What does Brühl conclude about whether companies must leave an aggressor state?

They must comply with legitimate, targeted sanctions that states impose, but a general call for total divestment is not morally required, because it amounts to a comprehensive embargo with humanitarian harms and undermines the legitimacy of state sanctions. He argues for targeted, state-led sanctions and against blind, total withdrawal.

The weighing (Abwägen):

1. Complicity side: since nearly all companies pay taxes or are financially tied to the government, all are complicit and would have to leave. But such a general divestment programme would equal a comprehensive sanctions regime or total economic boycott.
2. Sanctions side: sanctions can have severe humanitarian consequences, so they must be judged by their side effects as well as their success.

It follows that:

• Companies must adapt when states impose legitimate sanctions on an aggressor.
• A call for general divestment undermines that legitimacy, since states deliberately exclude some goods and services from the sanction list to avoid hitting civilians unnecessarily.
• The case is for targeted, state-steered sanctions rather than a blind, total withdrawal.