Taking Sides in Wars of Attrition

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT POWELL
Keyword(s):  
Asymmetric Information ◽  
Continuous Time ◽  
Formal Analysis ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
War Of Attrition ◽  
The Third ◽  
Boomerang Effect ◽  
Formal Framework

Third parties often have a stake in the outcome of a conflict and can affect that outcome by taking sides. This article studies the factors that affect a third party's decision to take sides in a civil or interstate war by adding a third actor to a standard continuous-time war of attrition with two-sided asymmetric information. The third actor has preferences over which of the other two actors wins and for being on the winning side conditional on having taken sides. The third party also gets a flow payoff during the fighting which can be positive when fighting is profitable or negative when fighting is costly. The article makes four main contributions: First, it provides a formal framework for analyzing the effects of endogenous intervention on the duration and outcome of the conflict. Second, it identifies a “boomerang” effect that tends to make alignment decisions unpredictable and coalitions dynamically unstable. Third, it yields several clear comparative-static results. Finally, the formal analysis has implications for empirical efforts to estimate the effects of intervention, showing that there may be significant selection and identification issues.

KAIDAH “PADA DASARNYA PERINTAH BERARTI WAJIB, KECUALI JIKA DALIL MENUNJUKKAN HAL LAIN” DAN PENERAPANNYA PADA BAB MUAMALAH

Al-MAJAALIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-102
Author(s):  
Anas Burhanuddin
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
The Third ◽  
Implementation Approach ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Rich Liquid ◽  
Points Of View

Muamalat (transactions or dealings) is a quarter of the fiqh chapter besides worship, munakahah (marriage) and jinayah chapters. Another perspective, muamalah is half fiqh; because munakahah and jinayah can be put under muamalah. Showing the urgency of the muamalah chapter is being half of the religion. On the other hand, the rules “Basically, the Command Means Obligatory, Unless The Postulate Shows Other Things” is one of the most important rules in ushl al-fiqh. This study examines this rule and its application in the Muamalah chapter. The research method used is a qualitative with a theory implementation approach. The data sources are the books of ushlal-fiqh, fiqh, interpretation, hadith and Arabic. Data collection and analysis are done deductively. The most important results of this study are as follows: (1) The strongest opinion is that the command basically shows the obligation, unless the postulate transfers it to another meaning. (2) The ushuliyyah rules have enough examples of application in the muamalah chapter, such as: a. Basically the order means mandatory while there is no postulate that diverts it to other meanings, for example the order to return the slave brothers who are sold separately, the order to determine the size of the salam commodity, the order to return goods borrowed and deposited, and the order to sell similar ribawi commodities in tamatsul (such as in the dose or the scales) and taqabud (cash). b. The orders change meaning to sunnah or other meanings if there is a postulate that diverts them to these other meanings. For example, orders to bring witnesses in a sale and purchase transaction, waqf orders, and orders to record debts and credit. (3) Sometimes there are different points of view in understanding the meaning of the command, and whether there is a postulate that diverts it from the meaning of mandatory. For example, the order to take and announce the finding (luqathah) and the order to accept the transfer of receivables to third parties, if the third party is rich (liquid).

20. Personal Liability of Third Parties

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Virgo
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.

20. Personal Liability of Third Parties

2020 ◽  
pp. 624-662
Author(s):  
Graham Virgo
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Fiduciary Duty ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.

'Damned if You Do, and Damned if You Don't': Nordic Involvement and Images of Third-Party Neutrality in Sri Lanka

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isak Svensson ◽  
Kristine Höglund
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Peace Process ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Sri Lankan ◽  
The Third ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThird-party actors who mediate or monitor peace often strive to uphold an image of neutrality. Yet, they commonly face accusations of partiality. The Nordic engagement in the Sri Lankan peace process is an illustration of this puzzle: despite the efforts to uphold an image of being neutral mediators and monitors, they have been seen as favoring one side or the other. This article suggests that part of the explanation for their failure to be seen as neutral lies in the fact that armed conflicts are characterized by certain asymmetries between the main antagonists – in capabilities, status and behavior. These imbalances pose particular challenges to the third party aspiring to act in a neutral manner. We suggest that third parties have two strategies available to deal with imbalances in the relationship between the contenders: 1) they can choose to disregard the asymmetrical relationship and act in an even-handed manner or 2) they can seek to counterbalance the lopsidedness. This article explores the dynamics of these strategies by analyzing the Nordic involvement in Sri Lanka's peace process that began in 2002.

Ch.5 Content, third party rights and conditions, s.2: Third party rights, Art.5.2.1

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vogenauer Stefan
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Third Person ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Triangular Relationship

This commentary focuses on Article 5.2.1 of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) concerning contracts in favour of third parties. Art 5.2.1 stipulates that the parties to a contract can validly agree to benefit a third party, and that it is possible that the third party acquires a right from such an agreement. It also introduces a particular terminology for denominating the parties in the triangular relationship. There are two original parties (‘the parties’) whose agreement contains the promise of one of them (‘the promisor’) to the other (‘the promisee’) to benefit a third person (‘a third party’). This commentary discusses the ‘relativity’ or ‘privity’ of contracts, validity of contracts in favour of third parties, power of the promisor and the promisee to create third party rights, content of the beneficiary's right, rights of the promisee, and implications of invalidity of contracts for third parties.

scholarly journals Investigating Sanction of the Conditions in the Settlement Contract with Regard to Registration of Deeds and Real Estate

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsaneh Narimisa ◽  
Alireza Entezari
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Problem ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Rules ◽  
Settlement Agreement ◽  
The Law

Considering that Articles 47 and 48 of the Registration Law have stated that registration of the document of settlement contract is obligatory and its sanction is the non-acceptability of unofficial documents in courts and departments. However, it must be said that these articles do not declare the invalidity of normal documents absolutely, but the meaning of the non-acceptability of such documents is that they cannot be referred to in relation to third parties, while such documents are valid and authentic for the parties to the contract, and because of the fact that the document is a normal contract, the parties to the contract cannot refuse to fulfill their commitment and execute the contract by the excuse that such documents must have been registered in accordance with the law. Therefore, referring to ordinary settlement agreement, the grantee cannot claim the propriety of some property against persons other than grantor, but in the case of denial of the occurrence of a transaction between the parties to the settlement, the beneficiary can refer to the ordinary document of that transaction to prove the occurrence of the transaction between themself and the other person, and such a reference is reviewable by the court. In addition to that the grantor and grantee can refer to ordinary document and any provable evidence in their controversy and dispute about the settlement subject and prove the occurrence of settlement, the grantee can bring an action against the grantor and obligate them to arrange an official settlement document by proving the settlement and by invoking to Article 220 of the Civil Code, because according to the mentioned article, transactors are not only committed to what is stated in the contract, but are also committed to all the results of the contract in accordance with customs or law. However, if a dispute occurs between the grantee and a third party about the settlement subject and an action is brought, then if the grantee presents the ordinary settlement document to prove their ownership, the court according to the Registration Law will not consider that document effective, and the grantee may even be convicted against the third party. The settlement is not correct if its provisions arecontrary to the law, order and the general rules, and if the settlement document arranged in a notary office has a substantive, procedural or legal problem then the competent legal authorities such as the High Council of Registry investigate the issue and the provisions applicable will be issued.

Formation of Contract and Third Parties in Cambodia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contract Formation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Formal Requirements

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

scholarly journals KONTRAKT SPÓŁKI JAKO PODSTAWA ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCI IN SOLIDUM W PRAWIE RZYMSKIM

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Internal Relation ◽  
Common Opinion ◽  
Formal Procedure ◽  
The Common

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.

scholarly journals TANGGUNGJAWAB BLU TRANSJAKARTA TERHADAP PIHAK KETIGA DALAM HAL TERJADI KECELAKAAN MENURUT UU NO. 22 TAHUN 2009 TENTANG LALU LINTAS DAN ANGKUTAN JALAN

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elfrida R Gultom
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Public Transport ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Service Agency ◽  
Transportation Services ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Ticket Prices

The objective of Busway development is to provide transportation services faster, safer, comfortable, and affordable for people in Jakarta. Ticket prices are subsidized by the local government busway. Busway given special line, however could not be separated from the accident. In a carriage, in the event of an accident then apply provisions of Law No. 22 of 2009 on Traffic and Transportation. If there is a loss that hit the third party then setting responsibilities Public Service Agency TransJakarta Busway to third parties refer to the provisions of Article 194 paragraph (1) which determines that the public transport companies are not responsible for any losses suffered by third parties, unless the third party may prove that the loss is caused by the fault of public transport company. Under these provisions, if the third party wants to sue for damages, ketigalah party must prove the fault of the carrier, the claim is based on the basis of tort or on the basis of error set forth in Article 1365 of the Civil Code which stipulates that any action unlawfully harming others, require the person who carries the loss offset. Keywords: transport, the responsibility of the carrier, a third party, transport law

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document