Incorporated under Venezuelan law, a subsidiary of U.S.-based Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company supplied oil-drilling rigs to entities that were part of the government of Venezuela. The government fell behind in payment on contracts for the use of the rigs. When the overdue amounts topped $100 million, the government nationalized the rigs and took possession. Helmerich filed a suit in a U.S. federal district court against Venezuela, claiming expropriation of property in violation of international law. Helmerich asserted that the U.S. court had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). [Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1312, 197 L.Ed.2d 663 (2017)] (See International Law.) 

(a) Venezuela argued that the FSIA did not apply because Helmerich did not have rights in the rigs, which were the subsidiary’s property. Does that fact make Helmerich’s claim frivolous and unethical? Explain.

(b) Using the IDDR approach, determine whether a company is ethically obligated to become familiar with the political situation before doing business in another country.