Ten of the OECD’s list of 35 tax havens are UK overseas territories or dependencies of the British crown.
Britain’s crown dependencies consist of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. All three are independently administered and do not form part of the UK. However, they are possessions of the British crown and not sovereign nations. They are treated as part of the UK for British nationality law, and the British government is responsible for their defense and international representation. The power to pass laws affecting the islands rests with their legislative assemblies.
Parliament in London retains the right to legislate for the islands against their will, though this power is rarely used. Many key officials are also appointed by the British government. As a result, the exact nature of the relationship between the crown dependencies and the UK is hard to pinpoint. However, the 1973 Kilbrandon report concluded that the UK government is ultimately responsible for the islands’ good governance. The UK’s Ministry of Justice now has responsibility for them.
The 14 British overseas territories are also under the sovereignty of the UK. The name came into being with the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which granted UK citizenship to citizens of any of the territories, which include the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar. The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, who generally appoints a governor as her representative on the advice of the British government.
The governor deals mostly with foreign affairs and economic issues. UK sovereignty was recently demonstrated in relation to another overseas territory, the Turks and Caicos Islands. The British government revealed plans to take control of the islands over suspicion of systematic corruption following publication of an interim report by a commission of inquiry. The Foreign Office said parts of the islands’ Constitution would need to be suspended. Again, the British government has the constitutional right to amend or suspend the laws that allow much of the offshore tax business. The question is whether it has the will to do so.
War, possibly global, will define the coming decade — so it is crucial that Taiwanese decide now what their freedom and their lives are worth — perhaps starting with a defense budget of 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The force that threatens Taiwan, the Communist Party of China (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), asserts that a free, or even worse, an “independent” Taiwan is the greatest threat to the CCP’s dictatorship. Accordingly, they are prepared to kill Taiwanese by the millions, which also will initiate their longer war against democracies. Should it succeed, Chinese sources are all but openly
Oil, copper, soybeans and a handful of others monopolized the attention — but of all commodities, the humble lump of iron ore benefited the most from the Chinese economic boom of the past 25 years. It was an astonishing bonanza: From the late 1990s to earlier this year, iron ore prices jumped nearly 10-fold, more than any other major commodity; traded volume tripled; Australian commodity tycoons become billionaires; mining companies turned, even briefly, into Wall Street darlings; and mighty legal battles broke for control of the last untapped mineral deposits. Now, it is over: The greatest commodity boom thus far of the
The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and its chairman and former presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) are embroiled in a series of political donation scandals, and many believe the political ramifications could be significant, threatening the party’s future. In the past two weeks, analysts questioned the party’s use of political donations it received during the election campaign, based on donation disclosure data published by the Control Yuan. The data showed that Ko’s campaign office made several questionable payments to marketing companies, including the marketing firm Muko (木可行銷公關). Two marketing companies said they did not receive the three payments totaling NT$9.16 million (US$285,982) that
During his 2020 presidential campaign, US President Joe Biden made a promise that resonated deeply with advocates of human rights and religious freedom: He pledged to meet the Dalai Lama and invite him to the White House if elected. This commitment was seen as a significant gesture toward supporting the Tibetan cause and standing up to China’s oppressive policies in Tibet. However, as Biden’s four-year tenure draws to a close, this promise remains unfulfilled, raising questions about the administration’s diplomatic priorities and its stance on human rights. Despite his campaign pledge, Biden has not met with the Dalai Lama during his presidency.