Japan and the Pacific Rim Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Japan and the Pacific Rim - Essay Example According to economist, economy serves as the backbone of every country. This means that the economy disparity between the two countries will have little incentive to the South Korea government after the reunification. The economy of North Korea is terrible and in collapse. Therefore, everything that has to do with economic recovery for North Korea should be initiated, which include new infrastructure sufficient electrical power and such to reverse the negative economic growth that has prevailed for years. Workers in North Korea lack competence thus it is advisable to destroy the production capabilities for they are considerably not normalized in reference to international norm. Improvement of North Korea Economy through the stated issues and support from donors would convince South Korea to initiate talks towards reunification. It is important to end the fight that exists between North and South Korea since guns and swords cannot unite. They should be lead to the garden of love not the garden of power and falsehood, and through talks, it should be made known to them that they are siblings centered on common parents since fighting cannot reconcile these divisions. This means ending historical political differences. The two countries should be made to understand that the main aim of the unification is to generate external freedom, peace, happiness, and ideal on the foundation of unification. These ideas have not been given to the governments and with such ideas, recovered economy, and historical political peace, the unification will be

Law Case Study about Charity Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Law Case Study about Charity - Research Paper Example Lord Parker’s observation in Bowman v Secular Society Limited it therefore instructive. According to Lord Parker, a gift is charitable if it is for the â€Å"benefit of the public and recognized as â€Å"charitable in the legal† sense rather than in the â€Å"popular sense†.2 A trust is legal if it is for at least one of four identified purposes: â€Å"relief of poverty; advancement of education; advancement of religion; and for other purposes beneficial to the community†.3 A gift to the homeless can thus be said to be for the relief of poverty. According to Kitto J. poverty exists with an individual cannot afford the bare necessities â€Å"for a modest standard of living in the Australian community.†4 Being homeless would certainly meet the criteria of poverty and thus is a legal charitable trust and as such is a valid trust. Moreover, a gift for the relief of poverty does not have to be specifically for the benefit of the public. It can be for an y number of individuals. The rationale is that relief of the poor is beneficial to the public in general.5 Paragraph 3(b): The gift described in Paragraph 3(b) must likewise meet the legal charity requirement in order to be a valid gift. The only category that this gift can fall under is for the advancement of education. ... fit on the public.7 In order to qualify as beneficial to the public the gift is required to be for either the public or for a section of the public and must not be associated with a particular private organization so as to make it a group of private individuals.8 The gift in Paragraph 3(b) does not identify or favour a specific company or organization or individuals. It provides for the briefing of any business people participating in the North Australian export market with East and South Asia. Thus the gift is for a public class of beneficiaries rather than a private class and therefore is a legal charitable trust for the advancement of education.9 Paragraph 3(c): The trust described in paragraph 3(c) appears on its face to be a charitable trust for the advancement of education. The trust speaks to spending the trust funds designated for this gift on a charitable organization that educates the public relative to the desirability of amending the Northern Territory (Self Government) A ct. However, such a gift will not likely be regarded as a legal charitable trust since it seeks to support a cause directed at changing a legislative provision. It was held in National Anti-Vivisection Society v Inland Revenue that a gift designed to support of make changes in the law is not a charitable trust.10 Thus this particular gift will fail as a charitable purpose trust. The only way for the gift to succeed is if it meets the requirements of an ordinary trust. The gift described in paragraph 3(c) does not specify a group for the purpose of an ordinary trust. It is not definitive enough for the court to execute and would only survive if it were a charitable gift.11 As a result, the shares designated to paragraph 3(c) will be regarded as an undisposed of gift and will fall to Foina