In the case of Colombia v. Cauca Company in 1902, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between the Republic of Colombia and The Cauca Company. The Colombian government had granted a contract to an American citizen for improving navigation on the Atrato River, which was later transferred to The Cauca Company. However, due to political instability in Colombia at that time, work could not be carried out as planned and eventually stopped altogether. Subsequently, both parties filed lawsuits against each other with different claims; while Columbia claimed damages for non-fulfillment of contract terms by The Cauca Company, it counterclaimed stating that they were unable to complete their obligations due to conditions created by civil war within Columbia itself. The U.S Supreme Court held that under international law principles applicable at that time (the Doctrine of Impossibility), if performance becomes impossible because of circumstances beyond either party's control or foreseeability such as wars or revolutions then neither party is liable for breach thereof since these are considered 'Acts Of God'. Henceforth ruling in favor of The Cauca company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Colombia v. Cauca Company disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. The dissent argued that, as a sovereign nation, Colombia had every right to bring suit against a foreign corporation operating within its borders for alleged violations of Colombian law and contractual obligations. They contended that dismissing this case would set a dangerous precedent by effectively granting immunity to corporations from legal action brought by foreign governments in U.S courts. This could potentially encourage unethical business practices abroad since companies would know they are shielded from any potential lawsuits filed by those countries' governments in American courts.