Navigation Act (1988): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (→Reception) |
||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
==Reception== | ==Reception== | ||
The Navigation Act has been both praised and criticised. Economic liberals charge that the restrictions imposed by the Act greatly reduce economic efficiency, raise prices for consumers and for businesses, and disincentivise accession to the Inner Federation by overseas provinces (as originally intended by the architects of the Federation project). However, it has been defended by labour advocates, the domestic shipping industry, environmentalists, and [[Sarolasta]]n politicians (Sarolastans make up over one third of the Kiravian merchant marine labour force, and remittances from sailors are an important source of income for many Sarolastan families). | The Navigation Act has been both praised and criticised. Economic liberals charge that the restrictions imposed by the Act greatly reduce economic efficiency, raise prices for consumers and for businesses, and disincentivise accession to the Inner Federation by overseas provinces (as originally intended by the architects of the Federation project). However, it has been defended by labour advocates, the domestic shipping industry, environmentalists, and [[Sarolasta]]n politicians (Sarolastans make up over one third of the Kiravian merchant marine labour force, and remittances from sailors are an important source of income for many Sarolastan families). | ||
In ''O'Shea v. the Admiralty'' (1994), a federal court ruled that the Act did not require the {{wp|beneficial owner}} of a Navigation Act-compliant vessel to be a Kiravian national or lawful resident, meaning that it is possible for foreign entities to control compliant vessels through a Kiravian-based subsidiary. | |||
[[Category:Legislation]] | [[Category:Legislation]] | ||
[[Category:Kiravia]] | [[Category:Kiravia]] | ||
[[Category:IXWB]] | [[Category:IXWB]] | ||