Sample Business Studies Paper on US Government v. Huawei

Case Info

US Government v. Huawei

Case No.

PARTIES: (Plaintiffs)

U.S. Government


Huawei Technologies, Chief Financing Officer (CFO)


The U.S. Government accuses Huawei of breaching economic sanctions issued on Iran for its nuclear activities.

Huawei Technologies and its CFO, as the defendants, claim that the U.S. Government is accusing the former’s employee falsely.


It is claimed that the Chief Financing Officer (CFO) of Huawei breached the sanctions by misleading international banks into receiving payments from sales of Huawei products in Iran. According to the U.S. sanctions on Iran, various financial institutions should not engage in business transactions with Iran on specified products such as technology devices (Liu, et al. 138). However, lack of sufficient information has landed international banks into problems after breaching sanctions on Iran such as facilitating payments through their platforms.

According to the U.S., the international community is expected to oblige with sanctions placed on Iran for some reasons. The legal nature of Iran Sanctions are expected to reduce nuclear activities associated with the country’s government (Li 143). Moreover, it is claimed that Huawei Technologies is a scheme by the Chinese government to spy on countries in the Western world. This has prompted the government of Australia and Canada to re-evaluate the national security threat posed by Huawei’s 5G technologies.


Essentially, it is claimed that the U.S. is reacting in fear for the rise in China’s economy across the globe. Various legal practitioners are claiming that the U.S. – China Trade War is the main source of the conflict involving Huawei and the U.S. Government. The accused – CFO – is to be extradited to the U.S. from Canada (Wilson and Nicole 30). Huawei Technologies and the CFO want immediate release on its employee and ask the U.S. to provide proof for the legal implications that put the firm’s CFO under a house arrest.

The defendant claim that it has obliged with international sanctions placed on Iran by executing trade sanctions on proven standards by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Being a signatory of this body, it is expected that any sanctions placed on a given country in a bid to change its behavior should be adhered to by all WTO member states (Taplin 98). The defense fails to understand why Canada has arrested the CFO at the request of the U.S. government despite having complied with international standards of trade.


The Canadian court argues that it will detain the CFO, after issuing a house arrest court order, before extraditing her to the U.S. The Canadian court issued a $7.5 million bail after it was agreed that the new U.S. – China trade negotiations would consider her freedom as a means of improving the global economy (Li and Kee-Cheok 763). It is important to note that since the CFO was arrested in Canada for breaching international trade laws, her case expands beyond China, Canada and the U.S. This is to acknowledge that all members of WTO can implement a request by a different government if it affects global economic peace.


Iran sanctions threaten global peace in the sense that its nuclear activities could lead to mass deaths in case of a diplomatic confrontation. This gives the international community the need to react with economic sanctions on Iran to limit its financial strength of continuing with nuclear activity (Liu 13). As a result, the Canadian court has an international obligation to ensure that both national and international security is protected from manipulation by private institutions.

Works Cited

Li, Ji. “I Came, I Saw, I Adapted: An Empirical Study of Chinese Business Expansion in the             United States and Its Legal and Policy Implications.” Nw. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 36 (2016):            143.

Li, Ran, and Kee-Cheok Cheong. “Huawei and ZTE in Malaysia: The localisation of Chinese           transnational enterprises.” Journal of Contemporary Asia 47.5 (2017): 752-773.

Liu, Chang. “Ralls v. CFIUS: The Long Time Coming Judicial Protection of Foreign Investors’        Constitutional Rights Against Government and President’s National Security             Review.” Journal of International Business and Law 15.2 (2016): 13.

Liu, Heng, et al. “Huawei Case Study: Country-specific Factors Affecting New Product             Development.” International Operations Management. Routledge, 2016. 135-148.

Taplin, Ruth. “Cyber risk and managing risk in the United States.” Managing Cyber Risk in the       Financial Sector. Routledge, 2016. 93-111.

Wilson, Clay, and Nicole Drumhiller. “US-China Relations: Cyber Espionage and Cultural             Bias.” National Security and Counterintelligence in the Era of Cyber Espionage. IGI             Global, 2016. 28-46.