1. Examine the difference between the traditional law of state responsibility and international human rights law.
2. Analysis and differentiate between public act and the act of public officials by employing the act of state rule.
1. In this particular context, the assessment and analysis is conducted on the traditional law of state responsibility and international human rights law, and find out the differences between the traditional laws of state responsibility and international human rights law (Allott, 2002). Here, in this study a clear comparison is observed about the scope and nature of law between state responsibility and international human rights law with the help of the given case study. Here in the given case it is observed that when in 1979, the Nicaragua government of General Anastasio Somoza obliterated by the Sandinista revolutionaries, as normally happened the members of old government were compelled to escape from their respective country so that they can avoid the justice of the revolutionaries. However, initially the defeated aristocracies emigrated to London and Paris at the end they got shelter at Miami. One of the emigrants from Nicaragua was Mrs. Josefine Navarro de Sanchez. Mrs. Sanchez was wife of minister of defence of former government, lodge a case in a United State court against the Banco Central, the central bank of Nicaragua as a cheque of $1500, 000, which was issued to her by the said bank just before the fall of former Government cannot be en-cashed in the session of new government (Fox, 2008). She lodged the suit for passing an order to honour the cheque. However, the court verdict was different; instead of giving an order to honour the cheque, the court dismissed the suit. Then Mrs. Sanchez appealed, the basic issue of that appeal was that a citizen of a nation could lodge case against the organizations of the citizen’s own nation for cheating or charge the organization for contractual violation in the court of different nation. However, traditional international law deals with the sovereign state not between the states and individuals (Loveland, 2012). According to the law if citizen of a country, is harmed by the citizen or organization of another country then international law can be applied. However, where the petitioner and the con are from the same country, the international law cannot help. Owing to this, recently several amendments are implemented in international law, inspired by the international human rights.
2. There is a huge difference between the public act and the act of public officials’ state rule and a critical analysis is considered in this particular study and the proper evaluation is also done as per the given case study. The analysis is carry out on public act and the act of public officials and find out the differences between the public act and the act of public officials by using the act of state doctrine. In the specified case study, it is observed that the company W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co., administrated by Harry Carpenter, gave 20% commission to the officials of Nigerian Government (RaicÌŒ, 2002). The commission had given via a Nigerian citizen Tundu Akindele and his companies for a contract of construction an aero medical centre and for supplying the related equipments to the medical centre at Kaduna, which is an Air Force Base in Nigeria. Another bidder, who participated in the bid but not succeed was Environmental Tectonics Co. Somehow the Environmental Tectonics Co., learnt that W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co., gave commission to the officials for accomplish the contract, they brought the matter to the Nigerian Air Force and United State Embassy in Lagos. After subsequent investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorney of New Jersey file a case against Mr. Carpenter and the company W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. The charge was violation of foreign corrupt practice and charge was implemented by the act of Foreign Corrupt Practice Act of 1977 (Shaw, 2003). The court found both Mr. Carpenter and his company guilty. Then the respondent carried this case in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey against Carpenter, Akindele and the company W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co., demanding compensation under act of the Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organization Act., the Robinson- Patman Act., New Jersey Anti-racketeering Act. The perpetrators tried to discharge the complaint under the Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis of the argument that the action was debarred the act of state doctrine (Smith, 2011). Surprisingly the court verdict for the perpetrators instead of the respondent as the respondent could not proof the perpetrators guilty. In this process, the perpetrators released however they committed corruptions.
Allott, P. (2002). The health of nations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, H. (2008). The law of state immunity. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press.
Loveland, I. (2012). Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
RaicÌŒ, D. (2002). Statehood and the law of self-determination. Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Shaw, M. (2003). International law. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. (2011). Textbook on International Human Rights. Oxford: OUP Oxford.