Freedom Of Decision Research Articles

The India-China Border Dispute: An Indian Perspective

International law recognizes that boundaries are fundamental to the bases of national power and therefore projects various prescriptions for their protection as the demarcation lines of territorial integrity and exclusive control. By far the most important principle is that prohibiting the use of coercion in reshaping boundaries. This principle assumes, however, the effective application of other principles or norms for establishing and identifying boundaries. Fundamental general community policies require that states do not employ coercion in the settlement of boundary disputes, but rather make positive efforts to honor reasonable demands and expectations of other states concerning their political independence and territorial sovereignty. Effective implementation of these policies can be achieved only when states refrain from unilateral imposition of territorial claims upon other states and assert their freedom of decision in a way not to interfere with a comparable freedom of others.

An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision.

Book Reviews Get access An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision. By Harald Ofstad. (Oslo : Norwegian Universities Press. London : Allen & Unwin. 1962. Pp. xvi + 391. Price 42s). D. J. O’Connor D. J. O’Connor Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 14, Issue 57, October 1964, Pages 379–380, https://doi.org/10.2307/2217784 Published: 01 October 1964

Harald Ofstad. An inquiry into the freedom of decision. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press; London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1961. xvi + 391 pp.

Harald Ofstad. <b>An inquiry into the freedom of decision</b>. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press; London: George Allen &amp; Unwin Ltd., 1961. xvi + 391 pp.

An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision.

An Inquiry into the Freedom of Decision.

Regulation of Insurance under the McCarran Act

It is a shibboleth of private capital that the less government, the better-the fewer laws, the less confided power. Since the closing of the frontier, our national history has been marked by the ceaseless struggle of industry to guard its freedom of decision against the encroachment of governmental restraint. During the past four years, one great segment of American business has seemingly rejected this traditional policy. The insurance industry has not only supported but solicited the enactment by all state legislatures of a comprehensive network of regulatory statutes. Such regulation deals with the lifeblood of an industry-what it may sell and the price it may charge. An analysis of this new system, and its probable success or failure, is the concern of this paper. But an understanding of the matter requires more than a statement of existing facts. We must examine the origins of this anomalous development, must trace the succession of events which led an industry to ask that government be granted a greater voice in its business decisions.

New Trends in British Commonwealth Relations

THEN PRIME MINISTER Curtin declared that Australia depended on the United States for its defense in the face of Japanese invasion, many people jumped to the conclusion that the dissolution of the British Commonwealth was at hand. 'When he proposed a supreme consultative body for Empire problems, which should meet regularly, and have a permanent secretariat, an equal number interpreted it to mean Imperial Federation. But the one reaction is as far from the mark as the other. The truth is that Mr. Curtin is feeling his way towards a middle-of-the-road type of Commonwealth relation which will coincide with realities. The search for satisfactory means to reconcile the freedom of decision and action of the individual parts of the Commonwealth with the planning and execution of a united policy in regard to such overriding needs as security has been constant since the self-governing units of the Empire grew to maturity. In practice, Britain continued to provide through the Navy the basic means for protection of the Empire thereby sparing the Dominions heavy defense expenditures, and in moments of danger, a virtually united front developed. This empirical solution was accepted in default of other arrangements which could command general consent. But it has not been without criticisms and proposed alternatives in the past as well as in the present. The two major criticisms of Commonwealth arrangements voiced in the past are those which have been reinforced by recent events. On the one side, it was argued that the Commonwealth has failed to reap the chief benefits of collaboration because its integration of effort came only in time to meet but not to prevent danger. The other side has maintained that there is no real freedom of action for the Dominions if the Commonwealth stands together in moments of crisis behind a foreign policy which is largely if not entirely the creation of its strongest member, Great Britain. Each group of critics had its own solution. The first preached Imperial Federation with the same fervor and much the same arguments as Clarence Streit has used in support of Federal Union. But the movement foundered before World War I on the jealously guarded autonomy of the larger Dominions. The second group found its hope in the principles of the League Covenant as a guide for the foreign policy of all the members of the Commonwealth. But what in theory offered an easy way out of the dilemma, in practice merely meant that the problem was writ large. Collective security proved neither