Comments on: Lawsuit: Yahoo should break Chinese law

By: Melvin

Melvin — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:40:15 +0000

Seems to me another case of “Catch-22” legalism; do what is legal in one country, get “busted” or sued in another. (Similar to companies who get sued under, say, the Americans with Disabilities Act because of the fact that the company is following federal rules/laws which seem to contradict the ADA.) Seems like this kind of lawsuit should be thrown out as frivilous; when a person or company does something legal in one country, it shouldn’t be sued in another.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:52:25 +0000

There’s a fundamental hypocrisy here that’s very difficult to fix.

We all basically agree that “I was following orders” is not a defense. You can’t justify any action on the grounds that a corrupt government authorized it and it was entirely inside the boundaries of territory controlled by that government.

However, we put people in jail for following their conscience when it conflicts with the laws of our own country.

For example, consider a reported ordered by a court to give up her source’s identity. She may know that this subjects her source to imprisonment. She may believe that this imprisonment (say, for a victimless ctime) would be as unjust as imprisoning a dissident.

We don’t permit her to act on her conscience. We require her to follow the law.

So where do you, in principle, draw the line? And by whose principles do you do it?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:00:10 +0000

Your anology does not hold. I can agree that caterpiller can not be responsible for a piece of equipment that it sold being used by another entity, but in the Yahoo case it is an employee of the company doing the damage. The anology would be more like if an employee of caterpiller was driving the bulldozer that ran over the girl that died.

What if chinese law stated that the employee of Yahoo had to take part in the execution style killing of dissidents found to be using the Yahoo service. If Yahoo still chose to do business in china with that law in effect, and such a killing took place, would that still absolve the company of wrongdoing by it’s employees?

By: Benjamin Cooper

Benjamin Cooper — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:25:51 +0000

The question really boils down to whether the “international” standards of conduct regarding torture and other inhumane treatment are so well-accepted by U.S. law that any entity in the United States that provides support to a country that violates those standards is, in essence, violating U.S. common law.

It’s sort of a common law “crime against humanity” tort.

Now, I can understand the policy reasons against allowing Bolivians to get revenge against their own government in U.S. courts, but a United States corporation may have to accept that doing business with China opens it up to liability for violations of what the U.S. (or the European courts) deem violations of the international consensus on human rights.

I’d rather Congress actually sorted this out, but I am very sympathetic to the plaintiffs in this one – I would rather that U.S. companies be dissuaded from business in China than supporting basically unconscionable violations of human rights. I think the Rachel Corrie case is distinguishable as there were all sorts of factual disputes as to who bought the bulldozer, the knowledge of Caterpillar as to the intent of the Israeli government in buying the bulldozer, and U.S. State Department immunity which are not implicated here.

By: Horatio

Horatio — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:59:09 +0000

Of course one can argue this – all sorts of stuff is argued in courts all the time. And courts can rule on this – they rule on nonsense every day. But as Andrew Jackson once opined – “[Chief Justice] Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let Mr. Marshall enforce his decision.”

States – and the US – tax income earned by residents and companies from foreign sources, and hold them up for criminal penalties if they refuse to pay for whatever reason. The same could be done in this case. Of course chaos would ensue…

You are correct – this is a policy decision, although courts have a hard time keeping out of policy decisions.

By: Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:10:53 +0000

……..and the lawyers get paid.