What happens to the legal status of a state after a change of government by force (by a coup or invasion, for example)?

Legal status example

There is no u2018legal statusu2019 for countries.

u2018International lawu2019 is not enforced or even enforceable.

Among the countries, it is anarchy, or rather the prevalence of the strongest.

The bigger your stick, the better.

,A coup usually happens when a country is destabilised by another.

The new government is promptly recognised by its backers and the rest of the world follows suit because in not doing so they cut themselves from having commerce with that country.

Only very small countries remain unrecognised after a coup.

If a coup happens in Iran, for instance, it will be recognised quite fast, since the world needs that oil and those many consumers.

,An invasion usually leads to the extinction of the country, if it is successful.

A government in exile may linger on for a while (even for a long while) but thatu2019s really irrelevant.

Morocco is doing fine, in spite of occupying Western Sahara.

China is doing fine, in spite of occupying Tibet.

These occupations are, afaik, probably historically fair.

The governments in exile of Western Sahara and Tibet get a lot of pats on the back, but very little changes.

Will you go to war with China over Tibet? Or with Morocco for the Western Sahara? Perhaps if a lot of oil is found in Western Sahara the USA will suddenly hear the plight of the Saharawi people.

Meanwhile, theyu2019re only u2018homeless sand niggersu2019 in the eyes of most countries.

Which is sad, of course, but sadness is worthless in international relations.

,If there was a semblance of international law, worth of the name, countries should not be forced to pay the foreign debt contracted by tyrants who embezzled that money in offshore accounts.

By requiring political legitimacy to such transactions, and laying the loss on the back of the banks who eagerly court thieving butchers, a lot of coups would simply not happen.

,Yes, a lot of coups happens because international finance needs a dude to step in, contract a lot of debt to his country and embezzle it without doing anything, so the country must later take more debt to try do what it should have done.

,This is how Africa is kept in chains since decolonisation.

The same in Latin America.

Meanwhile, tax havens like Switzerland, are heralded as u2018model democraciesu2019 and u2018free of corruptionu2019.


What is the legal status of a limited company

It really means they donu2019t want to hire you as an employee and have all the responsibilities that go with that.

They want to hire you on a contract basis and want to be dealing with a company rather than an individual.

This is perfectly normal.

,You can incorporate a limited liability company for a cost of about $1,000 in legal fees.

Then you have to file a corporate tax return every year.

This will probably cost you $1,000 to $1,500 in accounting fees.

You may also need a lawyer to file all the paper work to maintain the legal status of your private corporation.

This will cost about $500 per year.

,So to act as a corporation rather than an individual, it will cost you something like $1,000 up front and $2,000 per year.

If you want to save this money, you can create a company name and operate a proprietorship.

If you do this, all the income and expenses of the company will be treated as your personal income and expenses.

Most importantly, any legal liabilities of the company will be your personal liabilities.

So if your company gets sued, it will be you getting sued.

,If you are planning to create a real business where you hire people and work as a contractor or subcontractor for more than one organization or customer, the limited liability company is the way to go, in spite of the costs.

Separating your personal liability from your companyu2019s liabilities will be important.

If you are just going to work for yourself and not hire any employees, the proprietorship is probably adequate and less expensive.

,You may want to do some research online regarding the difference between a proprietorship and a limited liability corporation.

Here is a link to get you started.

,Sole Proprietorship Vs.

Limited Liability CompanyBy the way, in case you are ever thinking about going into business with a partner in a partnership, you will want to be familiar with the concept of joint and several liability.

It is critical that you understand this before going into partnership with anyone.

,Joint and several liability - WikipediaEdit:,I am pasting below the reply I made to a comment from a reader, Peter Radolla.

It addresses an important issue for contractors that operate as either a corporation or as a sole proprietorship.

,But the company would hire you as an employee and pay you a salary and make all the deductions for CPP and taxes.

If you are the owner of the corporation you are working for, you wonu2019t qualify for Employment Insurance benefits, so you will be exempt from those deductions.

I operated as the sole director, officer and shareholder of a Canadian corporation for years.

I paid into the Canada Pension Plan as a company employee and now am receiving CPP benefits each month.

,You wonu2019t make CPP contributions on dividends, so you might receive a lower retirement allowance than you would if you had only paid yourself salary, but you will, presumably, be investing some of those dividends in an RRSP and or TFSA.

,The amount of money that large companies pay their contractors is almost always more than they would pay an employee because they donu2019t have to pay the company share of EI and CPP contributions.

They also donu2019t have any of the other benefit expenses like health insurance or paid holiday time.

If you are thinking of accepting work as a contractor with some company, you should definitely take these sort of things into consideration.

As a contractor, your company will have to pay you and also all those corporate contributions to CPP, health insurance and holiday pay.

What is legal status of a company example

What is the legal status of baseball cards in India?,Because until there is regulation that includes bitcoins (or virtual currency), that is about what bitcoins equate to.

,Now the exchange of bitcoins to rupees might be where there already are existing laws that apply, using broad scoped words like currency or value that acts like currency.

That could mean the regulations on money transmission would apply even if, for example, you accepted cash at one location and delivered bottles of Tide detergent (used as money) at another location.

Legal status meaning UK

I believe that perhaps you are confusing a number of things, or the information that has been provided to you is confused.

Please rest assured that I most certainly do not mean this as a criticism against you, but your question is almost completely confused from beginning to end.

I will try to untangle it and try to give you relevant information on the points that I identify.

,When you say u201creportu201d, what do you mean? What kind of report? Reporting on what? Report is a very generic word that can be used for anything that can be printed on paper or any digital format, including email, or that can be verbally relayed to anyone.

I can report to my wife that our youngest pooped this morning at around 08:50 in an SMS message.

I can also report to my client that their project appears to be on track as of close of play yesterday in an email.

In both cases neither report has an executive summary, because to begin with they are fairly short.

,A u201csummaryu201d is typically a longer text that has been shortened.

For example a 3-month long study of my youngest child might list the exact times when she poops, might include values and descriptions on her poop, might provide the context e.


of what she has been eating.

A summary may summarise, as they say, this to the following sentence: u201cOn most days she poops once in the morning around 09:00 and once in the afternoon in the period from 15:00 to 17:00.

u201d,The term u201cExecutive Summaryu201d is in fact wholly colloquially.

It is a summary that is provided because it is assumed that executives, whoever they in fact may be, are very, very busy people who cannot possibly have the time to read the entire report, regardless of what that report may include.

In a strategy document or particularly a business plan the u201cExecutive Summaryu201d has a very special place, and is normally intended to be exactly one page long, regardless of whether that is A4 or Letter format and regardless of font-size etc.

However, this is just by convention.

,You say u201clegal meaningu201d and u201clegal statusu201d.

These are very broad terms.

If you are in a dispute with someone and that dispute has to be resolved through the courts or arbitration, or even just through written correspondence between your representation, anything and everything that is presented does de-facto have a legal meaning and a legal status in the specific dispute.

,However, as executive summary has a very wide ranging meaning, it does not in and of itself have an established legal status.

So false!,There is a chance that you may be referring to a companyu2019s financial report which technically is supposed to be made of accounting facts.

However this report may have, and likely will have, a section titled u201cDirectors Reportu201d.

In some cases this section may be very valuable in understanding the overall picture of a company, however it cannot change all other parts of the report which is supposed to be made up of fact.

There should not be a contradiction between any sections in a financial report, but if hypothetically there was a contradiction between the Directors Report and other sections, the wise reader would naturally assume that the facts speak for themselves and that it is the Directors Report is wrong.

Financial reports are very much intended to be accurate and reliable.

If a company releases financial reports that turn out to be wrong, the directors of said company may very well come into legal trouble.

But, even in this specific case, it is very much wrong that Directors Report has some form of overriding guidance that affects how legally binding the report as a whole is.

So again, even in this more specific case, it is false.

,All that being said, there can of course be more specific cases where it all has a much more specific meaning and perhaps more specific consequences.

If this is really important to you, you should probably ask your lawyers and your accountants.

If you do hope to get a meaningful answer from Quora, you should provide much, much more specific detail.

Legal status of an organisation impacts on the way it is governed

They may do but there are two very good reasons why they may not.

The first is that doing so would make the EU look very bad.

Bad in the moral sense.

The second is that doing so may well make the EU look stupid.

Overall, legal action could backfire quite badly on the EU.

Iu2019ll quickly review some of the issues here.

,Why it would make the EU look badSimply, it would expose what the EU has been up to.

The Prime Minister has (finally!) come out of the closet and told us what heu2019s doing, and why.

And it makes quite a lot of sense.

,Here are a few of the key points: Michael Barnier made explicit threats to block the export of British food to Northern Ireland.

,The government branded the threat, u2018utterly ludicrousu2019 and warned that it would have serious repercussions for future relations,The Prime Minister stated: We agreed that, in some limited ways, Northern Ireland would continue to conform with EU law for four years.

We agreed that this limited alignment would end, unless the Northern Irish assembly voted to continue it.

We agreed to do some light-touch checks on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, in case they should go on to Ireland, in order to avoid checks at the North-South border.

,And on the basis of that excellent deal we left the EU u2013 and so it is deeply regrettable that what seemed so simple and clear to us is seen very differently by our EU friends.

,We are now hearing that, unless we agree to the EUs terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea.

,We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.

,I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK.

This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

,By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

This interpretation cannot have been been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasnu2019t ours) u2014 and it is therefore vital that we close that option down.

,We cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country u2013 to divide it u2013 in the hands of an international organisation.

We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net u2013 in the UK Internal Market Bill u2013 to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies.

,Now, given the rather hostile escalation in the temperature of the talks, in which an international organisation threatened, in clear contravention of extant treaties (particularly the Good Friday Agreement), to divide a sovereign nation and institute a blockade against one part of it from another, the UK really had no option but to protect itself.

,This threat against the UKu2019s sovereign status, you understand, was made in attempt to force the UK to accept other (though different) violations of the UKu2019s sovereign status: forcing it to accept EU jurisdiction over its fishing waters and to accept EU state aid laws.

It was in other words, a way of saying u201cone way or another, we rule you.

But weu2019re good enough to let you choose how we rule youu201d.

,Against that background, would you launch legal action? When discovery will almost certainly unearth the minutes from the meetings in which Barnier made those threats? I donu2019t know about you, but I wouldnu2019t have the bloody cheek.

,Why it would make the EU look stupidThe grounds for legal action against the UK is supposedly that the UK is in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement.

However, in the event of any such action, the UK would probably argue that the EUu2019s claim is undermined by its own much bigger, more serious, impactful and long-standing violation of the same WA.

,Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement states (my emphasis):,The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period.

,Article 4 of the Political Declaration States:,The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party.

This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Unions decisionmaking and be consistent with the Unions principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms.

It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom,Given the explicit linkage between those two documents, it appears that the EUu2019s refusal to negotiate a Trade Agreement consistent with the UK gaining sovereignty over its internal market, is a breach of Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

,Furthermore, the apparent breach is of far more than just one minor clause in the Withdrawal Agreement.

It is of one of its most material terms: the basis for concluding discussions on the future relationship.

,ThIs legal argument (as well as others) that the EU is in breach of the WA, are made by top lawyers Martin Howe QC and Barnabas Reynolds in the document referenced below.

Howe and Reynolds argue that the EUu2019s violations of the WA are in fact so serious that the UK should jettison the entire thing.

,Now, if the EU attempts to launch action against the UK, it risks quite a humiliating outcome for itself.

The court could easily find that 1) the EU had threatened a blockade against part of the UK, against which the UK had no option but to defend itself; and 2) a claim against the UK for a u201climited and specificu201d over-ride of the WA counts for very little against a wholesale and persistent violation of the WAu2019s most material terms.

,,Itu2019s looking for all the world that the EU had been keeping the threat to blockade Northern Ireland in reserve, and use it to force the UK to accept its terms on other issues.

The furious reaction from the EU is explained by the UK issuing a swift response that outmanoeuvred it, closing down a core element of a very devious plan.

,The EU might take this to court.

But itu2019s equally possible the Commissionu2019s lawyers are putting together a set of briefs to dissuade their bosses from doing so.

For all of the reasons above.

Legal status in business plan

In general, international students in F1 status are forbidden from u201cengaging in business.

u201d However, immigration law does not expressly forbid F1 visa students from establishing their own business because preliminary business planning is not considered engagement.

Legal status citizen

Why even allow legal status? Since when is it a good idea to reward criminal behavior? People who choose to break our laws are not good candidates for legal status or citizenship.

They have proven they disrespect our laws and our country,,The only appropriate response to illegal aliens is to deport them.