe, is also one of the countries with the majority corporate democracy. This is true in spite of the information that 12% of all companies have some sort of restraint, largely from side to side limitations on ownership. We consider that if you make a market based on business governance, as caring the interests of minority shareholders, it is a superior thing for each entity market; for the European financial system, and for the millions of entity savers whose money we use yet, wouldn’t it be promising to validate limitations on voting rights beneath a few circumstances? (Gilson 29) Pros and cons The primary suppositions in the law and economics literature concerning shareholder voting and the one-share/one-vote rule are faulty in many ways. The typical outlook is that share possession is essential and enough to make voting rights and those rights should be straight relative to share possession. We display that this supposition is groundless, both for shares that are economically burdened (supposed by investor who are not pure left over applicant; e. g. , a investor who owns one share and is as well tiny one or more shares) in addition to shares that are lawfully laden (alleged or connected with more than one investor; e. . , shares that are loaned to a little, who put up for sale that share to a new buyer). The one-share/one-vote rule is not merely economically sub-optimal, but grades in considerable harmful cost. Quorum and dogmatic needs are distorted; mergers and acquisitions are also effortlessly accepted; securities class performance are undervalued and at the same time under- and over-recompense; insolvency distributions are over- and under-broad; and fixed-ratio stock offers are favoured over economically greater alternatives. These consequences all get from a groundless dependence ahead the one-share/one-vote standard and the faith that yet economically or lawfully laden shares are allowed to vote. On the other side the public value side has been flawed by the system in its depth, which has already been mentioned above. Conclusion Since the enactment of the federal securities laws, the number of public investors who directly own equity securities in this country has grown to over 47,000,000, and the additional number of individuals who own stock indirectly through pension plans, life insurance policies, and other accounts exceeds 133,000, 000. These public investors have relied on a congressional policy that links fair corporate suffrage to the trading markets for equity securities. An increasing number of publicly-held corporations have determined to break this link to foreclose takeover threats. Differing sets of listing standards have permitted companies to engage in regulatory arbitrage, moving from one exchange to another in a search for the least regulatory environment. The resulting competitive pressures felt by the exchanges and the NASD have caused a deregulatory crisis over stockholder voting rights, a crisis that ultimately may extend to other qualitative standards imposed on listed companies) Although the SEC believes it has the authority to act, EU has provided no clear guidelines for the implementation of its fair corporate suffrage policy. The resulting lack of certainty could be harmful to corporate enterprises, the investing public, and the markets EU has sought to protect. Substantial damage already has occurred, but that harm is inconsequential when future prospects are considered. Presently, only 200 of the 6500 publicly- held corporations have undertaken to break the link between voting and trading. One exchange official has predicted that â€Å"the floodgates will open. † Another commentator has warned that â€Å"eventually all companies will be controlled by some small, inside group; public stockholders will not have any role or significant voting rights† if the one share, one vote rule is taken away. In the words of a former SEC Commissioner, we should â€Å"question the legitimacy of vesting so much of our nation’s wealth in the hands of what would be self-perpetuating managements. † (Kraakman 95) The idea of a federal corporation law has been suggested since the beginning of the Republic. James Madison recommended the idea during the Constitutional Convention. ’ Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft promoted the idea in the early part of this century as a way to combat monopolistic practices. In the 1970s, Ralph Nader and others urged federal chartering as a means to effect social reforms)

Jury System In The Dock Law Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1299 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? This discussion examines the role of the jury in the current judicial system and asks the question as to whether or not it should be abolished under certain conditions or whether it remains a fundamental facet of British democracy. Trial by jury might afford some protection against the (perhaps largely unconscious) bias of the judiciary, but it is now used only in a minority of cases, and it is proposed to restrict it still further. The debate concerning jury trials is complex and vexatious, with its detractors arguing that its archaic and unnecessary in modern society. The jury system can be criticised on several counts for being not only a waste of public funds and extremely time-consuming, but an institution which is exploited by professional criminals. It is also viewed by some as either unfair or over demanding on potentially biased or prejudiced jurors. The classic view of the jury is of a representative cross section of the public who hold the necessary common sense to make a reasoned decision. In an ideal legal system this would be the case, however the competence of the jury is often put into question. A common criticism of the system is that juries are made up of the unemployed and the retired since nowadays most people under 70 can serve on a jury provided they are on the electoral role. Although this has increased the number of professionals available for jury service many jurors have no experience in weighting up evidence. They can also still be excused if cause is shown. Therefore this depends on how strictly applications for excusal are scrutinised in order to nullify the myth that juries are unrepresentative of the middle classes. It is also frequently argued that ethnic minorities are under-represented on juries in Britain and it is obvious that racial bias is a potential problem when an ethnic defendant is tried by an all white jury. In some Crown Courts the lack of ethnic representation remains a problem, which is ma gnified due to the high proportion of ethnic defendants tried there, often for racially-aggravated crimes. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the deliberations of some juries may involve a muddled compromise between diametrically opposed gut reaction of individual jurors, even if most of the time, they seem to follow the guidance of the judge. Yet juries can sometimes show an obstinate independence. A jury acquitted Clive Ponting, a civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, on a charge of breach of the Official Secrets Act in 1984, despite very clear directions from the judge to convict. Ponting had leaked information to a Labour MP because he felt strongly that the conservative government was deliberately misleading Parliament. The fact that jury deliberations are shrouded in secrecy makes it almost impossible to tell if juries take account of irrelevant or inadmissible factors. Despite this severe restriction, recent research, coupled with rare instances of transparency into t he jury room, have revealed what the proponents of the jury system do not want to know. Jurors may be disproportionately influenced by evidence they are told to ignore, even to the extent that they afford it more weight than the evidence they are directed to base their decision on. The existence of bias can have a similar distorting affect on the trial; some jurors not only take into account previous convictions but a wide range of extra-curial factors, ranging from the unappealing characteristics of the prosecution witness to the attractiveness of counsel. Some are easily swayed by fast-talking lawyers. The fact that stronger personalities can overrule more timid jurors is also of relevance. In a media-saturated society jurors will often be pre-exposed to material referring to the case they are trying. Inevitably some will pay heed to this external material when deliberating, and in cases where the press orchestrate a campaign of hostility towards one defendant, this can interfere with their right to a fair trial and therefore undermine the fundamental principles of English justice. A major case in which trial by jury has been brought into question in the UK has been in cases of complex fraud. The argument in such cases is very simple, namely that such cases are too complex as to be understood by laymen and therefore to ask ordinary jurors to reach a verdict on such cases is simply unfair and infeasible due to their lack of technical knowledge of the subject matter. Judge only trials are becoming an increasingly common method in common law countries, and some argue that this alternative should be an option in these complex fraud cases or politically sensitive issues such as terrorism. Challenging the traditional idea of trial by jury is viewed by some as neither illiberal nor undemocratic and the case of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland is evidence that trial by judge alone can be a successful option. Such courts were set up in response to intimid ation of both witnesses and jurors and the impact on the jury and cost of providing protection was high. There are, however, many arguments against judge only trials, bringing the essay onto the positive aspects of trial by jury. First, the judiciary cannot refrain from adhering strictly to the letter of the law, even when this is not appropriate. Jury equity, one of the indicators of a democratic society, is not possible, and this is a distinct disadvantage. The abolishment of trial by jury would also set a dangerous precedent. Secondly, the defendant does not have the benefit of a jury of 12 who bring with them the freshness and insights of those who are new to the system and have not become case-hardened. Moreover, certain inadmissible evidence can be kept hidden from the jury whilst a judge will be privy to all this information. No matter how professional the judge is, in practice it will be nearly impossible to totally disregard any such evidence from their decision. Finally , certain high profile criminal cases attract unyielding media attention. A result of this is that the judge, who lacks the benefit of juror anonymity, could be made subject to personal vilification by the press if their judgment was unpopular. Critics of trial by jury have focused largely on problems extrinsic to the principles of trial by jury such as witness and juror intimidation or cases where jurors may not understand the complex evidence. Such criticisms are valid but should not be seen as criticisms of trial by jury as a system but rather a critique of how the system can be influenced and potentially undermined. The right to trial by ones peers is an important democratic right and one that guarantees liberties and institutional trust in democratic society in a way in which trial by judge would simply not achieve. The fairness aspect, in that a majority or unanimous decision is required and the perceived success of British justice all point in favour of trial by jury. Over the past 50 years miscarriages of justice caused by the jury have been rare. Overwhelmingly the miscarriages have been due to failure in other parts of the system, such as by police or lawyers. If the evidence put before the jury is flawed, because it is tainted by impropriety, or is inaccurate or incomplete then a flawed result is inevitable. It is important to take into consideration the criticisms put forward and use them to improve the system. Lord Judge has highlighted the need for greater technical assistance for juries, something which could easily be achieved. It is quite possible to improve the services and resources available to juries in the form of technical assistance and an environment free from intimidation. With this in mind and coupled with the integral democratic principles of trial by jury we can conclude that trial by jury should be assisted and developed, but not abolished. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Jury System In The Dock Law Essay" essay for you Create order