In Kelo v. City of New London the city fathers of New Lo n don agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city began to buy up the land in that area of town.

Many residents in the targeted area, refused to sell. The city invoked the government’s power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain. Kelo, along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of “public use” as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The Court in a 5–4 ruling held that the city’s seizure of the land really was public use. Now jump ahead in time and imagine that the ESC has been created under the UN. Could the ESC use this case as a precedent that would permit it to seize private land in the developed countries and then pass the rights and the possession of that land over to the underdeveloped countries? Explain your response. [See Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S.Ct . 2655 (U.S. Supreme Court).]