International Business Law - Case Study Example

International Business Law Number: Word Count: Question Ruling on the annexation of space by country X The case is presented within the jurisdiction of an international court of justice. Other countries have joined together to challenge oppose what they term as the annexation of the space country X. Joining them is country Y which may have the same interests as those of country X. They are justified to so do as they as signatories of “The Outer Space Treaty” which they did sign back in the year 1966 (Zines 2008). The case presented is the opinion of all member treaty was signed for the use and exploration of space was bringing conflicts among the superior state (Zines 2008). It came at a time when technologies were cropping up and great inventions being carried. The main purpose of this treaty was to ensure that weapons of mass destruction like nuclear bombs are not developed in the space. The super power countries don’t have trust in each other and they fear spying on their secrets Country X’s activities are within the provisions of the treaty. The treaty did state clearly that the space is freely accessible to the entire world and to any country that wishes to do so. This country is trying to explore the space scientifically which poses no danger to the world and other countries. It is not clear to the court that no other country has ever tried to intensify their activities in the space. Country X is a busy trying to explore the mysteries that are still hidden to the mankind. It has not in any case breached the terms of the treaty by occupying the space. Other allegations are that the country has put up its flag and claimed about 1000 square meters of the moon. The provision in the treaty is that no any country shall claim ownership on the ownership of space. Therefore, the court orders country X to remove its flag from the space and not to claim ownership of the area they have annexed. The landing station it has built on the moon is to be removed. This treaty did define that the space is free for all nations. However, the country has never been reported to carry out activities that may endanger life in the world. The court is just to order that the country needs to make their activities transparent to the world. The court has also found out that the countries launching complains are having fear of the unknown due to the secretive activities of the accused. Country X has promised to be responsible their activities and there are no complaints of negligence. It is stated clearly in the Outer Space Treaty that “countries exploring space are responsible and liable for any damage their activities may cause”. The court can conclude from whole proceedings that the accused country has established a base in the space. Reports of weapons and any arms are not there. The complaint brought by the 45 countries though presents the opinions of the world but these countries seem to have conflicts of interests. Take the case of country Y for example; joining the case afterwards. It beats logic how loud this country is launching it’s complain. The world today is being faced by cold war from the superpowers since they are the only ones that have the machinery to reach space. Country Y may be having interests in the in the space. Many decades have passed since man landed in the space. No any other country has ever tried building their base in the space. This country has not touched space objects like the steroids and the orbits. They use their own spaceship to navigate and have never touched the satellites. The court hereby rules that country X is free to explore the space. The case presented is a matter of further consultation among these countries. The decision has been arrived at since the court has found that these countries have common interests. They are all bound by the treaty they signed. Asking the court to exempt country X from space is unjust because a provision in the treaty allows them to do so. The court, however, compels this country not claim any part of the space but should continue with their activities as stipulated in the treaty. Question 2: Arbitration Arbitration is a method of conflict resolution involving two parties and an arbitrator sit down and negotiate the terms of the agreement. The arbitrator gives the final verdict and he/she acts as the judge. This case has been presented and is of high significance since racketeering can be serious crime some countries. The crocodile skins being transported is against the international law that was out in to curb the problem of trade in wildlife products. The arbitrator is left with task to determine the case. It is against any country in the world to be used as a medium for transporting illegal goods. The Crocodian country has insulted the legal system of country U by breaking their rules. The company should have not labeled the cargo as cow hides. The crocodile skins in the first place should not have been transported to country U. An arbitration treaty signed between them is a binding factor which the basis of this case lies on. Government of Crocodia seeks for compensation. It should be understood that the skins were destroyed by the relevant authorities. However, crocodian government should send a written apology to the state and promise that in the event of any breach of their contract, then country U is to stop any kind of operations be it business or any other. Selling the jet by country U is a condemnable act. A very serious issue here is the contraband. Their jet should be reclaimed. The arbitrator recommends that at worst, crocodians jet could have been confiscated until they could have owned up to their crime. Country U is to pay back the sold jet. The destination of these contrabands is to be questioned. If this government claims that these are contrabands, it beats logic how they found their way into the country. May be the trade has been going on for a long time without their knowledge. It should not blame crocodian as such but the systems of trade and porosity of its borders ought to be questioned. While signing mutual business contracts, these two countries never brought out clearly the terms and conditions of their trade. Penalties that each country can get by undermining and breaking the rules need to be spelt out clearly. Like in this case, if crocodian government knew about the consequences then there would have been case between them. Necessary actions would be taken against the country that does not respect the other rules and regulations. The final verdict is that the sold jet should be returned. Compensation being sought is not ethical. Crocodian provoked country U and it has no rights of asking for favors. In a nutshell countries are urged to bury their differences as this is serious matters that can destabilize the co-existence of the two countries. Crocodian is warned against in contrabands that they may be tempted to bring into the country. Otherwise no country should utter any word that can trigger bitter differences and develop into a grudge. Question 3: Consumer Standard Ruling The complainant is justified to file the case concerning her rights. The manufactures are to comply with the rules that regulate the standards of products. These legislations in any country are provided in the constitution and therefore the courts act within the jurisdiction when they preside over consumer disputes. The consumer has the right to know brand names, quality and the quantity of the products. Legal bindings like warranty should be adhered to by the manufacturers. The legal framework stipulates that consumers of the products are entitled to quality products. There are standard regulatory bodies within a country that makes sure that any product sold to the citizens is scrutinized. In most cases, call centers are available to attend to the needs and complaints of the customers. These complaints are attended but if the customer feels unsatisfied, he /she proceeds to the court of law to solve the dispute. Countries should be aware of manufacturers and companies that don’t deliver what they promised. In this case, however there are two jurisdictions involved. The London court and that of republic H are involved in this case. London court must rule firmly against the company. Its citizen is being blackmailed. The court should give a firm ruling against this computer company. A breached of contract has taken place. In any case a contract is not adhered to; the party that feels unsatisfied has the right to complain to them directly or in a court of law. Contracts between the consumers and the republic H Company should be reviewed. The case is very serious and may lead to the public losing faith in the company. For that this matter, the manager of the computer company should be answerable to them. To avoid future disputes, the two states may embrace mutual understanding. The most important is the customer. The Lemon Inc. company has a duty tom make sure that laws and regulations governing costumer products and standardized (Murphy 2010). They should be according to the standards in London. The customer may have lost a lot while the computer spoilt. For example, if she had important documents. Files for sure are lost in the process and may hurt the customer. Lemon Company should not bring their products into the country. The world has been globalized and it is being run by the computers. For a country to keep up with the rapidly changing and developing technology, it needs machines of high standards. The company was trying to take the country back by intimidating efforts of the citizens to attend to their chores using the computers. It was very un-ethical for the support center to give misleading information that resulted in the computer spoiling. The staff at the call center should be questioned since they may be untrained or were too reluctant to guide the customer. This is a matter of blackmail and if not attended to, the court directs the necessary authority penalize the company. Question 4: FCPA corruption case Clients are to be represented equally without any discrimination in any court. This organ has been very instrumental in following corruption cases worldwide and it is a branch of the UN (Murphy 2010). In the recent past, many corruption cases have faced the world with most being in companies. Big fevers are being looked for as the desperate officials pocket huge lump sums of money. Once convicted, the accused face the dire consequences. An example is a case in India. The united states are accusing a member of parliament for receiving bribes from a company based in the United States. This paper presents the defense of the accused Member of Parliament and the employees of a foreign company in India. The case being presented may lack basis since it is being closely followed by a journalist. Therefore the privacy of this member is not respected. Going around and stocking on a respected member of the legislative house should not be encouraged at all costs. Investigations can only be done by the police or security agents. The government of India should have been notified before its citizen was being investigated (Henry 210). The evidence before the court may lack basis. It can rely on technology where doctoring can take place and desired evidence gotten. The witnesses are to be questioned thoroughly. If they give conflicting information then the case is null. The other issue concerns the conducts in the companies. May be there are members or officials who were interested in the position are trying to foil the name of the accused. Differences to occur in any company or organization that some may take a greater scale by framing their colleagues. In the first place the United States should look at the situation the company and the relations among its staff. Afterwards, they can proceed to India to carry out the investigations. United States ought not to respect the jurisdiction of India. This is a matter of intimidation on the Member of Parliament since India is a third world country and they have no voice when super nations like the United States do their investigations. Subjecting the clients to counts of frustration should be examined. The criminal records of the accused are also important in the defense (Henry 210). The accused may have no corruption records and this can be a major boost in the case. The records among the member of parliament India regarding corruption is also important. The Indian government can defend their citizens if his records are clean. The company employee’s corruption records will aid in the defense. A clean record depicts devoted employees (Loughman et al 2010). The assets of the accused are to be viewed. For a person who has taken bribes, the status of life will change. In this current world, assessing the assets of any person has become easier. They cannot hide their wealth. Two countries are involved here. The defense can count on the currency used while the transaction was taking place. It can argue that may be what was seen as a bribe was in a different currency and that it was for other businesses (Loughman et al 2010). References Murphy, A. G., 2010. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Practical Resource for Managers and Executives. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Loughman, B. P., Sibery, R. A. 2011. Bribery and Corruption: Navigating the Global Risks. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Schaffer, R., Filiberto, A., Earle, B., 2009. International Business Law and Its Environment. Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Bennett, S. C. essential concepts. New York City: ALM Publishing. Lew, D . M. L,. Mistelis.,L. A., Kroll, S. 2003. Comparative international commercial arbitration. Alphen aan den rijn: Kluwer Law International. Henry, P.C 2010. How Mainstream Consumers think about Consumer Rights and Responsibilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4). Pp. 670-687. Smits, J. M. 2009. Full Harmonization of Consumer Law? A Critique of the Draft Directive on Consumer Rights. European review of private law, 18(1). Pp. 5-14. Mercuri, R. 2003. Courtroom Considerations in Digital Image Forensics. New York City: Springer. Hatch, P. J 2013. American Foreign Policy Interests: The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, 35(2).pp. 4. Doi: 10.1080/10803920.2013.775908. Zines, L. 2008. The High Court and the Constitution . Annandale: Federation Press. Read More