DOCSLIB.ORG

List of Advantages of Absolute Monarchy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of Advantages of Absolute Monarchy List of Advantages of Absolute Monarchy What is an Absolute Monarchy? An Absolute Monarchy is a style of government with a king or queen that has ABSOLUTE, or total and unquestioned power. Absolute monarchies have no checks and balances, meaning whatever the king or queen says goes without argument. 1. It allows for quicker decisions to be made The monarch has authority over his land and people. They don’t listen to advisers when it comes to making decisions. Yes, they may have people who help them out but ultimately, the final say lies with them. Some favor this kind of government because it would reduce squabbling over what’s right and what’s wrong. With this kind of leadership, decisions can be made as soon as possible and not drag on for years. Having too many people involved in the decision-making process hinders progress because there’s sure to be disagreements over terms. The people want answers to problems and sometimes, having a monarch decide these matters allows for a quicker run through all the issues that need to be addressed. 2. It makes law making easier In an absolute monarchy, there’s only one person who gets to make the decisions. When there are laws to be made to benefit the people, an absolute monarch can command to get this done. This in turn will make the people more thankful that their needs were addressed in the shortest possible time. 3. It allows for long-term goals to be planned and met A monarch rules for life. As such, they make plans for the long term. In some ways, this is beneficial for the country because it won’t likely get scrapped unlike when someone else assumes office and decides not to pursue the plan because it’s not part of their agenda. For a monarch, issues that arises during their reign has a good chance of getting addressed given they rule for life. List of Disadvantages of Absolute Monarchy 1. It doesn’t involve a democratic process Once a monarch decides, that is it. There can be no debate surrounding the decision and surely, the monarch can’t be held accountable for what they just decided. 2. It creates an excess of fame Fame can be both good and bad, but with an absolute monarch, fame can be dangerous. How can internal changes be expected when the leader in question is a much beloved figure? 3. It involves a leader not chosen by the people Monarchs get to their position by inheritance. This could be bad because there’s no telling whether the monarch that succeeds is capable of leading a nation. What is a Republic? We’ve discussed the style of government called Republic in this class before! We live in a republic today, meaning our government has people that represent us and make laws for us. Republic style of governments usually have a congress, or a group of men (and now women) that get together to vote on which laws should be passed and which shouldn’t. Pros and Cons of Republic style of government… Most modern governments are Republics in The Western World (places with cultures like ours). One of the most obvious benefits of this style of government is that the people get a voice in their government. When you turn 18 in our country today, you get to vote for President and who represents you in congress (shown above). Most people throughout history had no say whatsoever in their government, if you live in a republic you do have a say! Another benefit of a Republic is that power is spread out across a number of people rather than in the hands of only one person like in an Absolute Monarchy. If power is spread out, it is much harder for one person to take too much power for themselves and to do terrible things with that power. One of the drawbacks, or problems with Republics, is that it is very hard to get things done. Because there are many different people with power, they oftentimes don’t agree on what should be law and what shouldn’t. This can make getting things done very hard, and when different sides can’t agree, nothing gets done. Lista de ventajas de la Monarquía Absoluta 1. Permite tomar decisiones más rápidas El monarca tiene autoridad sobre su tierra y su gente. No escuchan a los asesores cuando se trata de tomar decisiones. Sí, es posible que tengan personas que los ayuden, pero finalmente, la última palabra está en ellos. Algunos favorecen este tipo de gobierno porque reduciría las disputas sobre lo que está bien y lo que está mal. Con este tipo de liderazgo, las decisiones se pueden tomar lo antes posible y no prolongarse durante años. Tener demasiadas personas involucradas en el proceso de toma de decisiones dificulta el progreso porque seguramente habrá desacuerdos sobre los términos. La gente quiere respuestas a los problemas y, a veces, tener un monarca que decida estas cuestiones permite una ejecución más rápida de todos los problemas que deben abordarse. 2. Hace que la ley sea más fácil En una monarquía absoluta, solo hay una persona que toma las decisiones. Cuando hay leyes que se deben hacer para beneficiar a la gente, un monarca absoluto puede ordenar que se haga esto. Esto, a su vez, hará que las personas se sientan más agradecidas de que se hayan atendido sus necesidades en el menor tiempo posible. 3. Permite planear y cumplir metas a largo plazo Un monarca gobierna para la vida. Como tal, hacen planes a largo plazo. De alguna manera, esto es beneficioso para el país porque probablemente no será desechado, a diferencia de cuando alguien más asume el cargo y decide no seguir el plan porque no es parte de su agenda. Para un monarca, las cuestiones que surgen durante su reinado tienen muchas posibilidades de ser abordadas dado que gobiernan de por vida. Lista de Desventajas de la Monarquía Absoluta 1. No implica un proceso democrático Una vez que un monarca decide, eso es todo. No puede haber debate en torno a la decisión y seguramente, el monarca no puede ser responsabilizado por lo que acaba de decidir. 2. Crea un exceso de fama La fama puede ser buena y mala, pero con un monarca absoluto, la fama puede ser peligrosa. ¿Cómo se pueden esperar cambios internos cuando el líder en cuestión es una figura muy querida? 3. Involucra a un líder no elegido por la gente Los monarcas llegan a su posición por herencia. Esto podría ser malo porque no se sabe si el monarca que tiene éxito es capaz de dirigir una nación. ¿Qué es una república? ¡Hemos discutido el estilo de gobierno llamado República en esta clase antes! Hoy vivimos en una república, lo que significa que nuestro gobierno tiene personas que nos representan y hacen leyes para nosotros. El estilo de gobierno de la República generalmente tiene un congreso, o un grupo de hombres (y ahora mujeres) que se reúnen para votar sobre qué leyes deben aprobarse y cuáles no. Pros y contras del estilo de gobierno de la República ... La mayoría de los gobiernos modernos son repúblicas en el mundo occidental (lugares con culturas como la nuestra). Uno de los beneficios más obvios de este estilo de gobierno es que las personas tienen voz en su gobierno. Cuando cumples 18 años en nuestro país hoy, puedes votar por el Presidente y quién te representa en el Congreso (que se muestra arriba). La mayoría de las personas a lo largo de la historia no tenían nada que decir sobre su gobierno, ¡si vives en una república tienes algo que decir! Otro beneficio de una República es que el poder se extiende a varias personas en lugar de estar en manos de una sola persona, como en una monarquía absoluta. Si el poder se distribuye, es mucho más difícil para una persona tomar demasiado poder para sí misma y hacer cosas terribles con ese poder. Uno de los inconvenientes, o problemas con las Repúblicas, es que es muy difícil hacer las cosas. Debido a que hay muchas personas diferentes con poder, a menudo no están de acuerdo sobre lo que debería ser ley y lo que no debería. Esto puede hacer que las cosas se hagan muy difíciles, y cuando diferentes partes no pueden ponerse de acuerdo, no se hace nada. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Singapore, July 2006
    Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Singapore, July 2006 COUNTRY PROFILE: SINGAPORE July 2006 COUNTRY Formal Name: Republic of Singapore (English-language name). Also, in other official languages: Republik Singapura (Malay), Xinjiapo Gongheguo― 新加坡共和国 (Chinese), and Cingkappãr Kudiyarasu (Tamil) சி க யரச. Short Form: Singapore. Click to Enlarge Image Term for Citizen(s): Singaporean(s). Capital: Singapore. Major Cities: Singapore is a city-state. The city of Singapore is located on the south-central coast of the island of Singapore, but urbanization has taken over most of the territory of the island. Date of Independence: August 31, 1963, from Britain; August 9, 1965, from the Federation of Malaysia. National Public Holidays: New Year’s Day (January 1); Lunar New Year (movable date in January or February); Hari Raya Haji (Feast of the Sacrifice, movable date in February); Good Friday (movable date in March or April); Labour Day (May 1); Vesak Day (June 2); National Day or Independence Day (August 9); Deepavali (movable date in November); Hari Raya Puasa (end of Ramadan, movable date according to the Islamic lunar calendar); and Christmas (December 25). Flag: Two equal horizontal bands of red (top) and white; a vertical white crescent (closed portion toward the hoist side), partially enclosing five white-point stars arranged in a circle, positioned near the hoist side of the red band. The red band symbolizes universal brotherhood and the equality of men; the white band, purity and virtue. The crescent moon represents Click to Enlarge Image a young nation on the rise, while the five stars stand for the ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice, and equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Did Britain Become a Republic? > New Government
    Civil War > Why did Britain become a republic? > New government Why did Britain become a republic? Case study 2: New government Even today many people are not aware that Britain was ever a republic. After Charles I was put to death in 1649, a monarch no longer led the country. Instead people dreamed up ideas and made plans for a different form of government. Find out more from these documents about what happened next. Report on the An account of the Poem on the arrest of setting up of the new situation in Levellers, 1649 Commonwealth England, 1649 Portrait & symbols of Cromwell at the The setting up of Cromwell & the Battle of the Instrument Commonwealth Worcester, 1651 of Government http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/ Page 1 Civil War > Why did Britain become a republic? > New government Case study 2: New government - Source 1 A report on the arrest of some Levellers, 29 March 1649 (Catalogue ref: SP 25/62, pp.134-5) What is this source? This is a report from a committee of MPs to Parliament. It explains their actions against the leaders of the Levellers. One of the men they arrested was John Lilburne, a key figure in the Leveller movement. What’s the background to this source? Before the war of the 1640s it was difficult and dangerous to come up with new ideas and try to publish them. However, during the Civil War censorship was not strongly enforced. Many political groups emerged with new ideas at this time. One of the most radical (extreme) groups was the Levellers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Mixed Government in Classical and Early Modern Republicanism
    Ivan Matić Original Scientific Paper University of Belgrade UDK 321.728:321.01 141.7 THE CONCEPT OF MIXED GOVERNMENT IN CLASSICAL AND EARLY MODERN REPUBLICANISM Abstract: This paper will present an analysis of the concept of mixed government in political philosophy, accentuating its role as the central connecting thread both between theories within classical and early modern republicanism and of the two eras within the republican tradition. The first part of the paper will offer a definition of mixed government, contrasting it with separation of powers and explaining its potential significance in contemporary political though. The second part will offer a comprehensive, broad analysis of the concept, based on political theories of four thinkers of paramount influence: Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli and Guicciardini.1 In the final part, the theories and eras of republican tradition will be compared based on the previous analysis, establishing their essential similarities and differences. Key words: Mixed Government, Classical Republicanism, Florentine Realism, Early Modern Republicanism, Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Guicciardini. Introduction The roots of republican political thought can be traced to the antiquity and the theories of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. As might be expected in the two and a half millennia that followed, our understanding of republicanism has been subject to frequent and, sometimes, substantial change. Yet, one defining element has always remained: the concept embedded in its very name, derived from the Latin phrase res publica (public good, or, more broadly, commonwealth), its implicit meaning being that the government of a state is meant to be accessible and accountable to all citizens, its goals being the goals not merely of certain classes and factions, but of society as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A
    Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Federalist 51
    Understanding Federalist 51 1 9/6/2011 Political Science Module Developed by PQE Learning Objectives Identify the significance of the Federalist Papers to an understanding of the American Constitution. Identify Madison’s purpose in writing Federalist 51 . Explain the role of separation of powers in the preservation of liberty. 2 Political Science Module Developed by PQE 9/6/2011 Constitutional Change 1 Learning Objectives (Cont.) Describe the role played by checks and balances in the preservation of liberty. Identify the provisions included in the Constitution to prevent legislative dominance. Explain the phrase: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Describe how the “compound republic” protects liberty. 3 Political Science Module Developed by PQE 9/6/2011 Learning Objectives (Cont.) Describe the solution Madison offers to the problem of the tyranny of the majority. 4 Political Science Module Developed by PQE 9/6/2011 Constitutional Change 2 Key Terms The Federalist Papers Separation of Powers Legislative Power Executive Power Judicial Power Checks and Balances 5 Political Science Module Developed by PQE 9/6/2011 Key Terms (Cont.) Compound Republic Federal System Tyranny of the Majority 6 Political Science Module Developed by PQE 9/6/2011 Constitutional Change 3 The Federalist Papers Essays written in 1787 and 1788 by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton under the penname of Publius Designed to advocate the ratification of the new constitution by the states An authoritative but unofficial explanation of American government by those who created it 7 Political Science Module Developed by PQE 9/6/2011 Federalist 51 Madison wrote Federalist 51 in 1788.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's System of Government
    61 Australia’s system of government Australia is a federation, a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. This means that Australia: Has a Queen, who resides in the United Kingdom and is represented in Australia by a Governor-General. Is governed by a ministry headed by the Prime Minister. Has a two-chamber Commonwealth Parliament to make laws. A government, led by the Prime Minister, which must have a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Has eight State and Territory Parliaments. This model of government is often referred to as the Westminster System, because it derives from the United Kingdom parliament at Westminster. A Federation of States Australia is a federation of six states, each of which was until 1901 a separate British colony. The states – New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania - each have their own governments, which in most respects are very similar to those of the federal government. Each state has a Governor, with a Premier as head of government. Each state also has a two-chambered Parliament, except Queensland which has had only one chamber since 1921. There are also two self-governing territories: the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The federal government has no power to override the decisions of state governments except in accordance with the federal Constitution, but it can and does exercise that power over territories. A Constitutional Monarchy Australia is an independent nation, but it shares a monarchy with the United Kingdom and many other countries, including Canada and New Zealand. The Queen is the head of the Commonwealth of Australia, but with her powers delegated to the Governor-General by the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives
    Research Report C O R P O R A T I O N MICHAEL J. MAZARR, JONATHAN BLAKE, ABIGAIL CASEY, TIM MCDONALD, STEPHANIE PEZARD, MICHAEL SPIRTAS Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition Theoretical and Historical Perspectives he most recent U.S. National Security KEY FINDINGS Strategy is built around the expectation ■ The emerging competition is not generalized but likely to of a new era of intensifying international be most intense between a handful of specific states. Tcompetition, characterized by “growing political, economic, and military competitions” ■ The hinge point of the competition will be the relation- confronting the United States.1 The new U.S. ship between the architect of the rules-based order (the United States) and the leading revisionist peer competitor National Defense Strategy is even more blunt that is involved in the most specific disputes (China). about the nature of the emerging competition. “We are facing increased global disorder, ■ Global patterns of competition are likely to be complex and diverse, with distinct types of competition prevailing characterized by decline in the long-standing 2 in different issue areas. rules-based international order,” it argues. “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, ■ Managing the escalation of regional rivalries and conflicts is now the primary concern in U.S. national is likely to be a major focus of U.S. statecraft. security.”3 The document points to the ■ Currently, the competition seems largely focused on “reemergence of long-term, strategic competition status grievances or ambitions, economic prosperity, by what the National Security Strategy classifies technological advantage, and regional influence. as revisionist powers.”4 It identifies two ■ The competition is likely to be most intense and per- countries as potential rivals: China and Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptualising Regional Power in International Relations: Lessons from the South African Case
    GIGA Research Programme: Violence, Power and Security ___________________________ Conceptualising Regional Power in International Relations: Lessons from the South African Case Daniel Flemes N° 53 June 2007 www.giga-hamburg.de/workingpapers GIGAȱWPȱ53/2007ȱ GIGAȱWorkingȱPapersȱ ȱ EditedȱbyȱGIGAȱGermanȱInstituteȱofȱGlobalȱandȱAreaȱStudiesȱ/ȱLeibnizȬInstitutȱfürȱGlobaleȱ undȱRegionaleȱStudien.ȱ TheȱWorkingȱPaperȱSeriesȱservesȱtoȱdisseminateȱtheȱresearchȱresultsȱofȱworkȱinȱprogressȱ priorȱtoȱpublicationȱtoȱencourageȱtheȱexchangeȱofȱideasȱandȱacademicȱdebate.ȱAnȱobjectiveȱ ofȱtheȱseriesȱisȱtoȱgetȱtheȱfindingsȱoutȱquickly,ȱevenȱifȱtheȱpresentationsȱareȱlessȱthanȱfullyȱ polished.ȱInclusionȱofȱaȱpaperȱinȱtheȱWorkingȱPaperȱSeriesȱdoesȱnotȱconstituteȱpublicationȱ andȱshouldȱnotȱlimitȱpublicationȱinȱanyȱotherȱvenue.ȱCopyrightȱremainsȱwithȱtheȱauthors.ȱ WhenȱWorkingȱPapersȱareȱeventuallyȱacceptedȱbyȱorȱpublishedȱinȱaȱjournalȱorȱbook,ȱtheȱ correctȱcitationȱreferenceȱand,ȱifȱpossible,ȱtheȱcorrespondingȱlinkȱwillȱthenȱbeȱincludedȱinȱ theȱWorkingȱPapersȱwebsiteȱat:ȱ www.gigaȬhamburg.de/workingpapers.ȱ ȱ GIGAȱresearchȱunitȱresponsibleȱforȱthisȱissue:ȱResearchȱProgrammeȱ‘Violence, Power andȱ Security’ȱ ȱ EditorȱofȱtheȱGIGAȱWorkingȱPaperȱSeries:ȱBertȱHoffmannȱ<hoffmann@gigaȬhamburg.de>ȱ Copyrightȱforȱthisȱissue:ȱ©ȱDanielȱFlemesȱ ȱ ȱ Editorialȱassistantȱandȱproduction:ȱSilviaȱBückeȱandȱVerenaȱKohlerȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Allȱ GIGAȱ Workingȱ Papersȱ areȱ availableȱ onlineȱ andȱ freeȱ ofȱ chargeȱ atȱ theȱ website:ȱ www.gigaȬhamburg.de/workingpapers.ȱWorkingȱPapersȱcanȱalsoȱbeȱorderedȱinȱprint.ȱForȱ
    [Show full text]
  • THE PREMISE of MIXED GOVERNMENT in AFRICAN POLITICAL STUDIES by Richard L. Sklar University of California, Los Angeles This Keyn
    THE PREMISE OF MIXED GOVERNMENT IN AFRICAN POLITICAL STUDIES By Richard L. Sklar University of California, Los Angeles This keynote address was presented at an international conference on “Indigenous Politi- cal Structures and Governance in Africa,” at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, July 19-21, 2001, and published in Olufemi Vaughan, ed., Indigenous Political Structures and Governance in Africa (Ibadan, Nigeria: Sefer Books Ltd., 2003), pp. 3-25; reprinted in Olufemi Vaughan, ed., Tradition and Politics: Indigenous Political Structures in Af- rica (Trenton, NJ and Asmara, Eritrea: Africa World Press, 2005), pp. 13-32. I am delighted to be here for this conference at the University of Ibadan. My asso- ciation with this university began 44 years ago, in 1957, during the course of my doctoral research on Nigerian political parties. The late pioneering historian, Dr. Kenneth On- wuka Dike, then director of the Institute of African Studies, received me at his home and made me feel welcome. This institution was then a University College, affiliated with the University of London. Several years later, in 1963, I accepted an invitation to join the academic staff of this university as a lecturer in the newly established Department of Po- litical Science. Previously, political science and sociology were subsections of the Fac- ulty of Economics. In 1963, all three disciplines were incorporated with equal status within a new Faculty of the Social Sciences of a fully independent university with Profes- sor Dike as vice-chancellor.1 How do I remember the academic life of this campus between 1963 and 1965? Once a wise teacher warned me to beware the trap of nostalgia for so called good old days.
    [Show full text]
  • Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy 607
    Monarchies, Republics, and The Economy 607 Monarchies, Republics, and The Economy Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/97/2/607/4992685 by University of Pennsylvania Libraries user on 28 November 2018 Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy Mauro F. Guillén, University of Pennsylvania .................................................................................................................. e investigate the implications of the persistence of traditional patterns of state organization by examining the relationship between property rights Wand the economy for monarchies and republics. We argue that, relative to re- publics, monarchies protect property rights to a greater extent by reducing the nega- tive effects of internal conflict, executive tenure, and executive discretion. In turn, a better protection of property rights results in greater standards of living. Using panel data on 137 countries between 1900 and 2010, we formulate and test a model with endogenous variables. We find strong evidence that monarchies contribute to a greater protection of property rights and higher standards of living through each of the three theoretical mechanisms compared to all republics. We also find that democratic- constitutional monarchies perform better than non-democratic and absolute monar- chies when it comes to offsetting the negative effects of the tenure and discretion of the executive branch. We discuss the implications of the persistence of traditional pat- terns of political authority and rule for political sociology and economic sociology. .................................................................................................................. Introduction Monarchies in the contemporary world are one typical example of the persis- tence of traditional patterns of authority, government, and organization of the state, which constitutes a central topic of research in political sociology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of the Separation of Powers
    Copyright 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 106, No. 2 THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS Steven G. Calabresi, Mark E. Berghausen & Skylar Albertson ABSTRACT—The U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers has its origins in the British idea of the desirability of a Mixed Regime where the King, the Lords, and the Commons all checked and balanced one another as the three great estates of the realm. Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Machiavelli all argued that Mixed Regimes of the One, the Few, and the Many were the best forms of regimes in practice because they led to a system of checks and balances. The Enlightenment killed off the Mixed Regime idea forever because hereditary office-holding by Kings and Lords became anathema. The result was the birth of a functional separation of legislative, executive, and judicial power as an alternative system of checks and balances to the Mixed Regime. For better or worse, however, in the United States, Congress laid claim to powers that the House of Lords and the House of Commons historically had in Britain, the President laid claim to powers the King historically had in Britain, and the Supreme Court has functioned in much the same way as did the Privy Council, the Court of Star Chamber, and the House of Lords. We think these deviations from a pure functional separation of powers are constitutionally problematic in light of the Vesting Clauses of Articles I, II, and III, which confer on Congress, the President, and the courts only the legislative, executive, and judicial power.
    [Show full text]
  • FATCA Agreement Czech Republic
    Agreement between the United States of America and the Czech Republic to Improve International Tax Compliance and with Respect to the United States Information and Reporting Provisions Commonly Known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Whereas, the United States of America and the Czech Republic (each, a “Party,” and together, the “Parties”) have a longstanding and close relationship with respect to mutual assistance in tax matters and desire to conclude an agreement to improve international tax compliance, further building on that relationship; Whereas, Article 27 of the Convention between the United States of America and the Czech Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Capital, done at Prague on September 16, 1993 (the “Convention”) authorizes the exchange of information for tax purposes, including the possibility of exchange on an automatic basis; Whereas, the United States of America enacted provisions commonly known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”), which introduce a reporting regime for financial institutions with respect to certain accounts; Whereas, the Czech Republic is supportive of the underlying policy goal of FATCA to improve tax compliance; Whereas, FATCA has raised a number of issues, including that Czech financial institutions may not be able to comply with certain aspects of FATCA due to domestic legal impediments; Whereas, the United States of America collects information regarding certain accounts maintained by U.S.
    [Show full text]