of 15
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Special Drawing Right: Special drawing rights (SDRs) are supplementary foreign exchange reserve assets defined and maintained by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) !ot a currency SDRs instead represent a claim to currency held by IMF member countries for which they may be exchanged #$%  &s they can only be exchanged for euros  'apanese yen pounds sterling or S dollars #imf $%  SDRs may actually represent a potential claim on IMF member countries nongold foreign exchange reserve assets which are usually held in those currencies *hile they may appear to have a far more important part to play or perhaps an important future role being the unit of account for the IMF has long been the main function of the SDR #*illiamson $% +reated in $,-, to supplement a shortfall of preferred foreign exchange reserve assets namely gold and the S dollar the SDRs value is defined by a weighted currency of four ma/or currencies0 the 1uro the S dollar the 2ritish pound and the  'apanese yen #$% SDRs are denoted with the IS3 45$6 currency code 7DR #5% SDRs are allocated to countries by the IMF #$%  8rivate parties do not hold or use them 9he SDR comes to prominence when the S dollar is wea. or otherwise unsuitable to be a foreign exchange reserve asset 9his usually manifests itself as an allocation of SDRs to IMF member countries Distrust of the S dollar is not the only stated reason allocations have been made however3ne of its first roles was to alleviate an expected shortfall of S dollars c $,6: #*illiamson ;%  &t this time the S had a conservative monetary policy #*illiamson ;%  and did not want to increase the total amount of S dollars in existence #citation needed%  If the S had continued down this path the dollar would have become a less attractive foreign exchange reserve asset0 it would not have had the necessary li<uidity to serve this function Soon after SDR allocations began the S reversed its former policy and provided sufficient li<uidity #*illiamson ;%  In the process a potential role for the SDR was removed During this first round of allocations ,= billion SDRs were distributed to IMF member countries 9he SDR resurfaced in $,6> when many countries were wary of on more foreign exchange reserve assets denominated in S dollars 9his suspicion of the dollar precipitated an allocation of $5 billion SDRs over a period of four years #*illiamson 4% +oncomitant with the financial crisis of 5::6?5:$: the third round of SDR allocations occurred in the years 5::, #$%  and 5:$$ #>%  9he IMF recogni@ed the financial crisis as the cause for distributing the large ma/ority of these thirdAround allotments but some allocations were couched as distributing SDRs to countries that had never received any #$%  and others as a reAbalancing of IMF <uotas which determine how many SDRs a country is alloted to better represent the economic strength of emerging mar.ets #>%  In total 5:=4 billion SDRs were allocated in this roundDuring this time +hina a country with large holdings of S dollar foreign exchange reserves #,%  voiced its displeasure at the current international monetary system promoting measures that would allow the SDR to Bfully satisfy the member countries demand for a reserve currencyB #$:%  9hese comments made by a chairman of the 8eoples 2an. of +hina Chou 7iaochuan drew media attention #$$%  and the IMF showed some support for +hinas stance It produced a paper exploring ways the substance and function of the SDR could be increased #imf 5%  +hina has also suggested the creation of a substitution account to allow exchange of S dollars into SDRs #*illiamson =%  *hen substitution was proposed before in $,6> the S appeared reluctant to allow such a mechanism to become operational Value definition   9he value of the SDR is determined by the value of several currencies important to the worlds trading and financial systems #$%  Initially its value was fixed so that $ SDR E $ S dollar #*illiamson =%  but this was abandoned in favor of a currency after the $,6= collapse of the 2retton *oods system of fixed exchange rates #*illiamson ;%  +omposed of the  'apanese yen the S dollar the 2ritish pound and the 1uro #$%  the of currencies used to value the SDR is BweightedB meaning that the more important currencies have a larger impact on the SDRs value +urrently the value of one SDR is e<ual to the sum of :45= 1uros $5$ en :$$$ pounds and :-- S Dollars #46%  9his is reAevaluated every five years #$%  and the currencies included as well as the weights given to them can then change & currencys importance is currently measured by the degree to which it is used as a foreign exchange reserve asset and the amount of exports sold in that currency #$% &llocationsSpecial drawing rights are allocated to member countries by the IMF & countrys IMF <uota the maximum amount of financial resources that it is obligated to contribute to the fund determines its allotment of SDRs #$%  &ny new allocations must be voted on in the IMFs SDR Department and pass with an >;G ma/ority #imf =%  &ll IMF member countries are represented in the SDR Department #6%  but this is not a one country one vote system #citation needed%  Hoting power is determined by a member countrys IMF <uota #;$%  For example the S has $-6G of the vote as of 5 March 5:$$ #;5% &llocations are not made on a regular basis and have only occurred on several occasions  9he first round too. place due to a situation that was soon reversed the possibility of an insufficient amount of S dollars because of S reluctance to run the deficit necessary to supply future demand 1xtraordinary circumstances have li.ewise led to the other SDR allocation events The Mareva injunction (variously .nown also as a free@ing order Mareva order or Mareva regime) in +ommonwealth /urisdictions is a court order which free@es assets so that a defendant to an action cannot dissipate their assets from beyond the  /urisdiction of a court so as to frustrate a  /udgment It is named for Mareva +ompania !aviera S& v International 2ul.carriers S& #$,6;% 5 loyds Rep ;:, decided in $,6; although the first recorded instance of such an order in 1nglish /urisprudence was !ippon usen Jaisha v Jarageorgis in $,6; decided very shortly before the Mareva decisionK however in the J the +ivil 8rocedure Rules $,,> now define a Mareva order as a Bfree@ingB order It is widely recognised in other common law /urisdictions and such orders can be made to have worldAwide effect It is variously construed as part of a courts inherent /urisdiction to restrain breaches of its processIt is not a security ('ac.son v Sterling Industries td) nor a means to pressure a /udgment debtor (+amdex International td v 2an. of Cambia (!o 5)) nor does it confer a proprietary interest in the assets of the /udgment debtor (+retanor Maritime +o td v Irish Marine Management td) Lowever some authorities have treated the Mareva in/unction as an order to stop a /udgment debtor from dissipating his assets so as to have the effect of frustrating /udgment rather than the more strenuous test of re<uiring an intent to abuse court procedure &n example of the former would be paying off a legitimate debt (Ira<i Ministry of Defence v &rcepey Shipping +o S&) whereas an example of the latter would be hiding the assets in overseas ban.s on receiving notice of the actionIt is recognised as being <uite harsh on defendants because the order is often granted at the preAtrial stage in ex parte hearings based on affidavit evidence alone & Mareva in/unction is often combined with an &nton 8iller order in these circumstances 9his can be disastrous for a defendant as the cumulative effect of these orders can be to destroy the  whole of a business custom by free@ing most of its assets and revealing important information to its competitors& free@ing order will usually only be made where the claimant can show that there was at least a good arguable case that they would succeed at trial and that the refusal of an in/unction would involve a real ris. that a /udgment or award in their favour would remain unsatisfied Mv Elisabeth vs Harwan  9he appellant vessel which was lying in the port of Marmagao left the port without issuing bills of lading or other documents re<uired by the Respondent company for the goods shipped by it 3n reaching the port of destination despite the direction of the respondent company not to deliver the goods by reason of the buyers failure to pay the agreed price the appellants handed over the goods to the consignee Since the appellants acted in breach of duty thereby committing conversion of the goods entrusted to them the respondent instituted a suit against the appellants the admiralty /urisdiction of the &ndhra 8radesh Ligh +ourt by means of an action in rem 9he vessel was arrested when it entered the port of Hisha.apatnam and later released on the owners furnishing security by way of 2an. guaranteeIn the proceedings before the Ligh +ourt the appellant raised a preliminary ob/ection as to  /urisdiction stating that the suit against a foreign ship owned by a foreign company not having a place of residence or business in India could not proceed on the admiralty side of the Ligh +ourt by an action in rem in respect of a cause of action by reason of a tort or a breach of obligation arising from the carriage of goods from an Indian port to a foreign port 9his ob/ection was overruled by a Single 'udge of the Ligh court and later confirmed by a Division 2ench against which the present appeal has been preferredFinally the suit was decreed by a Single 'udge and the appeal therefrom is the sub/ect matter of the other matter before this +ourt vi@ the 9ransfer 8etition 3n behalf of the appellants it was contended that the power of the Ligh +ourt on the admiralty side was confined to the provisions of the &dmiralty +ourt &ct $>-$ made applicable to India by the +olonial +ourts of &dmiralty &ct $>,: read with the +olonial +ourts of &dmiralty (India) &ct $>,$ declaring certain +ourts of unlimited civil /urisdiction as +olonial +ourts of &dmiralty but it remained fro@en as on the date of &dmiralty +ourt &ct $>-$K that the wide powers assumed by the 2ritish +ourts under the subse<uent statutes of that country did not enlarge the $::;admiralty /urisdiction of the Ligh +ourt in IndiaK that section - of the &dmiralty +ourt &ct $>-$ the only provision relating to cargo confined itself to inward cargo only and  therefore the case did not fall under the ambit of section - of the &ctK and that the arrest of the vessel in purported exercise of admiralty /urisdiction in rem concerning a claim relating to outward cargo was null and void3n behalf of the respondents it was contended that every person has a right to approach the +ourt of the land for appropriate remedy in respect of claims against a foreign ship and its owner and to deny him that right and to compel him to pursue remedy in a foreign country according to an unfamiliar system of law and practice in strange and uncertain conditions and conse<uently incurring high expenses with all the uncertainties of such a pursuit was un/ust and uncalled forK that all ma/or systems of law the world over recognise the competence of the coastal State to assume /urisdiction over a foreign ship entering its waters in respect of certain well recognised claims irrespective of where the cause of action arose or where the defendant has his place of residence or businessK that the reason for such wide /urisdiction being the nonAavailability of the foreign owner within the local  /urisdiction and the stay of the foreign ship in the waters of the coastal State being necessarily brief /urisdiction over the ship has to be exercised by its arrest and detention by means of an action in remK that the Ligh +ourt being a court of record with unlimited  /urisdiction it was never intended by the 2ritish 8arliament that the admiralty power conferred on certain Ligh +ourts should remain fro@en as on the date of the passing of the &dmiralty +ourt &ct $>-$ and that the subse<uent changes in the law of reat 2ritain should not widen the /urisdiction of the Indian Ligh +ourtsK and that the colonial statutes should not be so construed as to stand in the way of the Indian Ligh +ourts exercising unlimited /urisdiction except where the /urisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implicationDismissing the appeal and returning the 9ransferred +ase to the Ligh +ourt this +ourt Pirac off the coast of So!alia has been a threat to international shipping since the second phase of the Somali +ivil *ar  in the early 5$st century#$% Since 5::; many international organi@ations including the International Maritime 3rgani@ation and the *orld Food 8rogramme have expressed concern over the rise in acts of piracy#5% #=% 8iracy has impeded the delivery of shipments and increased shipping expenses costing an estimated N$: billion a year in global trade#4% &ccording to the erman Institute for 1conomic Research (DI*) a veritable industry of profiteers has also risen around the piracy Insurance companies in particular have profited from the pirate attac.s as insurance premiums have increased significantly#;%& nited !ations report and several news sources have suggested that piracy off the coast of  Somalia is caused in part by illegal fishing#-% #6% &ccording to the DI* and the S Louse &rmed Services +ommittee the dumping of toxic waste in Somali waters by foreign vessels has also severely constrained the ability of local fishermen to earn a living and forced many to turn to piracy instead#;% #>% 3ther articles allege that 6: percent of the local coastal communities Bstrongly support the piracy as a form of national defense of the countrys territorial watersB and that the pirates believe they are protecting their fishing
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks