Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Original Title Page -- Original Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Tables -- List of Figures -- 1. Introduction: The Issues -- The state of Britain and British competitiveness -- Multinationals: the global issues -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 2. Global Environment of International Business and the United Kingdom Position -- Multinationals and the international business position -- International business and the United Kingdom -- Inward direct investment into the UK and the competitive position -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 3. Impact of Inward Direct Investment on the United Kingdom -- Introduction -- Economic impact of inward direct investment -- Technology transfer and innovation -- Market structure -- Trade and balance of payments -- Employment and labour effects -- Linkage and spillover effects -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 4. Foreign Multinationals in the UK Assisted Areas -- Regional policy in the UK -- Growth and performance of foreign-owned manufacturing industry in the assisted areas -- The electronics industry in the assisted areas -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 5. Multinational Strategies and Operating Characteristics -- Some ideas on international and subsidiary strategies -- Subsidiary strategies at the British and Continental European level -- Profile of MNE strategies in the 1980s and implications for the UK -- Case examples -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 6. The UK Policy Response -- Introductory issues -- Attraction and regulation of inward investment in the UK -- EEC policy and inward investment in the UK -- OECD policy and inward investment in the UK -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 7. Conclusions and Future Directions -- The UK as host to international investment -- Impact of inward investment at national and regional levels

Shows how to ensure that capitalism promotes progress and equality rather than enriching the few at the expense of manyBased on principles developed by the Caux Round Table, an international network of senior business executives from such companies as 3M, Canon, NEC, Bankers Trust, Shell, Prudential, and dozens of other companiesProvides practical guidelines for corporate social responsibility through the Caux Round Table's Seven General Principles for BusinessThe world is drifting without a clear plan for its economic development. Communism is dead, but in the wake of Enron and similar scandals, many see capitalism as amoral and too easily abused. A blueprint for progress is needed and Moral Capitalism provides one.Moral Capitalism is based on principles developed by the Caux Round Table, an extraordinary international network of top business executives who believe that business can-and must-weigh both profit and principle. Caux Round Table's global chair, Stephen Young, argues that the ethical standards inherent in capitalism have been compromised by cultural values inimical to capitalism's essentially egalitarian, rational spirit, and distorted by the short-sighted dog-eat-dog doctrines of social Darwinism into what he calls brute capitalism. He demonstrates how the Caux Round Table's Seven General Principles for Business can serve as a blueprint for a new moral capitalism, and explores in detail how, if guided by these principles, capitalism is really the only system with the potential to reduce global poverty and tyranny and address the needs and aspirations of individuals, societies, and nations.

This article summarises a recent South African case, Baleni v Minister of Mineral Resources. It also analyses the Court's reasoning to explore how a non-Australian common law state protects a traditional community's customary laws and practices through legislation, a Constitutional Bill of Rights, and international law. Although a South African case, Baleni demonstrates how similar common law countries have adopted distinct approaches to protecting and treating traditional communities, from which Australian lawmakers could learn.

When the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ('UNDRIP') in 2007, many extolled it for recognising Indigenous peoples' right of self-determination. Although there is some consensus that all peoples have self-determination, as a legal claim it has routinely inspired criticism that it will lead to contradictory claims, interpretations, and further political contestation. Ten years after UNDRIP's endorsement, some Indigenous claims of self-determination in Australia are contradictory. While contradictory claims may not be inherently problematic, in the context explored in this article, there are problematic effects. This article examines how contradictory self-determination claims arose in response to Australia's recent Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Act 2017 (Cth) ('2017 Amendments'), which amended and weakened the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) ('NTA'). It also evaluates the consequences of those contradictory claims and argues for renewed critical assessment of who legitimately determines the self who claims self-determination.