by Geoff Weed

Created on: April 15, 2008

The contemporary structure of international justice is, at best, a very hazy picture. Questions of jurisdiction, conflicting treaties, and differing interpretations of law are but a few of the extremely difficult questions involved in legality as it extends across borders from one nation to another. For instance, if a company based in one nation breaks the law in another one, then how should that company be held responsible? In terms of individuals, we know that the host nation would have jurisdiction. Companies, however, cannot be held over for prosecution the way that an individual can be. Corporations are not personal entities.

But, if companies cannot be held accountable in such a fashion, then how are they to be held accountable at all? If an American corporation causes terrible environmental damage abroad, how should they be made to pay for it? Should they be subject to a trial in a United States courtroom?

As tempting as it is to answer with a resounding "yes," the ethical principles involved in such a case are by no means straightforward. The idea of usurping jurisdiction in such a case does, for instance, seem to run contrary to established theories of jurisprudence. For instance, imagine the following scenario:

-A man from the state of Ohio crosses the border north into Michigan.
-The man, while in Michigan, commits several felony acts.
-The man then returns to Ohio without being apprehended.
-Later on, the man's crimes are discovered.

In such a case, American jurisprudence would state, without question, that the man should be extradited to Michigan in order to be tried for his crimes in the place he committed them. Almost all contemporary, Westernized theories of legality work in this same fashion, whether an individual is involved or a corporation.

Why? Well, to begin with, the idea of being prosecuted in a different place than that where you stand accused is a fairly revolutionary idea. It also doesn't seem to be a completely fair one. If I am accused of a crime in Mozambique, for instance, then why should I have to stand trial in Britain? In the same vein, if a company is accused of committing a crime in one country, then why should it have to defend itself elsewhere?

That being said, though, there does need to be some sort of a punishment system available to dissuade corporations from committing criminal acts in foreign lands, and many times the countries who are being victimized are wholly unable to defend themselves through any recognized legal channels.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>