18
submitted 10 months ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago

I haven't been able to find a decent explanation of why the deal was considered unconstitutional. This is the closest I've found:

Law 9, which had granted unrestricted mineral exploitation rights with royalty payments pegged at 2 percent, was declared unconstitutional by Panama’s Supreme Court in 2017. The announcement was delayed until 2021, on the basis that it did not align with the nation’s best interests and lacked a clear commitment to social welfare and the public good. Law 406 aimed to alleviate some of the concerns with Law 9 and introduced increased royalty payments of 12 to 16 percent alongside minimum contributions of $375 million.

The environmental effects sounded severe. But it's unclear if that's enough to be unconstitutional.

this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
18 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7161 readers
351 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS