Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Various countries have recently passed anti‐corruption and bribery laws that have international jurisdictional reach. The overlapping jurisdiction of these “long arm” statutes presents the real possibility that an offender can be twice prosecuted for the same conduct, as recently demonstrated in the case of US v. Jeong . The purpose of this paper is to highlight the difference of approach between various nations in their understanding and application of the doctrine of international double jeopardy. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the profound divergence in the application of the doctrine of double jeopardy in an international context, primarily by comparing and contrasting two representative jurisdictions on the subject, Canada and the USA. Findings The dividing line between the approach to international double jeopardy by common law nations is the doctrine of dual sovereignty. Jurisdictions which have not adopted the dual sovereignty doctrine (such as Canada) are more likely to view a prior verdict from a foreign court as a bar any further prosecution for the same offence; by contrast, countries that have adopted the dual sovereignty doctrine (such as the UA) are less likely to view a previous foreign conviction or acquittal as a bar to further prosecution. Practical implications In negotiating a global settlement for acts of corruption or bribery, no finality can be achieved unless and until a resolution is reached with dual sovereignty jurisdictions. Originality/value This paper is of value to any individual or multi‐national concern that operates in more than one jurisdiction, as it outlines the potential dangers associated with reaching a premature global settlement for acts of bribery and corruption.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".