MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3137592572 · doi:10.24926/19441992.598

International Bribery: The Moral Imperialism Critiques

2009· article· fr· W3137592572 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Spahn

Notice bibliographique

RevueMinnesota journal of international law · 2009
Typearticle
Languefr
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCorruption and Economic Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLanguage changeEnforcementForeign Corrupt Practices ActScholarshipBusinessPolitical scienceConventionInternational lawHuman rightsLawLaw and economicsTerrorismEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The problem of bribery in international business is immediately important to consumers of unsafe products ranging from poisoned pet food to lead paint on children’s toys that are imported from countries with weak legal regimes (high levels of bribery). International bribery directly undermines environmental reforms and frustrates efforts to protect very basic human rights. Addressing the problem of bribery is central to any hope of a more or less rational free global market as bribery skews purchasing decisions. Law enforcement professionals are increasingly aware of the implications for organized groups of ordinary criminal or even terrorist gangs. The corporate compliance industry is booming. The problem is vast, and the consequences are significant. Law students who are preparing themselves for international business practice are left virtually ignorant about the legal frameworks, the risks to their clients, and the personal criminal risks they potentially face as gatekeepers. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) which criminally prohibits U.S. corporations (and their lawyers) from bribing officials of foreign governments in order to obtain business has been in effect for thirty years; all OECD member states have ratified the Anti-Bribery Convention; more than 100 nations have ratified the U.N. Convention Against Corruption. Perhaps most importantly, the larger ethical and social policy aspects of these problems are simply not taught, leaving law students entering global business ignorant and vulnerable. The question is why comparatively little legal scholarship is addressing the problem; why law professors are not training their students as the business schools are doing? Why don’t legal educators want to talk about international bribery? U.S. criminal laws prohibiting bribery and money laundering are covered only briefly in typical international business transaction courses, and not even mentioned in the standard U.S. professional responsibility or business organization courses. Law professors are uncomfortable with the topic, I think, because of a well intentioned discomfort with the idea of imposing Western moral values on cultures and systems which are vastly different from our own. Most of us value tolerance and abhor the idea of imposing our own values indiscriminately on others. These noble reservations are often shared by our law students. In this article, I examine in depth that facet of the scholarly debate. The primary concern is that by criminalizing bribery of foreign officials, the U.S. is unilaterally and forcibly imposing American values about bribery on foreign cultures which have very different customs regarding gift giving. The charge of U.S. moral imperialism has great resonance not only among many American law students, but very significantly among international audiences in both developed and developing economies. It is my hope that by carefully examining the moral imperialism critiques from a variety of perspectives we can advance the discussion among legally trained audiences in the North (U.S., Canada, Europe) as well as encouraging a productive dialogue with legal, government and business colleagues in developing and transition South nations. I have been teaching a course covering international bribery for the past eight years. I developed this course after spending one and a half years in Beijing, China, as a U.S. Fulbright professor at Peking University Law School teaching rule of law. My Chinese law students asked for this course; my American and other international law students have taught me that before we can address the technical legal issues, we must first carefully examine our noble reservations about moral imperialism. This article is my best effort to help the next generation of global lawyers begin to think about a very basic and significant problem; bribery and moral imperialism.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,087

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,081
Communication savante0,0120,015
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,019
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,002

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 Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
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

Citations13
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMinnesota journal of international lawMême sujetCorruption and Economic DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207