Marketing Essay

532 WordsMar 5, 20153 Pages
International law is understood to be more than just good manners or mutual respect between or among sovereign nation-states. Comity, which is the practice between states of treating each other with goodwill and civility, is not law because states do not regard it as something they are required to respect. Case 1-1: Ignacio Sequihua v. Texaco Inc. et al. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 1994. Facts: Plaintiffs, Ecuador residents, filed suit in Texas over alleged environmental damage in Ecuador. Plaintiffs pray for money damages, an injunction to clean up, and a Court-administered trust fund. Defendants bring motions to dismiss. Issue: Should the court decline to exercise jurisdiction based on the doctrine of comity of nations? Holding: Yes. Law: Section 403(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States sets out numerous factors in deciding whether comity of nations deference should be applied. Explanation: The alleged activities and harm occurred in Ecuador; plaintiffs all reside in Ecuador; defendants are not Texas residents; the Republic of Ecuador has objected to the court’s jurisdiction and would probably not enforce any judgment it issued; and jurisdiction would interfere with Ecuador’s sovereign right to control its own environment. Order: The case is dismissed under the doctrine of comity of nations. If a business incorporated in one state operates a manufacturing facility in another state and violates the law of the other state, the other state will have the well-recognized power under customary international law to hear and decide a case against the foreign defendant. This is known as a state’s territorial basis for taking jurisdiction over a case involving foreign actors. If U.S. companies do certain acts in other states, they may still be held accountable in U.S. courts under

More about Marketing Essay

Open Document