EFFECTS ON FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

3.32 Foreign Sovereign Compulsion

• It is as a matter of course that, as a requirement for excuse for noncompliance, the foreign sovereign compulsion must have its stand on the statutes. If, however, this also requires to be back-upped with the imposition of penal or other severe sanctions, such requirement neglects, in effect, the policy enforcement system of other foreign countries. In the case where a private company follows the direction declared officially by the foreign government, it should be excused as being compelled by the foreign sovereign. At least, the requirement for excuse for noncompliance provided in 1988 Guidelines: "[when the person would be denied actual and substantive benefit]" should be included.

• The 1994 Guidelines should depict "the conduct which can be accomplished entirely within its own territory" more clearly, for example, by showing some examples. It should distinct the difference with the 1988 Guidelines which say "[this defense is not available when the entire or significant part of the compelled conduct was accomplished within the territory of the U.S.]"