MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137592572 · doi:10.24926/19441992.598

International Bribery: The Moral Imperialism Critiques

2009· article· fr· W3137592572 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinnesota journal of international law · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changeEnforcementForeign Corrupt Practices ActScholarshipBusinessPolitical scienceConventionInternational lawHuman rightsLawLaw and economicsTerrorismEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it