Case Study 1 Management

In this case, there are several players that are important: the United Sates, where the ports belong, Dubai, that owns DP World, the company that actually want to buy US ports, and the United Arab Emirates that want share or in other words create a joint venture with DP World’s company. These countries have different ethnic and religious organizations; their politics are dissimilar. Indeed, terrorism is one of the political factors played in the US in the reversal of the ports deal. Terrorism is defined by Helen Deresky as a concept that poses a severe or random political risk to company personnel and asset and can interrupt the conduct of business, according to the management book. In the case, the US government does not want the deal between DP World and the United Arab Emirates and them to happen because since 9/11 the United States government has put in place a rigorous security and fear any threat of terrorism; thus, if ports happened to be owned by non American companies, and even more by Arabic government (which they fear the most) they will worry about macropolitical risk event. (Defined in the book as an event that affects all foreign firms doing business in a country or region). Moreover, since Dubai have been “the point starting of illicit nuclear components in the 90’s”, and since Dubai government belongs to the Federal of United Arab Emirates, the United States have been concerned that an illicit network will start again between both countries. On the other hand, Dubai works under an Islamic law; which is “based on religious beliefs, it dominates all aspects of life. Islamic law is followed in approximately 27 countries and combines, in varying degrees civil, common and indigenous law” (International Management, Helen Deresky), while the United States only operates under a common law. This could in fact pose an issue in managing the ports deal.