However, no claims were made against the United States for its failure to regulate the extraterritorial operations of Standard. This uncertainty in the law may have discouraged France from bringing an action. Moreover, like India, France may have feared exposing itself to possible counter-suit as the host country within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred. He argues that practically, the host country exercises this control. However, control can be defined expansively.
Maritime law illustrates the principle.
This is especially true with respect of those areas of operation over which the host country exercises no control, such as construction of the ship and the operation of its equipment. Applying this principle to MNCs in place of ships, the United States would be held responsible for damage occurring as result of inadequate safety measures regarding those aspects of operation over which it had greater control than India. Considering that the U.S.A. controlled the plant design and construction, as well as the technology utilized in the plant, its prescriptive jurisdiction over UNIL operations is a convincing reason for holding the United States liable. In its document, Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising Out of Acts Not Prohibited by International Law, the International Law Commission argues that an exporting state should be subject to strict liability for damage arising out of accidents concerning an area over which it has prescriptive jurisdiction. Exporting countries have successfully applied their antitrust laws, fiscal and currency regulations, and trade union laws, among others, to MNCs.