To what extent can the United States of America protect and enforce its laws and economic interests?
At first glance, this question appears to be easy to reach, but when citing in it the summary of the potash monopoly we covered (which is one of the precipitated minerals or soil salts that are used to enrich the land and interfere in several industries, including glass) 1 by American companies
The law could only be enforced by individuals who are aware of their rights and the basic law in effect is Sherman's Law "which prohibits people from engaging or colluding to engage in any contracts, agreements or blocs to restrict freedom of trade and competition." 2 Then several laws are penalized to bridge the loopholes of this law, ending with a law (Foreign trade development and antitrust) 3
What made the defendants (the defense), who are major companies in that case, tell them themselves that this law does not apply to them, which really was their defense from the request to reject the complaint submitted to the district court in which they accuse these companies of monopolizing potash and manipulating the international prices of what is paid Impact on the American market, because this law is a federal law, and these companies are local, and the buyer is local American companies as well, that is, those affected by their actions, and therefore, the jurisdiction will be transferred to the federal courts, and at that time the direct impact theory is required, according to which these investors (companies) have not Direct acts contrary to the law or illegal actions come
Because it did not only do Kartal, which is an agreement to monopolize the potash commodity and control the price of global markets, but abroad (Brazilian, Chinese and Indian markets), which enables them to manipulate the price of potash that these companies make up and monopolize the reserves in foreign countries (Russia and Bella Russia) Russia Al-Bayda (and Canada), and then when buying international shares and monopolizing them, they will become the primary price monopolist in the American markets, and thus they have violated the federal law .. Indeed, the crime took place by obtaining large sums of money and huge gains not only abroad but also at home, which called for the company The American _ used or purchasing the potash directly or indirectly _ to file that complaint to the District Court (Illinois County), according to which it accepted the lawsuit and rejected the request submitted by the defense to reject the complaint, but because it is the court that is not competent under the federal law invoked and gave the Federal Trade Commission support to obtain the appeal As a friend of the court or the two parties in accordance with Roman law 4 she gave a recommendation or ruling that the appeals should take place and a summary of the arguments and arguments that were made before them.
And last but not least, that issue is the awareness of the citizen or the American investor in exchange for the foreign investor and his fear that his country will be affected by what he might do from violating the law. It is clear even if the American companies are the beneficiaries of the lack of monopoly in the market, as well as the stability of the price of the commodity, whether in demand. Or I said it, but you did not stand in a negative position after which you cast the effect of this increase on the rest of the markets, which in turn deliberately used the American individual and that the issue actually addressed it from dealing with terms such as the direct and current impact and the consequences of the harmful act and other arguments ... all there is that the law has Protect But if he does not find its applicator, the judiciary, individuals or public authorities, then what is the benefit of his existence this easy matter, but the most dangerous thing is how can we implement a law that will lead to the investor’s fear or will he escape his escape, what is true in that matter (that we apply a law that will protect the citizen What I consider as a researcher is the public good itself or that we abandon it in order to attract investment, which brings its fruits to the public good ?!) And what is the public good (is it the state or the individual or the state and the individual? !!) is a really thorny issue but all that matters is that An individual is the one who establishes the law for his need and cancels it also, because it is no longer suitable for the existing circumstances or hinders an order Is a useful sense of the law are reluctant to
Margins
1 / https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/10-1712/10-1712-2011-09-23 - an article in English on the case summary 2011-09-23.html
2 / Dr. Adham Ahmed Hashish d. Israa Ahmad Hashish, An American Law, Second Edition, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabia, 2018, p. 58
3 / The foreign trade antitrust improvements act (FTAIA)
4 / The friend of the court .. A person with the status of a counselor attending the hearings and interfering during the course of the case to clarify the legal issues that may confuse the judge amicus curiae
This article was pupplesh with old date as a first article in Arabic in this blog
