3 ms·

Oracle is obviously no saint and I’d do my best to not use their services… but, why do governments have extraterritorial jurisdiction to impose domestic laws in

by mc32 4y ago

Oracle is obviously no saint and I’d do my best to not use their services… but, why do governments have extraterritorial jurisdiction to impose domestic laws in international jurisdictions? Yes, obviously we can control what happens within our borders and we can stretch that and say it applies to US incorporated companies, but it certainly is overreach to apply US law to foreign subsidiaries. The aggrieved country where the violation happened should be the one who has jurisdiction over these issues, not the law of a foreign country. I think we used to call this “imperialism”.

xbar 4y ago
It reduces the total global corruption incentive to have laws like FCPA enacted in every country. I suspect there are some interesting histories of the 1910s through 1950s where foreign development by oil companies led to spiraling corruption practices, for example.
- mc32 4y ago
  If this were a universal convention of some sort with worldwide signatories, yes, ok. Otherwise this should be up to the discretion and jurisdiction of the local authorities, not a foreign body of law imposing its conventions extraterritorially.
  - macintux 4y ago
    On the other hand, companies as large as small countries can afford to buy off everyone who could enforce such laws locally.
    - mc32 4y ago
      This is true, but that's up to locals to decide what's acceptable in their society and not. Look, Ukraine, Russia and Nigeria are some of the most corrupt countries on the planet -we even have relatives of sitting presidents doing business with a few of the most corrupt governments, do we stop doing business with them, or do we stop aiding them till they adopt our morals?
sfifs 4y ago
Chesterton's Fence principle - Usually a good idea to read the motivation / History behind the law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac... I'd say the effect sought to be achieved is pretty much opposite of imperialism. In imperialiam (as demonstrated by various histories), colonizer citizens get away with pretty much anything in the colonized countries. FCPA levels the playing field by making colonizers liable in the home country.
- notch656a 4y ago
  India, the UAE, nor Turkey are colonies of the United States. Also the idea you can be on a level playing fields with citizens in certain countries without bribery is just laughable. The common citizen bribes in a number of third world countries just to get routine service, and if you don't bribe you're left pragmatically a sub-citizen status. >Chesterton's Fence principle Exactly. One should study why bribery is often necessary to even be a 'level' participant on the playing field before assuming anyone bribing is a 'colonizer.'
  - ajhurliman 4y ago
    IIRC the FCPA _does_ allow some bribes if they're considered commonplace in that particular country. I have no idea how they determine which ones are okay.
    - from 4y ago
      Technically, payments which do not influence an outcome but merely speed up a decision are allowed. So bribing a minister to throw out all competing bids on a contract would be illegal but paying some clerk who’s dragging her feet on incorporation paperwork would be legal. In practice this line is a lot more blurry and they will charge companies even if they bribe for routine services. Walmart for instance paid a pretty big fine for paying to get building permits faster in Brazil. Companies will always settle because they don’t want to report to shareholders that a massive verdict and fine could be coming up. There’s also a duress exception, like if they start arbitrarily arresting your employees you are allowed to pay to get them out. This is basically what happened to Halotel and Viettel in Tanzania.
pessimizer 4y ago
How would you feel if I traveled to other countries a few times a year to molest children openly and proudly, then came back? Do you think charging me with a crime would be imperialism? Would I be denying the agency of the countries that rely on child sex tourism to provide more jewels for the King's Holy Garments? Does the word imperialism mean controlling or replacing the governments of other countries in order to extract value for the mother country anymore, or is it always going to be an insulting incoherent woke metaphor about telling women how short their skirts can be and how they deserved it from now on? ----- edit: Child labor for me and not for thee, maybe: if I punish a US businessman for their open preference for importing products produced with child labor, am I imposing my values on the sources? If a US businessman opens factories in other countries that employ actual slaves, should the businessman be commended for his cultural sensitivity and openness (and contribution) to the labor practices of other cultures? Should the US government itself operate by different rules outside its borders? Is a US citizen only deserving of due process until they step over the border, where they can be summarily executed? There are a lot of obvious questions that can be asked about your position. My curiosity is about whether you allow yourself to ask them, or if you just stop asking questions when you reach the conclusion you prefer.
- mc32 4y ago
  They should have an extradition treaty and ask you to be extradited so you are tried (see the Roman Polanski case). Also bribery is not rape or murder. To your later point, we do this all the time. We apply labor laws within US jurisdiction but we do not care if people/companies/governments in India or China use child labor in the manufacture of goods and services --with rare exceptions. I would be totally for enforcing this prohibition on imported goods and services. At the same time we have no right to tell India and China what they should allow and not allow there within their borders. I think we should be cognizant that the concept of child labor is a modern western concept --it's something those countries will discover on their own in due time. Enforcing our morals has the potential of making the lives of locals _worse_: their mother, father, siblings may starve because of lack of social services and incapacity of parents/siblings.

by mc32 4y ago

xbar 4y ago

It reduces the total global corruption incentive to have laws like FCPA enacted in every country. I suspect there are some interesting histories of the 1910s through 1950s where foreign development by oil companies led to spiraling corruption practices, for example.

mc32 4y ago
If this were a universal convention of some sort with worldwide signatories, yes, ok. Otherwise this should be up to the discretion and jurisdiction of the local authorities, not a foreign body of law imposing its conventions extraterritorially.
- macintux 4y ago
  On the other hand, companies as large as small countries can afford to buy off everyone who could enforce such laws locally.
  - mc32 4y ago
    This is true, but that's up to locals to decide what's acceptable in their society and not. Look, Ukraine, Russia and Nigeria are some of the most corrupt countries on the planet -we even have relatives of sitting presidents doing business with a few of the most corrupt governments, do we stop doing business with them, or do we stop aiding them till they adopt our morals?

sfifs 4y ago

Chesterton's Fence principle - Usually a good idea to read the motivation / History behind the law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac... I'd say the effect sought to be achieved is pretty much opposite of imperialism. In imperialiam (as demonstrated by various histories), colonizer citizens get away with pretty much anything in the colonized countries. FCPA levels the playing field by making colonizers liable in the home country.

notch656a 4y ago
India, the UAE, nor Turkey are colonies of the United States. Also the idea you can be on a level playing fields with citizens in certain countries without bribery is just laughable. The common citizen bribes in a number of third world countries just to get routine service, and if you don't bribe you're left pragmatically a sub-citizen status. >Chesterton's Fence principle Exactly. One should study why bribery is often necessary to even be a 'level' participant on the playing field before assuming anyone bribing is a 'colonizer.'
- ajhurliman 4y ago
  IIRC the FCPA _does_ allow some bribes if they're considered commonplace in that particular country. I have no idea how they determine which ones are okay.
  - from 4y ago
    Technically, payments which do not influence an outcome but merely speed up a decision are allowed. So bribing a minister to throw out all competing bids on a contract would be illegal but paying some clerk who’s dragging her feet on incorporation paperwork would be legal. In practice this line is a lot more blurry and they will charge companies even if they bribe for routine services. Walmart for instance paid a pretty big fine for paying to get building permits faster in Brazil. Companies will always settle because they don’t want to report to shareholders that a massive verdict and fine could be coming up. There’s also a duress exception, like if they start arbitrarily arresting your employees you are allowed to pay to get them out. This is basically what happened to Halotel and Viettel in Tanzania.

pessimizer 4y ago

How would you feel if I traveled to other countries a few times a year to molest children openly and proudly, then came back? Do you think charging me with a crime would be imperialism? Would I be denying the agency of the countries that rely on child sex tourism to provide more jewels for the King's Holy Garments? Does the word imperialism mean controlling or replacing the governments of other countries in order to extract value for the mother country anymore, or is it always going to be an insulting incoherent woke metaphor about telling women how short their skirts can be and how they deserved it from now on? ----- edit: Child labor for me and not for thee, maybe: if I punish a US businessman for their open preference for importing products produced with child labor, am I imposing my values on the sources? If a US businessman opens factories in other countries that employ actual slaves, should the businessman be commended for his cultural sensitivity and openness (and contribution) to the labor practices of other cultures? Should the US government itself operate by different rules outside its borders? Is a US citizen only deserving of due process until they step over the border, where they can be summarily executed? There are a lot of obvious questions that can be asked about your position. My curiosity is about whether you allow yourself to ask them, or if you just stop asking questions when you reach the conclusion you prefer.

mc32 4y ago
They should have an extradition treaty and ask you to be extradited so you are tried (see the Roman Polanski case). Also bribery is not rape or murder. To your later point, we do this all the time. We apply labor laws within US jurisdiction but we do not care if people/companies/governments in India or China use child labor in the manufacture of goods and services --with rare exceptions. I would be totally for enforcing this prohibition on imported goods and services. At the same time we have no right to tell India and China what they should allow and not allow there within their borders. I think we should be cognizant that the concept of child labor is a modern western concept --it's something those countries will discover on their own in due time. Enforcing our morals has the potential of making the lives of locals _worse_: their mother, father, siblings may starve because of lack of social services and incapacity of parents/siblings.