MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W195506792

Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and Secret Commissions Offense

2014· article· en· W195506792 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stuart H. Deming

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican University international law review · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLegal Systems and Judicial Processes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésForeign Corrupt Practices ActRatificationLegislationLanguage changeEnforcementConventionLawPolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTIONBy its enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977,1 the United States became the first country to prohibit the bribery of foreign public officials.2 For many years thereafter, the United States remained the only country to have implemented and enforced such a prohibition. A series of significant international developments in the 1990s and the early part of this century have dramatically changed the landscape.3 1 2 3 * S.Today most developed countries have implemented, and increasingly enforce, domestic legislation prohibiting the bribery of foreign public officials.4 Virtually all other countries are parties to international conventions prohibiting the bribery of foreign public officials.5 It is only a matter of time before most of the world will have adopted domestic legislation prohibiting the bribery of foreign public officials. The enforcement of the FCPA by the United States and the adoption by the United Kingdom of its Bribery Act 2010 (UK Bribery Act)* 4 5 6 have both received considerable attention. But the recent adoption of critical amendments by Canada to its Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA)7 signals the need for increased attention to be given to Canadian law with respect to foreign bribery.II. CANADA'S CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S ACTOn December 7, 1998, Canada adopted the CFPOA8 in conjunction with its ratification of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Convention).9 The CFPOA was Canada's OECD Convention implementing legislation, and the law became effective on February 14, 1999.10In adopting the CFPOA, Canada created an act separate from its Criminal Code. The CFPOA combines the OECD Convention's language and requirements with language already in Canada's Criminal Code.11 By its terms, the CFPOA is designed to accommodate additional international conventions relating to the corruption of foreign public officials.12 This now includes Canada's * 10 11 12 ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (Inter-American Convention), which became effective on January 6, 2000,13 and its ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UN Convention), which became effective on October 2, 2007.14More recently, Canada amended the CFPOA to broaden its jurisdictional reach and the breadth of its prohibitions.15 These amendments were, in large part, prompted by criticism of the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Transactions (OECD Working Group).16 The amendments coincide with considerable efforts by Canadian authorities to establish and train special units of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police devoted to enforcement of the CFPOA.17 Canadian authorities have also sought to ensure the availability of prosecutors with the requisite level of expertise.18 Numerous cases are currently under investigation and a further increase in enforcement is generally anticipated.19A. THE ANTI-BRIBERY LEGISLATIONThe CFPOA provides, in pertinent part, as follows:Every person commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of business, directly or indirectly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind to a foreign public official or to any person for the benefit of a foreign public official(a)as consideration for an act or omission by the official in connection with the performance of the official's duties or functions; or(b)to induce the official to use his or her position to influence any acts or decisions of the foreign state or public international organisation for which the official performs duties or functions.20B. JURISDICTIONWith the recent amendments to the CFPOA,21 conduct that may 18 19 20 21 otherwise violate the CFPOA is now subject to both territorial and nationality jurisdiction. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,994
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,233

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,271
Écart entre enseignants0,250 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican University international law reviewMême sujetLegal Systems and Judicial ProcessesTravaux en français237 207