El mariscal Franchet D'Espèrey (a la derecha) acompañado del presidente Enrique Olaya Herrera (a la izquierda), en la tribuna presidencial del Hipódromo - Estadio de Bogotá, a adonde fue invitado el mariscal, durante su visita a la ciudad.

Este evento podría tratarse de la recepción de la gira presidencial, la posesión presidencial o el homenaje de despedida de Enrique Olaya Herrera, eventos multitudinarios registrados por Gumersindo Cuéllar.

Monseñor Ismael Perdomo Borrero y otros eclesiásticos, al parecer en un evento cívico en la Plaza de Bolívar. Ismael Perdomo Borrero (1872-1950) fue arzobispo de Bogotá entre 1928 y 1950, sucesor de Monseñor Bernardo Herrera Restrepo. Su arzobispado correspondió con la caída de la hegemonía conservadora.

El mariscal Franchet D'Espèrey en la Escuela Militar, en Bogotá, en donde se le rindió un homenaje y fue condecorado con la Cruz de Boyacá, por el presidente Enrique Olaya Herrera.

Desfile militar en la Plaza de Bolívar, en el centro de Bogotá, frente al Capitolio Nacional.

Documento en el que Emiliano Restrepo Echavarría presenta ante el Senado de la República una serie de argumentos a favor de Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, con el fin de defenderlo de las acusaciones que en su contra, han formulado sus opositores políticos. A lo largo del documento, que conserva la ortografía de la época, se da cuenta de diversos factores relacionados con los alcances y aciertos del gobierno de Mosquera en diferentes ámbitos políticos y religiosos de Colombia.

This dissertation aims to make an evaluation of the relationship between development and climate change mitigation policies within developmental states, specifically a comparison between China and Brazil. Developmental states are those countries focused on obtaining economic growth through developmentally driven policies. Traditionally, climate change mitigation and environmental protection have been seen as obstacles to development. However, as climate change is a global issue which requires domestic response, countries are required to act locally in order to mitigate carbon emissions into the atmosphere and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Developing countries, such as China and Brazil, are heavily dependent on carbon consumption to promote development and economic growth. For this reason, international pressure has been focused on these countries to reduce CO2 emissions, threatening their future development. Furthermore, it examines Brazil and China’s climate policies in light of developmental state guidance. So far what has been found is that climate policies have been relevant to the same extent as they contribute to economic growth and social development. China has envisioned the clean energy industry as a business opportunity capable of generating new jobs and exporting technology. Interests mainly focused on other issues independent to those of climate variability mitigation. Brazil, on the other hand, has relied on the promotion of biofuels as an alternative industry to the use of oil. By adopting ethanol and biodiesel as substitutes for fossil fuels, the government has been able to promote the country’s economic development and position itself as the world’s main producer. Similar to China, mitigation actions are generally implemented as long as there are other interests involved. Furthermore, when there is conflict of interests with environmental policies in both countries, they have acted as developmental states, prioritising development over policies of climate mitigation.Adrian Leftwich’s developmental state model was published in the early 1990s, to further address Chalmers Johnson’s interpretation of the Japanese economic miracle. Nonetheless, Leftwich’s characterisation of developmental states was thought to define a model exclusive to the Asia-Pacific region. This dissertation will apply Leftwich’s model, by adapting it to contemporary China and Brazil, two countries deliberately excluded from the developmental state model, but who now days represent the political context that Leftwich had in mind. In addition, the developmental state model allows a broader interpretation to the current policies implemented by the above mentioned countries, specifically on climate change related issues.

The Legal Transplant Theory proposed by A. Watson, K. Pistor and D. Berkowitz is defined as movement of a rule or a system of law from one country to another. Under this theory, the mentioned authors conclude that a legal change does not perform in an equal manner in the transplanting country as in the origin country. They argue that the adoption of it in the latter is the result of a comprehensive study of the socio-economic circumstances of the nation, while transplanting countries import the legal entity without having similar circumstances. Furthermore, under this theory, the successfulness of a legal transplant is determined by an adaptation process that the legislator, the governmental institutions and the society of the transplanting country shall undertake to prepare the scenario for the introduction. In consequence, transplanted legal changes are called to fail due to uninformed or erroneous decision made by the law-makers. Pistor and Berkowitz analyzed company regulation in various countries, among them Colombia, to support their theories. Regarding the Colombian case, they referred to the Codes of Commerce of 1853 and 1887, concluding that they were unsuccessful legal transplants from Spain and Chile, respectively.  This paper analyzes the abovementioned theory pretending to determine if the legal transplant theory was correctly applied to the Colombian case. Particular attention deserves the Sociedad por Acciones Simplificadas (S.A.S), which is a new hybrid business form adopted in Colombia as a transplant from the United States’ Limited Liability Company. In the light of this case, the document will determine whether this is called to be an unsuccessful legal transplant (as predicted by the Legal Transplant Theory). If the answer is negative, the document will determine if the S.A.S. is merely an exception of the theory or if it demonstrates the failure of such assumption.

This paper summarises the views of outsiders with respect to indigenous forest management. The information on foreign perspectives was collected between May and December of 2001 through an on-line survey. It is argued that even the most knowledgeable people in the industrialised world have no precise idea of how ‘vulnerable’ rainforest is and few have accurate knowledge about the political conditions facing indigenous peoples or other human inhabitants of the Amazonian rainforest. It is signalled that conservationists, armed groups, governmental officers, churches and NGOs are used to attach themselves to certain narratives, be them hegemonic/managerial or counter-hegemonic/populist, aiming to make alliances and enhance their own power. However, the paper calls the attention on the fact that the responses analysed seem to indicate that a large group of people is unhappy with the assumptions behind either populists or hegemonic discourses with respect to rainforest management and, that they are seeking for new ways of formulating environmental policy. The paper concludes that each group has a way of intervening and exercising a certain amount of power to modify the global political agenda for the governance of Amazonia, in function of their own particular interest. It is suggested that such tendency does not facilitate the development of indigenous peoples’ own strategies for the management of Amazonian environments and, that it makes difficult for them to exercise their right to self-determination.

Abstract: This contribution provides for a main comparison between the new Article X proposed by the OECD under Action 6 Final Draft and the new Article 22 of the 2016 US Model Income Tax Convention. For purposes of the above, this contribution is divided in two main parts. The first part contains a comparative analysis of the main differences resulting from a tax treaty policy perspective. The second part compares both proposals under an itemized approach. This second part addresses the specific wording differences between new Article X proposed by the OECD under Action 6 Final Draft and the new Article 22 of the US Model Income Tax Convention. At the time of drafting, some additional changes to the final version of the Article X proposed by the OECD under Action 6 could be made as consequence of the disclosure of the latest version of the US LOB on 17 February 2016. Resumen: Este artículo hace una comparaciòn entre el artìculo X propuesto por la OCDE bajo la acción 6 del reporte final contra la erosión de la base gravable y la transferencia de utilidades, y el nuevo artículo 22 del Modelo de Convenio del Impuesto sobre la Renta de los estados Unidos (modelo 2016). Para efectos delo anterior, el artículo está dividido en dos partes principales. La primera parte establece un análisis de las principales diferencias en materia de política tributaria en relación con la suscripción de tratados. La segunda parte analiza las diferencias específicas en la redacción de ambos artículos.