Imagine that you have been hired as an arbitrator in a legal dispute between the


Imagine that you have been hired as an arbitrator in a legal
dispute between the government of Tanzania, a U.S.-based petroleum company, and
an environmental advocacy organization (e.g., Greenpeace, Earth System
Governance Project, United Nations Environment Programme, and so on). At
dispute is the financial and moral obligation of the petroleum company to
terminate coastal oil exploration that is polluting the local fishing waters in
the Indian Ocean. The Tanzanian government benefits financially from the
exploration, with the promise of great riches if vast oil reserves are
discovered. As a poor, third-world country, Tanzania desperately needs such
revenues to provide basic subsistence (e.g., food, medicine, shelter) to its citizens.
Legally, the petroleum company has broken no domestic or international laws;
the environmental advocacy group, however, has made legal claims to the
contrary, suggesting that the petroleum company, at the least, has violated
international law by risking the economic livelihoods of local fishermen in
Tanzania and in the neighboring countries of Kenya, Somalia, and Mozambique.
The group further claims that the petroleum company has violated the basic
principles of Earth stewardship by delaying humanity’s
movement away from dependence on fossil fuels.
Write an essay that responds to the following:
Briefly outline both the valid and
questionable positions of each party, and suggest ways that each party
might find common ground in a mutually acceptable resolution to this
dispute.


Leave a Reply