Research questions and methodological approaches

¶ … American companies refuse to do business in countries

• a. That do not practice democracy?

• b. That routinely practice discrimination?

• c. That tolerate or even encourage the abuse of children? Explain.

Ultimately, a company can do whatever it wishes and to many companies, profit exceeds all else.

However, the United Nations' Global Compact does ask companies to incorporate

Principles concerning human rights,

labor rights, environment protection, and anti-corruption and this includes even indirectly seeming to support countries that violate basic human rights.

Conducting business with a country that does any of the above is not only indirectly helping that country economically grow but also seems to be sending a message of support that country.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) calls on 'every individual and every organ of society' to strive to promote and respect the rights and freedoms it contains and to secure their effective recognition and observance (The Global Compact Leaders' Summit). By a company doing business with a certain state, they almost invariably have to abide by many of the laws of that state too, so, for instance, a company conducting business with a certain Middle Eastern Islamic state may be prohibited to employ women. That company, itself, therefore, will be compelled to show unwilling complicity in the country's policies.

Every company has a sphere of influence that revolves around its political, contractual, economic or geographic proximity. The larger the company, the larger its sphere of influence. Furthermore, the more strategically dominant the company, the more likely it may have to exert an influence on the surrounding environment. On the other hand, too, it may be more likely susceptible to the influence of the surrounding environment being that it wishes to retain its success. The company and country are, therefore, mutually dependent on one another.

In short, whether or not American companies should refuse to do business with countries that violate human rights is a case-per-case instance. The Global Compact Leaders' Summit recommends that companies, given their dependency on the specific country should refuse to do so. On the other hand, the company may also have direct and close connections with the alien government, or with armed groups that control of that particular country. Through the advocacy and lobbying activities therefore it may have a positive impact on that country and be able to be a positive impetus of change.

Ultimately: "companies are expected to strive to protect and respect human rights in all of their operations" (The Global Compact Leaders' Summit, p19). Sometimes, against their will, companies may be complicit in policies that violate the above. In this case, "companies can be legally considered state actors under certain circumstances." (p.20)

In cases where violations are serious, companies may carry public blame and may be legally held accountable for their complicity. Other cases, as mentioned above, should be considered on a case-per-case instance. (The Global Compact Leaders' Summit)

2.On July 5, 1884, four sailors were cast away from their ship in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. Their lifeboat contained neither water nor much food. On the 20th day of their ordeal, Dudley and Stevens, without the assistance or agreement of Brooks, cut the throat of the fourth sailor, a 17- or 18-year-old boy. They had not eaten since day 12. Water had been available only occasionally. At the time of the death, the men were probably about 1,000 miles from land. Prior to his death, the boy was lying helplessly in the bottom of the boat. The three surviving sailors ate the boy's remains for four days, at which point they were rescued by a passing boat. They were in a seriously weakened condition.

• a. Were Dudley and Stevens guilty of murder? Explain.

Any person who eats the flesh of another, even to preserve his own life, is guilty of murder. This is particularly so since the boy was never consulted not in whether he should be finished off nor whether benefit should be made of his flesh.

Murder can only be committed in a situation of self-defense, but here the boy, Parker, neither took their food from them nor was attempting to kill them.

The plaintiffs argued that there was a necessity to preserve one's life, but sometimes there is a necessity to sacrifice it for a selfless and admirable cause. Close to that come the questions of:

Who is to be the judge of this sort of necessity? By what measure is the comparative value of lives to be measured? Is it to be strength, or intellect, or what?