In the modern era of our world, most developed countries take a high ground when it comes to international dispute matters because they have the economic and political strength as compared to other underdeveloped and developing countries. Third world countries always face a disadvantage when they are up against developed countries. The government is strong, economy is huge and most importantly the legal system that shape the way countries treat other countries. In case of disputes, between a developed country and a third world country, the latter gets the lower ground (Bryson 2018). But if we look at what is justified, we can consider that a third world should get the higher ground as they lack the power to fight for such dispute in the international court.
The International Court of Justice, as the essential legal organ of the United Nations, is the main genuinely general legal body. It is available to all States of the worldwide network. It appreciates a complete topic locale grasping all parts of open global law, yet its compelling purview stays consensual and obliged. The ICJ is frequently thought of as the essential means for the goals of debate among States, and in truth the Court is very much perceived for its critical commitment to the improvement of universal law. Be that as it may, the Court has not worked at full limit. Just four or five cases are alluded to the Court for legal settlement consistently (Tikhomirov and Frenkel 2017).
From the given facts, it can be perceived that, the US Company was given a judgement in their favour by the international court that disrupted the company of third world country. As discussed earlier, that, third world countries usually stand at low ground and suffers for any decision that is given against them and this causes grave injustice towards the company of third world country. In the present case, the third world country company was supposed to pay $ 1 billion, this is considered as a huge blow for the poor company thus the payment of such amount was put on hold and the US Company for their wrongdoings should pay $150 million to the poor company (Lanicci et al. 2017).
Now, for a developed country it is nothing if they want to pay this amount for settling a dispute and most importantly. As the facts suggest, the rich company (US company) can choose to pay the amount not in monetary terms rather give the poor company (third world country’s company) some technological things that will help the poor company and give an edge of development (Dredge and Jamal 2015). For example, a poor company in a third world country does not usually have advance technology as compared to a country like USA, so, if they get some technology related to business or IT rather than monetary compensation it will prove to be a boon as they won’t be able to develop such technology even with such monetary compensation.
Now, lets come to the underlying issue of how this dispute can be settled. In the facts itself, there are some ways given using which such a dispute can be settled. There are some considerations that might help in finding the solution and settle the dispute in such a way that neither of the company is harmed at most, means, the object is to provide a settlement that will balance out the liability between two parties, in other words, neither of them gets the high ground (Malekpour et al. 2015). Most of the courts wants parties to settle the disputes using alternate dispute resolving methods and mutually so that courts have minimal interference in settling the dispute.
Dispute settlement between companies should not be interfered by the courts unless the parties themselves choose to do so because, it will waste the court’s valuable time which can be utilised in solving other civil or criminal matters. Companies are about money and marketing which implies that monetary terms are the best supportive way to settle disputes mutually that will have reduced cost because it won’t include litigation cost and sometimes its seen that courts order costs more than what it would have been if mutual settle was done outside court. As given under art 33 of United Nation charter, there are some prescribed ways of settling disputes: Negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, enquiry and lastly judicial settlement (Wolf and Floyd 2017).
In case of a dispute between two companies of different nations, it is obvious that legal system come into play but it has to be considered that the political scenario of those countries has grave effect on the outcome of the dispute. The most important job of International court in such dispute is the issue of political versus legal question (Sýkora 2017). A few perspectives refinement among legal and political question, all relies upon the desire of the state’s gatherings to a debate.
On the off chance that states gatherings to a debate show an ability to submit it to a pre-comprised universal court and a status to maintain the choice of the picked discussion, the question being referred to is, ipso facto, appropriate for legal settlement, regardless of whether portrayed by some as "political" or by others as "legal". It is additionally an axiom that each debate without a doubt includes, or might be broke down as far as some legal issues. Barely any legal settlements are, actually, without political results (Dhillon et al. 2018).
In reality, courts have nothing to do with political influences and not in their jurisdiction. The international court might settle the dispute if parties approach but it still has some problem and has to evolve itself in becoming an effective institution of settling dispute. In the present scenario, where the dispute has to be settled mutually with the government officials of the third world country, alternative method has to be considered. As seems fit, negotiation and conciliation will be best two methods so that a balanced settlement is achieved.
US government is rich and is keen in developing good relationship with other countries with whom it has trade contracts. US is such a country which knows how to do effective business because of the presence of able people and of course their huge growing economy and wealth. Now, the considerations that are decided in the facts are:
- Paying the amount of $150 million to the company of third world country
- Provide the poor company some technology rather the monetary compensation
- Provide technology training to their military academy students
- Form a relationship with the officials and appoint some of them in US company
From discussion part of this report, we can understand that, the company from the third world country had the low ground and the object of the settlement is not to give the higher ground to either of the companies in question. Paying them, the amount of $150 million will of course be a boon for the poor company but a technology that they might not be able to develop will give them a better position (Malekpour et al. 2017).
Another way to settle is to provide the military academy some training about technology as US has very high technical military and they can effectively train military of other nations, here a third world country who usually has very low budget military count. And lastly, after forming good relationship with the government officials of the third world country, it will be better if some of them gets appointed in the US company as that will significantly help the US company have some compensation towards them too because after all the object is to balance out the settlement (Oliveira 2015).
There are some rules that has to followed while engaging with foreign officials:
- The first rule is application has to be signed either by the specialist of the party submitting it, or by the conciliatory agent of that gathering in the nation in which the Court has its seat, or by some other properly approved individual. In the event that the application bears the mark of somebody other than such political agent, the mark must be validated by the last mentioned or by the equipped expert of the candidate's outside service (Gavriilidis and Metaxas 2017).
- The Registrar shall forthwith transmit to the respondent a certified copy of the application
- At the point when the candidate State proposes to establish the purview of the Court upon an agreement thereto yet to be given or showed by the State against which such application is made, the application will be transmitted to that State. It will not anyway be entered in the General List, nor any move be made in the procedures, except if and until the State against which such application is made agrees to the Court's locale for the motivations behind the case (Kemp 2018).
Thus, to conclude it can be suggested that, US Company should provide the company of third world country with some technology and training so that it covers the monetary compensation. That the poor company does not feel that injustice has been done to them by the International court of justice and appoint some officials to the US Company that will be good for both the companies. In addition, this can only be done if the official of US Company negotiates it properly.
Bryson, J.M., 2018. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.
Dhillon, G., Torkzadeh, G. and Chang, J., 2018, June. Strategic Planning for IS Security: Designing Objectives. In International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (pp. 285-299). Springer, Cham.
Dredge, D. and Jamal, T., 2015. Progress in tourism planning and policy: A post-structural perspective on knowledge production. Tourism Management, 51, pp.285-297.
Gavriilidis, G. and Metaxas, T., 2017. Strategic planning and city/regional development: Review, analysis, critique and applications for Greece.
Kemp, R.L., 2018. Strategic Planning in Local Government. Routledge.
Lanicci, J.M., Ramsay, J.D. and Murray, E.H., 2017. Re-conceptualizing environmental security as resilience: Strategic planning for human and national security. Journal of Human Security and Resilience, 1, pp.1-37.
Malekpour, S., Brown, R.R. and de Haan, F.J., 2015. Strategic planning of urban infrastructure for environmental sustainability: Understanding the past to intervene for the future. Cities, 46, pp.67-75.
Malekpour, S., Brown, R.R., de Haan, F.J. and Wong, T.H., 2017. Preparing for Disruptions: A diagnostic strategic planning intervention for sustainable development. Cities, 63, pp.58-69.
Oliveira, E.H.D.S., 2015. Place branding in strategic spatial planning: A content analysis of development plans, strategic initiatives and policy documents for Portugal 2014-2020. Journal of Place Management and Development, 8(1), pp.23-50.
Sýkora, L., 2017. Urban development, policy and planning in the Czech Republic and Prague. In Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the New EU Member States (pp. 127-154). Routledge.
Tikhomirov, B.I. and Frenkel, A.A., 2017. On Unified Socio-Economic Policy and Strategic Planning. Economic Policy, 4, pp.82-117.
Wolf, C. and Floyd, S.W., 2017. Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), pp.1754-1788.