Abstract
In 1999, Professor Philip Nichols argued that FCPA-style home country laws are efficient in combating transnational bribery, unlike host country regulation and corporate self-regulation. Observing feeble results obtained in 15 years of OECD Anti-bribery Convention, we find arguments for amending this assertion; home countries, aside from enforcing their own laws banning foreign bribery, should reconsider the classical ways of fighting transnational corruption, by helping host governments in their anti-corruption efforts and by encouraging their own corporations to join international dialogic webs. After presenting an original analysis of the reasons behind the limited impact of FCPA-style action, we then further arguments for the two alternative solutions backed by home states, looking respectively at the spectacular results of the anti-corruption campaign in Romania with US support, and at China's recent position that her corporations should adhere to international private standards on foreign bribery.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 7-31 |
| Journal | China and WTO Review |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2016 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Home Countries and Transnational Bribery: China’s Changing Approach'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver