Question 1: Is International Law really law?
In a strict sense, international law cannot be considered to be really law. This is despite the fact that its customs and general principles have been known for centuries as being part of the law that is inherent to all human beings. There are a number of reasons as to why international law cannot be said to be law.
The fist reason as to why international law cannot meet the threshold to be termed as law per se is because of lack of an international legislative body to enact the international laws. Legislation plays a significant role in coming up with laws. In most countries and states, there are bodies such as the parliament and the senate to come up with laws. In the international scene, however, this is not the case. There is no constituted body mandated to come up with laws that should govern operations.
Apart from lack of a legislative body to enact the laws, there is no consistency when it comes to enforcement of court decisions in international matters. As a matter of fact, it would be a waste of time for a state to sue another in the international court, then expect that the judgment given will be respected by the losing state. One characteristic of law is that judgments are enforceable, failure to which an action can be brought forward. This, however, is not the case with international law. The last reason is as regards to absence of consent from certain states. Lack of international tribunal, for instance, makes it a less law. Although nations regard it as law, international law is not law at all.
Question 2: Concept of Globalization
In the recent past, there has been an increasing trend whereby pundits and politicians alike have argued against globalization and free trade. The big debate is as to whether importation and globalization can be classified as a friend or a foe to nations. According to Griswold, this should be considered a friend. Through importation, there is an increase in competition, meaning prices will shoot down. Other varieties attained by importation include achieving a great variety of goods and lower prices. As a result of this, the middle class families and the poor stand to benefit. Globalization is also driven by trade. As a result of this, natives get to secure well-paying jobs, forming the backbone of the current middle class in the country. There is need to consider the fact that US’ trade barriers are harmful and manipulative. In most cases, such barriers are introduced by individuals who wish to further their interest, especially the political and economical elites. Over time, foreign investment has created jobs that are well-paying. Global middle class has also expanded, as a result. Open global economy and trade have, over the last few decades, created democracies and more prosperous nations. As such, globalization can only be termed as a friend.
Question 3: Is WTO a victim of its past success?
It can be rightly argued that WTO is a victim of its past successes. By the time this type of trade was being launched, the circumstances were suited in a way that required cooperation of countries to ensure the effects of violence and another possible outbreak of war was contained. With this in mind, the principles that were forwarded continue being applied to the present moment, despite the fact that the conditions under which these principles were argued no longer apply
The federal anti-trust law has prohibited practices that are anti-competitive because of the belief that it will lead to lower prices. This has, in one way or the other, hindered development. Through its DSB, WTB is able to make decisions as regards to trade disputes that emerge. The fact that WTO has power through which it can enforce disputes also means that it is functional.
Question 4: FCPA
Violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has a number of consequences. A good example of this is that one will be prosecuted for going against the stipulations of the Act. There have been a number of instances where this has been the case since the Act was introduced. Although a majority of cases have never been successful, there have been attempts to give the Act more authority and validity to deal with those who go against it. A good example of this is considering how fines have been imposed against individuals and companies who go against its stipulations. Siemens is the perfect example for this. Apart from it, a global engineering firm (based in Houston) was found guilty for engaging in corrupt cases by bribing Nigerian officials in order to secure a tender for procurement and construction. With the matter being addressed, the company that engaged in such corrupt practices was instructed to pay hefty fines. This mean that any person or company that goes against the stipulations of FCPA will be prosecuted accordingly and face charges. As a matter of fact, it is also prudent to analyze some of the roles that FCPA plays, from which it derives its mandate. The fact that t is tasked to ensure accountability is achieved and to ensure bribery cases are not on the rise means that any company going against this will be punished. Penalties include paying hefty fines, or even the directors being jailed.
