Ensuring Uniformity in the Implementation of the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions

Abstract

I. INTRODUCTION Since the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977,1 the United States has worked to persuade other nations to forbid bribery of foreign public officials in an effort to secure business abroad.2 As a result of pressure from the United States and the increased costs associated with corruption, the international tide is turning against transnational bribery.3 In order to capitalize on this global shift towards condemnation of corruption, twenty-nine Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)4 member countries and non-member countries signed the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Convention) on December 17, 1997.5 The Convention is an effort to cut off transnational bribery at its source.6 Consequently, in signing the Convention all signatory countries made the commitment to pass legislation necessary for [the Convention's] ratification and implementation into national law.7 Article 15 of the OECD Convention provides that the Convention shall enter into force two months after five of the ten countries which have the ten largest export shares, and which represent by themselves at least sixty percent of the combined total exports of those ten countries, have placed their instruments of ratification on file with the OECD Secretary General.8 On December 17, 1998 Canada became the fifth country in this category to ratify the Convention.9 Consequently, the OECD announced that the Convention would enter into force on February 15, 1999.10 Although the successful ratification and entry into force of the OECD Convention is itself a significant triumph against corruption,ll the true measure of the Convention's success will depend on whether the international community succeeds in ensuring uniform implementation and enforcement of the Convention among countries with very different legal systems and enforcement resources. This Note examines the OECD Convention to determine whether it contains both the substantive and procedural elements necessary for its successful uniform implementation among all signatory states. Section I describes the development of a general revulsion of corruption, and concludes that the OECD Convention owes its passage to the fact that bribery is no longer fashionable due to the increased political and economic costs associated with the practice. Section II first examines the substantive and procedural provisions of the OECD Convention, concluding that the substantive provisions do not establish clear standards to ensure uniformity in implementation. Next, the section examines the Convention's monitoring procedures, concluding that they are flawed in two respects. First, these procedures are designed to ensure that signatory countries are satisfying the vague standards set by the substantive portions of the Convention. Second, the Convention explicitly and implicitly limits the monitoring roles of third parties. Section III evaluates additional pressures and resources necessary to both assist motivated countries to comply with the Convention as well as remind derelict countries of the increasing costs associated with corruption. II. DISCUSSION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GENERAL WORLD REVULSION OF CORRUPTION When asked to explain why the OECD Convention successfully passed in 1997, Arthur Downey, head of the United States' National Association of Manufacturers' Task Force on International Bribery said, [flor 20 years we've tried this and now it's happening. What has changed in the world? How come it just worked? I have concluded that it is because there is a general, revulsion to corruption.12 This world revulsion to corruption is a result of the realization that the potential and actual liabilities associated with corrupt practices are making those practices cost-prohibitive.13 A. Stage 1: The United States and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act In the wake of the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s, the U.