Possible Solutions. The advice of the Raad van State recommends that the Countries should formu- late an arrangement on how to exercise the right to vote in the Council of the EU on affairs that concern the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. This re- commendation was supported by many writers, such as Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx & Xx Xxxxx and Nap.129 Xxx Xxxxxxx van den Xxxxx had already stressed the need for such an arrangement even before the first OCT Decision had been adopted.130 Along with these authors, I think that such an agreement should ideally be laid down in a Kingdom act or in the Charter itself. However, I do not think that under the current circumstances the rule should be that the Caribbean Countries have a right of veto on the OCT De- cisions and other decisions of international organisations which affect them economically, similarly to Article 25 of the Charter. As long as the Kingdom only has one vote in the Council of the EU, and the OCT Decision has not been transformed into an agreement with the OCTs, the Kingdom has to take account of the legitimate interests of each Country and the Kingdom as a whole when using its vote in the Council. Under some circumstances this could mean that prevalence should be given to other interests than the economic or financial interests of one or both of the Caribbean Countries. A right of veto would moreover create potentially unsolvable situations, namely when the Caribbean Countries disagree with each other on a certain decision. If one of them expects economic advantages from it, while the other expects to be negatively affected, a right of veto would not provide a solution. I agree that any rules on this subject should start from the economic autonomy of the Countries, which is one of the cornerstones of the Kingdom order. It reflects the reality that the Caribbean Countries are economically in a different position from the European part of the Kingdom, and this requires different policies. Based on the Kingdom Charter and the economic right to self-determination the Countries should be allowed to determine these policies for themselves. This does not mean, however, that other Countries, states, or international organisations can be forced to create or maintain beneficial arrangements for the Caribbean Countries. The rule described by Xxxxxx would be a good basis for an arrangement between the Countries, since it does justice to the right to self-determination of the Caribbean Countries while not ignoring the interests of the Ne...
Possible Solutions. Marketing 1. Broker’s responsibility and scope not optimized; 2. Broker relationship established where not intended; 3. Tenant becomes bound to a space without being intended to. 1 and 2, selecting and involving an attorney early to assist in selecting and drafting agreements with broker. 3, having the broker represent the tenant in negotiations with potential landlords from the first contact. RFP Not including relevant issues. Have attorney and broker fully review and discuss RFP.
Possible Solutions. Subject to Severity Levels, CHEMAXON will use best endeavors to offer Subscriber a solution. Depending on the Problem, the following solutions are possible without limitation:
