The Institutional and Policy Framework for Foreign Investment in the Eastern Caribbean, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands

This Article provides an overview, based in part on the author\u27s field survey, of the investment laws and policies of the Eastern Caribbean subregion. The island states of the Eastern Caribbean offer foreign investors unique opportunities. Among the reasons that these states should attract investment is the close relation between the two two neighboring islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, and the United States; this relation offers the Eastern Caribbean states ready access to the U.S. market. The author examines these relations and the institutional frameworks for investment employed by the various states. The Article raises questions about the value of providing investments and maintains that other factors, such as the level of worker training and the existence of necessary infrastructure, are also significant. The Article concludes that most Eastern Caribbean states would be well served by centrally locating their investment centers in divisions of existing governmental ministries. Through these investment centers, the states should tap into the technological knowledge of the private sector, focus on long-term investment priorities, and prepare to manage large-scale investment. Moreover, these states should examine their investment codes to ensure their clarity to foreign investors. The author also concludes that the states of the Eastern Caribbean should continue to offer comprehensive incentive packages because different investors are attracted by different types of incentives

The Process and Outcome of Negotiations With Multinational Corporations: A Conceptual Framework For Analysis

The essential purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for case studies aimed at outlining the main stages in the process of negotiations; indicating some of the main factors affecting the relative bargaining position of the parties to negotiations with multinational corporations; and providing indices for evaluating the resulting structure of the distribution of gains from the projects contemplated by such negotiations. The paper thus combines elements from the second, third and fourth categories of studies on negotiations

The Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in Light of Robust Peacekeeping

Since the 19th century, humanitarian interventions have often been treated as suspect because they may be used as mere vehicles for national aggrandizement, imposition of puppets in power, or for the institution of political and economic systems detested by the indigenous population. However, it is also recognized that atrocities do occur within states, which shock the conscience of humankind and trigger the urge to intervene to save defenseless people from carnage, starvation, and other inhuman conditions. The problem is to identify a set of criteria and forms of behavior that will enable us to distinguish between intervention as aggression and genuine humanitarian intervention. Moreover, even if we see humanitarian intervention as a moral imperative in a Kantian sense, we would still need to establish its validity as a legal construct. This Article revisits the criteria for making the relevant distinctions and concludes that with all the operational problems of United Nations (U.N.) peacekeeping, collective intervention by the U.N., or regional bodies sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, is the approach most likely to conform with the U.N. Charter paradigm for conflict resolution

UN Peace operations and conflicting legitimacies

Analyses of UN peacekeeping increasingly consider legitimacy a key factor for success, conceiving of it as a resource that operations should seek and use in the pursuit of their goals. However, these analyses rarely break down legitimacy by source. Because the UN is an organization with multiple identities and duties however, different legitimacy sources—in particular output and procedural legitimacy—and the UN’s corresponding legitimation practices come into conflict in the context of peacekeeping. Drawing on a range of examples and a specific case of the UN mission in Congo, this article argues that looking at different legitimacy sources and linking them to the institutional identity of the UN is thus critical and it shows how the UN’s in contradictory legitimation practices can reduce overall legitimacy perceptions