Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-phmbd Total loading time: 0.342 Render date: 2022-07-05T16:49:16.472Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Long Arm of the Law: Extraterritoriality and the National Implementation of Foreign Bribery Legislation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2011

Sarah C. Kaczmarek
Affiliation:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. E-mail: sck29@georgetown.edu
Abraham L. Newman
Affiliation:
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. E-mail: aln24@georgetown.edu
Get access

Abstract

Can the application of domestic law by bureaucracies in powerful states alter policy dynamics globally? Courts and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over large markets routinely impose national rules to conduct transpiring outside of their physical borders. Such extraterritoriality has expanded to issues ranging from antitrust to the environment. Proponents claim that extraterritorial acts can have far-reaching international consequences, spilling over into the domestic political economy of regulation in target states. Skeptics, however, question the effects of these sanctions against internationally mobile actors. In this study, we offer the first quantitative analysis of extraterritorial intervention for global policy convergence. In particular, we construct an original time-series panel data set to test the association between extraterritorial actions by U.S. prosecutors and the national enforcement of foreign bribery regulations in target countries. Our empirical analysis finds strong statistical evidence linking extraterritoriality to national policy implementation, with jurisdictions that experienced a U.S. intervention being twenty times more likely to enforce their national rules. The findings suggest the important influence that domestic law in powerful states may have for global cooperation in general and sheds light on the key pillars of international anticorruption efforts in particular.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2002. Values and Interests: International Legalization in the Fight Against Corruption. Journal of Legal Studies 31 (S1):141–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, Karen J. 2001. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amemiya, Takeshi. 1985. Advanced Econometrics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D. 2001. Estimation of Limited Dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 19 (1):216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arend, Anthony C. 1999. Legal Rules and International Society. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, David, and Newman, Abraham L.. 2010. Transgovernmental Networks and Domestic Policy Convergence: Evidence from Insider Trading Regulation. International Organization 64 (3):505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Sectional Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4):1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beets, S. Douglas. 2005. Understanding the Demand-Side Issues of International Corruption. Journal of Business Ethics 57 (1):6581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beny, Laura Nyantung. 2002. The Political Economy of Inside Trading Legislation and Enforcement: International Evidence. Discussion Paper Series, 348. Cambridge, Mass.: John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics and Business, Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
Berman, Paul Schiff. 2002. The Globalization of Jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (2):311545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Jones, Bradford S.. 2004. Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caporaso, James A., and Tarrow, Sidney. 2009. Polanyi in Brussels: Supranational Institutions and the Transnational Embedding of Markets. International Organization 63 (4):593620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, David B., and Signorino, Curtis S.. 2010. Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data. Political Analysis 18 (3):271–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damro, Chad. 2006. Transatlantic Competition Policy: Domestic and International Sources of EU-US Cooperation. European Journal of International Relations 12 (2):171–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1993. Inside Bureaucracy. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Eleanor M. 1997. Toward World Antitrust and Market Access. American Journal of International Law 91 (1):125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John, and Thacker, Strom C.. 2004. Political Institutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 34 (2):295330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack, and Wu, Tim. 2006. Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Lloyd. 2000. Ruling the World: Power Politics and the Rise of Supranational Institutions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Tsutsui, Kiyoteru. 2007. Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most. Journal of Peace Research 44 (4):407–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A. 2002. Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Yale Law Journal 111 (8):19352042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimann, Fritz, and Dell, Gillian. 2008. Progress Report 2008: Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
Heimann, Fritz, and Dell, Gillian. 2009. Progress Report 2009: Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
Heimann, Fritz, and Dell, Gillian. 2010. Progress Report 2010: Enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
James, Scott C., and Lake, David A.. 1989. The Second Face of Hegemony: Britain's Repeal of the Corn Laws and the American Walker Tariff of 1846. International Organization 43 (1):129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, David R., and Post, David. 1996. Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review 48 (5):1367–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordana, Jacint, and Levi-Faur, David, eds. 2004. The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahler, Miles, and Walter, Barbara F.. 2006. Territoriality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaikati, Jack G., Sullivan, George M., Virgo, John M., Carr, T. R., and Virgo, Katherine S.. 2000. The Price of International Business Morality: Twenty Years Under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Journal of Business Ethics 26 (3):213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, James A. 1995. Exporting Insider Trading Laws: The Enforcement of U.S. Insider Trading Laws Internationally. Emory International Law Review 9 (1):345–75.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., and Nye, Joseph S.. 1974. Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations. World Politics 27 (1):3962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1986. Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System. World Politics 39 (1):2752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroenig, Matthew. 2009. Exporting the Bomb: Why States Provide Sensitive Nuclear Assistance. American Political Science Review 103 (1):113–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert. 1999. The Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (1):222–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, James, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2009. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattes, Michaela. 2008. The Effects of Changing Conditions and Agreement Provisions on Conflict and Renegotiation Between States with Competing Claims. International Studies Quarterly 52 (2):315–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattli, Walter, and Woods, Ngaire, eds. 2009. The Politics of Global Regulation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadelmann, Ethan A. 1993. Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of U.S. Criminal Law Enforcement. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Abraham L. 2008a. Building Transnational Civil Liberties: Transgovernmental Entrepreneurs and the European Data Privacy Directive. International Organization 62 (1):103–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Abraham L. 2008b. Protectors of Privacy: Regulating Personal Data in the Global Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Abraham L., and Posner, Elliot. 2011. International Interdependence and Regulatory Power: Authority, Mobility and Markets. European Journal of International Relations 17 (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Various years. Country Reports on the Implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Parrish, Austen L. 2008. The Effects Test: Extraterritoriality's Fifth Business. Vanderbilt Law Review 61 (5):1455–505.Google Scholar
Parrish, Austen L. 2009. Reclaiming International Law from Extraterritoriality. Minnesota Law Review 93 (3):815–74.Google Scholar
Posner, Elliot. 2009. Making Rules for Global Finance: Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation at the Turn of the Millennium. International Organization 63 (4):665–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Tonya L. 2009. Courts Without Borders: Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere. International Organization 63 (3):459–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raustiala, Kal. 2009. Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodman, Kenneth A. 2001. Sanctions Beyond Borders: Multinational Corporations and U.S. Economic Statecraft. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47 (1):139–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandage, John Byron. 1985. Forum Non Conveniens and the Extraterritorial Application of United States Antitrust Law. Yale Law Journal 94 (7):1693–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne. 2007. Prohibiting Plunder: How Norms Change. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne, and Gray, Mark M.. 2003. International Integration and National Corruption. International Organization 57 (4):761800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne, and Koetzle, William. 2000. Accounting for Corruption: Economic Structure, Democracy, and Trade. International Studies Quarterly 44 (1):3150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanyal, Rajib. 2005. Determinants of Bribery in International Business: The Cultural and Economic Factors. Journal of Business Ethics 59 (1):139–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Securities Docket. 2010. FCPA and International Anti-Corruption Enforcement Trends in 2010. Webcast. 8 April 2010. Available at ⟨http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2010/03/25/april-8-webcast-fcpa-and-international-anti-corruption-enforcement-trends-in-2010/⟩. Accessed 15 May 2011.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory. 2000. Globalization and Social Protection: The Impact of EU and International Rules in the Ratcheting Up of U.S. Privacy Standards. Yale Journal of International Law 25 (1):188.Google Scholar
Shambaugh, George E. IV 1996. Dominance, Dependence, and Political Power: Tethering Technology in the 1980s and Today. International Studies Quarterly 40 (4):559–88.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2000. International Law and State Behavior: Commitment and Compliance in International Monetary Affairs. American Political Science Review 94 (4):819–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2001. The International Politics of Harmonization: The Case of Capital Market Regulation. International Organization 55 (3):589620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, David A. 2007. Regulating Capital: Setting Standards for the International Financial System. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonelson, Alan. 2000. The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade Are Sinking American Living Standards. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
True, Jacqui, and Mintrom, Michael. 2001. Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45 (1):2757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urofsky, Philip, ed. 2009. FCPA Digest of Cases and Review Releases Relating to Bribes to Foreign Officials under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. Washington, D.C.: Shearman and Sterling. Available at ⟨http://www.shearman.com/files/upload/fcpa_digest.pdf⟩. Accessed 29 April 2011.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1981. Impact of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act On U.S. Business. Washington, D.C. Available at ⟨http://archive.gao.gov/d46t13/114503.pdf⟩. Accessed 12 May 2011.Google Scholar
Vogel, David. 1995. Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vreeland, James R. 2008. Political Institutions and Human Rights: Why Dictatorships Enter Into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization 62 (1):65101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whytock, Christopher A. 2009. Domestic Courts and Global Governance. Tulane Law Review 84 (1):67123.Google Scholar
World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2010. World Development Indicators 2010. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Available at ⟨http://data.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/wdi-final.pdf⟩. Accessed 12 May 2011.Google Scholar
Young, Alasdair R. 2003. Political Transfer and ‘Trading Up’? Transatlantic Trade in Genetically Modified Food and U.S. Politics. World Politics 55 (4):457–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sarah C. Kaczmarek and Abraham L. Newman supplementary data

Supplementary data

Download Sarah C. Kaczmarek and Abraham L. Newman supplementary data(File)
File 47 KB
45
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Long Arm of the Law: Extraterritoriality and the National Implementation of Foreign Bribery Legislation
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Long Arm of the Law: Extraterritoriality and the National Implementation of Foreign Bribery Legislation
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Long Arm of the Law: Extraterritoriality and the National Implementation of Foreign Bribery Legislation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *