March 15th
This week we had a reading, Territory, from the book Corporate Sovereignty.
Like many of our readings, it's heavily veiled in necessarily academic and legalistic terminology, however
to professionally unveil the tentacles of international networks that manipulates nation states, citizens,
and workers as mere calculatable assets of corporations, of whom most would agree represents crimes
of international capitalism.
It's best said in this chapter "The deference of U.S. courts to other sovereigns, enabled corporations
working transnationally to avoid regulation." - And this should also be understood as what's later
explained as the "legal autonomy" corporations carve out in the negative space of the international
state system.
Of course however, we should also know these semantics of phrases, words, and ultimately legal and
economic thought here, regarding things like legal autonomy, or deference, really means corporations
can commit acts unaccountable to any nation, because they exercise questionable, self-serving liberal
expressions of capital power.
By itself, it may seem judicially deferential treatment on an international scale is the issue. When it
comes to trials for commerce and trade, this chapter, in history, highlights case precedents that shed a
light on the elusive tricks of jurisdictional arbitrage, the practice of taking advantage of differences
between national and international jurisdictions.
The practice of comparing and taking advantage of differences is hardly anything new to human society;
in trade, relationships, politicians, knowledge, consumerism, and so forth. Taking advantages of
differences in most cases allows for society and people to gain what they normally wouldn't in a more
restricted case. Yet these cases found in this chapter illustrate the timeline and legal precedent which
trace the malfeasance or corruption of this positive opportunity.
The opportunity found in the underlying facilitation or promotion of capitalism can be found in common
law precedent of comity, as well foundational liberalism from the 19th and 20 th century professed by
lawmakers.
Beginning with the 1839 case of Bank of Augusta versus Earle, is the founding doctrine of comity which
would be cited later in history. Justice Taney presiding over this case declared
"contracts...in a foreign country" have always been executed and expounded by Courts of justice
"according to the laws of the place in which they were made, provided that law was not repugnant to
the laws or policy of their own country"
He ultimately ruled "adopting as we do, the principle here stated, we proceed to inquire whether, by the
comity of nations, foreign corporations are permitted to make contracts within their jurisdiction (in
where they're allocated to in the deference one sovereign shows another)
And so Taney further states
This week we had a reading, Territory, from the book Corporate Sovereignty.
Like many of our readings, it's heavily veiled in necessarily academic and legalistic terminology, however
to professionally unveil the tentacles of international networks that manipulates nation states, citizens,
and workers as mere calculatable assets of corporations, of whom most would agree represents crimes
of international capitalism.
It's best said in this chapter "The deference of U.S. courts to other sovereigns, enabled corporations
working transnationally to avoid regulation." - And this should also be understood as what's later
explained as the "legal autonomy" corporations carve out in the negative space of the international
state system.
Of course however, we should also know these semantics of phrases, words, and ultimately legal and
economic thought here, regarding things like legal autonomy, or deference, really means corporations
can commit acts unaccountable to any nation, because they exercise questionable, self-serving liberal
expressions of capital power.
By itself, it may seem judicially deferential treatment on an international scale is the issue. When it
comes to trials for commerce and trade, this chapter, in history, highlights case precedents that shed a
light on the elusive tricks of jurisdictional arbitrage, the practice of taking advantage of differences
between national and international jurisdictions.
The practice of comparing and taking advantage of differences is hardly anything new to human society;
in trade, relationships, politicians, knowledge, consumerism, and so forth. Taking advantages of
differences in most cases allows for society and people to gain what they normally wouldn't in a more
restricted case. Yet these cases found in this chapter illustrate the timeline and legal precedent which
trace the malfeasance or corruption of this positive opportunity.
The opportunity found in the underlying facilitation or promotion of capitalism can be found in common
law precedent of comity, as well foundational liberalism from the 19th and 20 th century professed by
lawmakers.
Beginning with the 1839 case of Bank of Augusta versus Earle, is the founding doctrine of comity which
would be cited later in history. Justice Taney presiding over this case declared
"contracts...in a foreign country" have always been executed and expounded by Courts of justice
"according to the laws of the place in which they were made, provided that law was not repugnant to
the laws or policy of their own country"
He ultimately ruled "adopting as we do, the principle here stated, we proceed to inquire whether, by the
comity of nations, foreign corporations are permitted to make contracts within their jurisdiction (in
where they're allocated to in the deference one sovereign shows another)
And so Taney further states
