Despite the existence of laws on the books against transnational bribery in most developed nations, prosecution of the crime is oftentimes half hearted. This Note explores a number of options to promote the punishment of corrupt businesses that bribe foreign officials, even when the prosecution of these businesses might not be in the public interest of the company’s home country. First, it examines several past efforts to root out transnational bribery in the United States and Europe, most notably the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Second, it critiques several new developments in the war against transnational bribery, including the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the ratification of an antibribery treaty by members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Finally, it proposes a more robust treaty that not only outlaws transnational bribery, but also gives developed nations the tools and the motivation to detect it. In particular, an international treaty against transnational bribery should prohibit the bribing of foreign government officials, punish companies that keep inaccurate and incomplete records, and provide incentives for private shareholders to support ratification and enforcement of treaty obligations. Such a treaty would level the playing field for businesses, cutting corruption and making corporations and governments more transparent to taxpayers and shareholders.
News & Events
-
2013 Minnesota Law Review Symposium
The Future of Organized Labor: Labor Law in the 21st Century Friday, October 25, 2013 At the turn of the century, 28 percent of American workers were unionized. Today, only 8 percent of American workers belong to unions, and the decline is likely to continue. The 2013 Symposium will allow [...]
-
Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times
The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]
-
Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed
The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.
-
Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15
The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.
Recent Issues
- Volume 97 – No. 6
- Volume 97 – No. 5
- Volume 97 – No. 4
- Volume 97 – No. 3
- Volume 97 – No. 2
- Volume 97 – No. 1
- Volume 96 – No. 6
- Volume 96 – No. 5
- Volume 96 – No. 4
- Volume 96 – No. 3
- Volume 96 – No. 2
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1