Search Results

This chapter describes how voting is conducted in the UN Security Council as well as the rules governing voting, namely, Articles 27 and 109 of the UN Charter, a number of the Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure, and Article 10 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The chapter first discusses the rules governing substantive decisions and the veto, insufficient affirmative votes, procedural matters and the ‘double veto’, voting on the establishment of subsidiary organs, and voting on amendments. It then considers separate voting on paragraphs; interruption of voting; unanimity, consensus, and adoption by acclamation; abstentions, absences, and non-participation in the vote; and finality of the voting process. Finally, it explains statements before or after the vote, draft resolutions withdrawn or not brought to a vote, and reconsideration of a draft resolution that has not been adopted previously.

This chapter concludes Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint by probing briefly a few of the knotty procedural issues that attend the efforts by any system of governance to implement the moral principle of freedom of expression (or, rather, to implement some constitutional or statutory guarantee that corresponds more or less closely to that moral principle). Among the issues at which the chapter glances are the scalar character of compliance by systems of governance with the principle of freedom of expression, the legal remedies that are apposite for giving effect to the moral obligations imposed by that principle, the location and stringency of the burden of proof in litigation where communicative liberties are at stake, and the location of the general legal powers to invalidate statutes and other laws. The chapter explains why these issues have been consigned to a fairly brief concluding portion of the book, instead of being treated in depth.

As an alternative, or in addition, to the avoidance provisions available under the Insolvency Act 1986 a transaction may, in an appropriate case, be challenged under provisions of the Companies Act 2006 as a transaction exceeding constitutional limitations. Other directors’ duties may also be raised in an action, such as the duty to act in good faith to promote the success of the company.

Sections 238 (corporate insolvency) and 339 (bankruptcy) target gifts, transfers for no or insufficient consideration, and transactions with a gift element entered into by the debtor on the eve of insolvency, to the detriment of creditors. The sections themselves are relatively straightforward in operation. The main conditions for challenging a transaction are that (a) the debtor either received no consideration or received consideration of a value significantly less than the consideration he gave (in bankruptcy the section also operates where a transaction has been entered in consideration of marriage); and (b) the transaction must have been entered into at a ‘relevant time’ which consists of two elements: the transaction must have taken place within a particular time period occurring immediately prior to insolvency, and it must also be established that the transacting party was insolvent at the time of the transaction or as a result of it. In corporate insolvency cases, a defence is available where the transaction was entered into in the reasonable belief that it would benefit the company. The simplicity of these provisions makes them a powerful weapon for office holders, as does the fact that the burden of proof shifts in favour of the officeholder where