While the subject of native title negotiations may be quite different, ranging from consent determinations, agreements ancillary to a determination, to agreements which do not include a native title determination, the relationship between these three levels of negotiation is clarified by understanding
their common underlying purpose - the economic and social development of the traditional owner group.
Not exact matches
Looking at the two top countries - Finland and South Korea - the report says that there are many big differences, but the
common factor is a shared social belief in the importance of education and its «
underlying moral
purpose».
As we demonstrated in our 2015 analysis of the
Common Core debate on Twitter, the dispute about the standards was largely a proxy war over other politically - charged issues, including opposition to a federal role in education, which many believe should be the domain of state and local education policy; a fear that the
Common Core could become a gateway for access to data on children that might be used for exploitive
purposes rather than to inform educational improvement; a source for the proliferation of testing which has come to oppressively dominate education; a way for business interests to exploit public education for private gain; or a belief that an emphasis on standards reform distracts from the deeper
underlying causes of low educational performance, which include poverty and social inequity.
It's
common that the agreement secures a 100 % interest in the company which owns the
underlying property through a bankruptcy remote «special
purpose entity» holding company.
Some originalists say that the historical
purpose underlying the Second Amendment — to enable state militias to resist federal overreach — requires that
common citizens (would - be militiamen) may possess whatever armaments might be needed to resist the national government by force.
Might it not be argued — especially in light of their treatment (at least at
common law) as contract debts for limitations
purposes — that the proceedings to enforce them are distinct from the
underlying activity that gave rise to the dispute?