0

微信公众号红包扫雷a commitment is made by a political party's ministry in power to a segment of people through an agreement. then the party is voted out in election. what happens to commitments and contracts earlier entered into on behalf of the previous government?

are there irrevocable financial contracts in provisions of law?

how are the discharge of commitments transferred to a newly elected government?

can a broken contract party be made legally liable /brought to justice and if so in which democratic courts?

微信公众号红包扫雷in a breach of trust/cheating cases, how are groups of public protected against a smart few from potential losers?

edit1:

We can leave out broader international laws to start with. Question is about a basic Rule of Law微信公众号红包扫雷 within a country/state pertaining to matters of economic development/ investment. Running context in South India: On an agreed condition to build a democratic capital city many farmers together invested massive 33,000 acres of land, in a failed deal when government changed.

  • As it stands, this question lacks context needed to answer it well. For example, contract law and international law are different, and both are recognized differently by different countries. – Burt_Harris yesterday
  • Thanks, supplied some context, hope it is ok. – Narasimham yesterday
  • “Deal“, "agreement", “commitment” and “contracts” are not interchangeable. Also the nature of the “investment” you describe seems questionable. Was there some contracts to build the city? A commitment to buy the land at a specific price? Or just speculation on the land increasing value when the city would be built? – Relaxed yesterday
  • Thanks. For the time being... .. a running story; there is a move to decentralize and shift administration to three different capitals. Now poised to become a mass movement. – Narasimham yesterday
  • Hi again. While I know nothing about Indian law, I'm guessing it's derived from to British Law, and thus like Canadian. Try reading to see if that helps explain the situation – Burt_Harris yesterday
1

depends on the legal framework.

  • In countries which respect the rule of law, contracts by the government are binding on subsequent governments unless the contracts explicitly allow for termination. Usually there would be notice periods or compensation.
  • Parliaments can change the law, and a common principle is that no parliament can bind a future parliament. So if the old government commits to provide buses to a rural community, and the new parliament wants commuter rail with fewer stations instead, the new parliament can do that.
  • In many countries, something that is effectively a dispossession by the government requires fair compensation by the government, but the courts decide what fair means based on the laws passed by parliament.
  • For international investors, many countries have entered investor protection treaties that call for arbitration.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .