The Slobovian Confederation's five producers control 95 percent of the world's supply of "goom," the key ingredient in the

production of goomey bears. To maximize the Slobovian standard of living, the government passed a law creating a cartel among the five producers and forbidding access to Slobovian goom by any other entity. The price of goomey bears skyrocketed in the United States. Giggles Consolidated, a U.S.candy manufacturer, attempted to purchase a goom mine in Slobovia but was rejected by the cartel. As a result, Giggles brought an antitrust action against the cartel members in federai district court. Does U.S. law apply? If the U.S. court finds for Giggles, how can U.S. courts enforce such a judgment?

Yes, US court can apply because of the negative impact of the cartel into its own boundaries. After the Alcoa case, every judgment where the effect test, and its subsequent improvement, can be demonstrated the Us's jurisdiction can be extended. As recorded in literature, in addition to the socalled nationality principle, international law recognizes the protective principle, which permits states to punish a limited class of offenses committed outside its territory by persons who are not its nationalsoffenses directed against the security of the state and the market. The most important accommodation between strict territoriality and the reality that a state can be threatened by external conduct is the precept that the territorial principle can be applied objectively. The objective territorial principle (also known as the effects principle) recognizes that a prohibition of effects is usually indivisible from regulation of causes. Under this principle, a state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct commenced outside its territory when the act or effect of the act is physically completed inside its territory.

There are only few cases in which cartels are not forbidden in Usa's law. Practices prohibited under Article 101(1) can be exempted if four cumulative conditions are satisfied: 1. the agreement must contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress; 2. a fair share of the resulting benefit has to be reserved to consumers; 3. the restrictions must be indispensable to the attainment of these objectives; 4. the agreement must not give to the undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question. 5. To enforce the judgment the Court must rely upon the objective territorial principle and demonstrate that no cumulative conditions are satisfied in this case. The court must focus on the negative effects that the cartel produces in the market (The price of goomey bears skyrocketed) and appeal to the Sherman Act (1): Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. And 2

Article 102 (ex Article 82 TEC) Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. 2. In the case in Question 1, if a U.S. court sought to enforce U.S. laws on Slobovia's leading export, how would U.S.-Slobovian relations be affected? What if a key U.S. naval base was located in Slobovia? How well equipped are courts to conduct such relations?

The State where the Slobovia's confederation is located can react by using blocking legislation tool as an independent statute. Using this tool the State can block the discovery of documents located in its countries and bar the enforcement of foreign judgments into its own boundaries. In addition, the State can put into its blocking legislation statute a provision in a law or contract that limits or reverses a payment or distribution for specified reasons (clawback). Both the U.S. system of litigation and the U.S. pro-competition policies are inconsistent with the systems and policies in other nations.