International Law Dispute Settlement (DB-2) - Research Paper Example

International Law Dispute Settlement (DB-2) Despite the fact that MBI (a multi-national corporation), has produced military tanks in its numerous branches around the universe, it cannot sue Country D in Country C. This is because the army is immune from being sued in its courts. Slomanson (2010), states that a foreign military force cannot be subjected to prosecution in the occupied nation’s tribunals. However, this does not inhibit the responsibility of the army under the International Law (Slomanson, 2010).

In other words, the army is immune from prosecution in another nation. According to Scahill (2011), immunity against suit means that the party involved is not liable and it is impossible to use it, and it should not even be bothered to participate in the lawsuit. In this case, MBI cannot sue Country D for failing to pay for the military equipment supplied to them. However, there are cases where the supplier cannot be held liable for any defective military equipment, and thus, may demand full payment for the equipment supplied.

Rakowsky (2005) states that Feres-Stencel doctrine can be used in cases where the suppliers of military equipment supply products with design defects, which have been approved by the government. He argues that permitting liability against contractors (in this case, the multinational corporation, MBI) in such a situation can subvert the Feres-Stencel doctrine. This is because the military suppliers can simply pass the associated expenditures or costs through to the government. Making contractors responsible for the designs accepted by the government would put the judiciary in a state in which they will be forced to make military decisions (Rakowsky, 2005).

Thus, the Ninth Circuit has created its own way of determining contractor immunity. The supplier can be immune if he is capable of proving that the country in question approved the “precise specifications for the allegedly defective military equipment” (Rakowsky, 2005). Thus, if MBI is able to prove that Country D approved of the military equipment, the supplier is capable of suing Country D in Country C. It is legal and ethical for MBI to make such a move because the law provides the immunity of suppliers who deal with military equipment.

A number of ethical issues arise such as why Country D refused to pay for the suppliers offered to them by MBI’s subsidiary. Other ethical issues include if the move made by MBI would hold any ground. It is important to note that performing business globally presents its unique challenges such as ethical challenges. This is common because cultures and laws vary from one nation to another (Cross and Miller, 2011). Thus, this presents an ethical challenge to MBI. If the laws and cultures are different in both Country C and Country D, it may become very difficult for MBI to succeed in suing Country D in Country C.

This is because each country may have its own laws concerning army and contractor immunity. Therefore, conflict in the manner in which the laws are interpreted may prove very difficult for MBI.ReferencesCross, F. B., & Miller, R. L. (2011). The legal environment of business: Text and cases: Ethical, regulatory, global, and corporate issues. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.Rakowksy, K. (2005). The government contractor defense & its impact on litigation against military contractors. Retrieved from http://www.nlgmltf.org/pdfs/History_Litigation_Mil_Contractors.

pdfScahill, J. (2011). Blackwater: The rise of the world’s most powerful mercenary army. London, UK: Profile Books.Slomanson, W. R. (2010). Fundamental perspectives on international law. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.