cariaso (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} cariaso) wrote,@ 2005-05-01 11:01:00 |
|
hoooray for lawyers and insurance companies!
If you just want to know about the pool party skip down to 'POOL PARTY'
Unocal has been one of the most high profile US companies to have an investment in Burma. They've done it somewhat indirectly, to avoid official US sanctions, but there has been a long running lawsuit suing them for their involvment in a mini-genocide.
Unocal just settled the case. Which is effectively an admission of guilt. Thats good. What's better is that Unocal felt the settlement should have been covered by their insurance, but the insurance company refused to pay.
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=200505
While these two battle it out, the actual outcome will benefit human rights in either case. Up until now, there has been no price on human rights. You can say that there could be no price high enough, but up until now the lack of one has meant that infinity was the same as zero. There was no reason for a company to care about human rights, becuase it cost nothing, and was of no cost or benfit to share holders.
The ideal outcome would be for the courts to decide that the insurance company must pay. That would mean that insurance companies would have to go into the buisness of doing do diligence to determine if a company is endangering human rights. And if so, how much. The insurance company will put a price tag on it, and raise the company's preimums accordingly. Companies that are flagrantly violating human rights will be uninsurable. And those that doing it only little will have to pay through the nose to do so. Because the settlements are likely to be so high, it will stop being cost effective to violate human rights. This in turn means that doing business in burma is just too expensive. And this will pull companies out of this and other regions. The domino effect on this one is tremendous.
If you just want to know about the pool party skip down to 'POOL PARTY'
Unocal has been one of the most high profile US companies to have an investment in Burma. They've done it somewhat indirectly, to avoid official US sanctions, but there has been a long running lawsuit suing them for their involvment in a mini-genocide.
Unocal just settled the case. Which is effectively an admission of guilt. Thats good. What's better is that Unocal felt the settlement should have been covered by their insurance, but the insurance company refused to pay.
http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=200505
While these two battle it out, the actual outcome will benefit human rights in either case. Up until now, there has been no price on human rights. You can say that there could be no price high enough, but up until now the lack of one has meant that infinity was the same as zero. There was no reason for a company to care about human rights, becuase it cost nothing, and was of no cost or benfit to share holders.
The ideal outcome would be for the courts to decide that the insurance company must pay. That would mean that insurance companies would have to go into the buisness of doing do diligence to determine if a company is endangering human rights. And if so, how much. The insurance company will put a price tag on it, and raise the company's preimums accordingly. Companies that are flagrantly violating human rights will be uninsurable. And those that doing it only little will have to pay through the nose to do so. Because the settlements are likely to be so high, it will stop being cost effective to violate human rights. This in turn means that doing business in burma is just too expensive. And this will pull companies out of this and other regions. The domino effect on this one is tremendous.
