Book · January 012 citation reads 15,521 2

Treatment and Rights of Aliens. Countries have the legal right to refuse admission of foreign citizens and to impose special restrictions on their conduct, right of travel, where they can stay, and what business they may conduct. Nations also can deport aliens.
Forum for Hearing and Settling Disputes. This is a principle of U.S. justice as it apllies to international law. At their discretion, U.S. courts can dismiss cases
brought before them by foreigners; however, they are bound to examine issues such as where the plaintiffs are located, where the evidence must be gathered, and where property to be used in restitution is located.

2. Laws Directly Affecting International Business Transactions

Other national laws are explicitly designed to regulate international business activities. Such laws are often politically motivated and designed to promote the country´s foreign policy or military objectives. A country may attempt to induce a second country to change an undesirable policy by imposing sanctions - restraints against commerce with that country. Sanctions may take many forms, such as:

• 
  restricting access to high technology goods,
  
• 
  withdrawing prefeerential tariff treatment,
  
• 
  boycotting the country´s goods,
  
• 
  denying new loans.
  

An embargo - a comprehensive sanction against all commerce with a given country - may be imposed by countries acting in unison or alone. For example, the United Nations embargoed all trade with Iraq´s 1990 invasion in Kuwait. Most countries embargoed goods to or from South Africa during the 1980s to protest its apartheid policy.
A particilarly important form of sanction is export controls on high technology goods. Many technologically advanced countries control the export of so-called dual use products that may be used for both civilian and military purposes. Countries may also attempt to regulate business activities that are conducted outside their borders, a practice known as extraterritoriality. For example, firms are vulnerable to U.S. antitrust law suit if they engage in activities outside the United States that dimish competition in the U.S. market. In one such case, the United States successfully sued Pilkington PLC, the British owner of the most important parents for producing flat glass, for limiting the ability of its U.S. licenses to use the technology in international markets. U.S. authorities claimed that Pilkington´s

40

policies hurt U.S. exports and reduced the incentive of U.S. flat glass producers to

invest in research and development, thereby lessening competition.

3. Laws Directed against Foreign Firms

On other occassions countries may pass laws that are explicitly directed against foreign-owned firms. Ownership issues are a particular area of concern. In most countries there is ongoing debate between the political left and right regarding the appropriate balance between governmental control of the economy and reliance on market forces to allocate resources. Often, when leftist governments obtain power, they choose to transfer the ownership or resources from the private to the public sector, a process known as nationalization. Much vulnerable to such a crude oil

production and mining, and capital – intensive industries such as steel, chemicals, and oil refining. When the host goverment compensates the private owners for their losses, the transfer is called expropriation. When the host goverments offers no compensation, the transfer is called confiscation. Most governments, including that of the United States, recognize the right of other national governments to mandate the transfer of private property within their borders to the public sector, although non host governments do expect that foreign owners will receive suitable
compensation for their lost property. For example, many Arab oil–producing ₄₁
countries nationalized the properties of Western firms a combination of firms 1973.
These countries, however, offered the Western firms a combination of compensation, continuing operating agreements, and future drilling rights that the firms found acceptable. Conversely, a key element in the U.S. conflict with Cuba is Cuba´s lack of compensation for assets seized from U.S. firms.