Rethinking Cross-Border Corruption: Limits of Conventional Paradigms: A Special Issue of American Behavioral Scientist

1. Introducing Business and Global Governance - Morten Ougaard Part I: Business as Master of Global Governance 2. Direct and Indirect Influence at the World Intellectual Property Organization - Christopher May 3. Practices (Re)Producing Orders: Understanding the Role of Business in Global Security Governance - Anna Leander 4. Unthinking the Gats: A Radical Political Economy Critique of Private Transnational Governance - A. Claire Cutler Part II: Business as Subject to Global Governance 5. Business and Global Climate Governance: A Neo-Pluralist Perspective - Robert Falkner 6. Governing Corruption through the Global Corporation - Hans Krause Hansen 7. Transnational Governance Networks in The Regulation of Finance - The Making of Global Regulation and Supervision Standards in the Banking Industry - Eleni Tsingou 8. Non-Triad Multinationals and Global Governance: Still A North-South Conflict? - Andreas Nolke and Heather Taylor Part III: Business as Partner in Global Governance 9. Rethinking Multilateralism: Global Governance and Public-Private Partnerships with the UN - Benedicte Bull 10. Iso and The Success of Regulation through Voluntary Consensus - Craig N. Murphy and Joanne Yates 11. Beyond the Boardroom: Multilocation and the Business Face of Celebrity Diplomacy - Andrew F. Cooper 12. Variations in Corporate Norm-Entrepreneurship: Why the Home State Matters - Anne Flohr, Lothar Rieth, Sandra Schwindenhammer, and Klaus Dieter Wolf

The rise of non-state (international, private, and transnational) actors in global politics has far-reaching consequences for foreign policy theory and practice. In order to be able to explain foreign policy in the 21st century, foreign policy research needs to take into account the growing importance of nonstate actorss. A good way to do this would be to engage the literature on globalization and global governance. Both fields would benefit from such an exchange of ideas because their respective strengths could cancel out each other’s weaknesses. Foreign policy research, on the one hand, has a strong track record explaining foreign policy outcomes, using a broad range of theoretical concepts, but almost completely ignores non-state actors. This is highly problematic for at least two reasons: first, foreign policy is increasingly made in international organizations and intergovernmental and transnational governance networks instead of national institutions like foreign ministries. Second, the latter increasingly open up to, and involve, non-state actors in their policymaking procedures. Thus, if foreign policy research wants to avoid becoming marginalized in the future, it needs to take into account this change. However, systemic approaches like neorealism or constructivism have difficulties adapting to the new reality of foreign policy. They stress the importance of states at the expense of non-state actors, which are only of marginal interest to them, as is global governance. Moreover, they also conceptualize states as unitary actors, which forecloses the possibility of examining the involvement of non-state actors in states’ decision-making processes. Agency-based approaches such as foreign policy analysis (FPA) fare much better, at least in principle. FPA scholars stress the importance of disaggregating the state and looking at the individuals and group dynamics that influence their decision-making. However, while this commitment to opening up the state allows for a great deal more flexibility vis-à-vis different types of actors, FPA research has so far remained state-centric and only very recently turned to non-state actors. On the other hand, non-state actors’ involvement in policymaking is the strong suit of the literature on globalization and global governance, which has spent a lot of time and effort analyzing various forms of “hybrid” governance. At the same time, however, this literature has been rather descriptive, so far mainly systematizing different governance arrangements and the conditions under which non-state actors are included in governance arrangements. This literature could profit from foreign policy research’s rich theoretical knowledge in explaining policy outcomes in hybrid governance networks and international organizations (IOs). Foreign policy researchers should take non-state actors seriously. In this regard, three avenues in particular are relevant for future research: (1) comparative empirical research to establish the extent of non-state actors’ participation in foreign policymaking across different countries and governance arrangements; (2) explanatory studies that analyze the conditions under which non-state actors are involved in states’ foreign policymaking processes; and (3) the normative implications of increased hybrid foreign policymaking for democratic legitimacy.

Ill fitting legal shoes pinch citizen’s foot. Chinese Proverb Never ask of money spent where the spender thinks it went. Nobody was ever meant to remember or invent what he did with every cent. Robert Frost There is a sense in which discussions of public law and debates about budgeting have a good deal in common. Both budgets and law are essential to the task of public administration. Without legal authority and budgetary resources, agencies cannot function. Indeed, without legal authority they do not even exist, and without financial resources they exist in name only. Cooper, Phillip J (1999) ‘Courts and Fiscal Decision Making’, in: Handbook of Government Budgeting (San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass) p 502. In a global environment of emerging trading blocs, it is imperative for small island states to pay attention to the adequacy of a major plank of a country’s financial infrastructure viz, the public financial management system. For the purposes of this paper, the components of this system are considered...

Effective post-pandemic governance must focus on shared challenges

In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), member states recognise the need for multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder engagement on climate change, but the participation of non-state actors in regional processes remains limited. This research focuses on the case study of three transnational governance networks on climate change in ASEAN and their efforts to participate in regional governance mechanisms. Data from semi-structured interviews of network members and texts of relevant documents are analysed from the perspectives of the communities of practice theory and participatory governance. This study finds that transnational networks in ASEAN provide non-state actors with opportunities to participate in regional governance of climate change by engaging in shared practices. However, the question on whether their practices can be considered as meaningful participation needs to be addressed. Hence, analysing transnational networks as communities of practice can help explain how practices bring about continuity and change in ASEAN's governance of climate change.

The role of the European Union in global politics has been of growing interest over the past decade. The EU is a key player in global institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NATO. It continues to construct an emerging identity and project its values and interests throughout contemporary international relations. The capacity of the EU to both formulate and realise its goals, however, remains contested. Some scholars claim the EU’s `soft power’ attitude rivals that of the USA’s `hard power’ approach to international relations. Others view the EU as insufficiently able to produce a co-ordinated position to project upon global politics. Regardless of the position taken within this debate, the EU’s relationship with its external partners has an increasingly important impact upon economic, political and security concerns on an international level. Trade negotiations, military interventions, democracy promotion, international development and responses to the global economic crisis have all witnessed the EU playing a central role. This has seen the EU become both a major force in contemporary institutions of global governance and a template for supranational governance that might influence other attempts to construct regional and global institutions. This volume brings together a collection of leading EU scholars to provide a state-of-the-art overview covering these and other debates relating to the EU’s role in contemporary global governance. The Handbook is divided into four main sections: Part I: European studies and global governance – provides an overview and critical assessment of the leading theoretical approaches through which the EU’s role in global governance has been addressed within the literature. Part II: Institutions – examines the role played by the key EU institutions in pursuing a role for the EU in contemporary international relations. Part III: Policy and issue areas – explores developments within particular policy sectors, assessing the different impact that the EU has had in different issue areas, including foreign and security policy, environmental policy, common commercial policy, the Common Agricultural Policy, development policy, accession policy, the Neighbourhood Policy and conflict transformation. Part IV: The global multilevel governance complex and the EU – focuses on the relationship between the EU and the institutions, regions and countries with which it forms a global multilevel governance complex, including chapters on the EU’s relationship with the WTO, United Nations, East Asia, Africa and the USA.

Transnational governance networks are an unavoidable part of the European Union politics. The supranational and multi-level features of EU governance have created complex webs of actors’ interactions that cut across national borders in the shaping and re-shaping of collective EU public action. In this sense, transnational networks shall be seen as an essential dynamic elements in the integration process, a process constructing a post-national political order (Eising & Kohler-Koch 1999; Jørgensen 1997; Mayntz 1998)KeywordsRegulatory FrameworkGovernance NetworkPolitical TensionTransnational NetworkMoral LeadershipThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Since the 1990s many of the assumptions that anchored the study of governance in international political economy have been shaken loose. Reflecting on the intriguing and important processes of change that have occurred, and are occurring, Professors Anthony Payne and Nicola Phillips bring together the best research currently being undertaken in the field. They explore the complex ways that the global political economy is presently being governed, and indeed misgoverned.

Although the constitutional text has remained nearly untouched – only twice has the Spanish Constitution been amended since its enactment in 1978 – global and European governance have deeply transformed the constitutional order. The impact of the process of European integration upon the Constitution is an open and evolving phenomenon, encompassing the challenge to constitutional supremacy, the incorporation of new sources of law, an imbalance between the legislative and executive powers, the enhanced role of the judiciary, the multilevel protection of fundamental rights and the transformation of regionalism as a model for organising the territorial power. First, this report will analyse the constitutional amendments regarding EU membership and the constitutional limits to European integration. Indeed, the only two constitutional amendments were both prompted by the EU. Secondly, the impact of EU integration upon the protection of constitutional rights will be critically examined, with special emphasis on the economic crisis. The obligations deriving from the EU might undermine the protection of constitutional rights, as the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant, the Data Retention Directive and the austerity measures adopted in the context of the economic crisis have shown. Thirdly and more generally, global governance has had constitutional implications, for instance regarding the strengthening of the executive power vis-à-vis the legislative, pressures on the welfare state, the fight against terrorism, the curtailing of powers of the Autonomous Communities and the response to immigration. In this context, it is necessary to recast the relationship between the Global-European spheres and the national constitutional order to ensure respect for the principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the protection of fundamental rights.

European Governance is more than just a policy instrument without legal significance. Its regulatory sub-divisions, such as Comitology, the Lamfalussy procedure, and the growing number of European administrative agencies, have colonized substantive parts of the law-shaping and law-making processes. This contribution argues that European Governance is a distinct phenomenon that cannot be easily reconciled with traditional notions of legislation and administration, but needs to be theorized differently. Accordingly, its legal shape has to be adjusted to this new situation, too. Neither a - still only vaguely defined - concept of 'accountability', nor a non-binding policy concept of 'good governance' can fill this gap. A re-definition of European Governance - as an 'integrating administration' - has to take the new developments of a distinct European administrative governance sphere seriously. At the same time, it has to address the specific legitimatory problematique of the new governance structures in a sufficient manner. The specific character of these structures calls for an institutionalization of participatory patterns within the governance structures: by ensuring the involvement of civil society actors, stakeholders and the public in the arguing, bargaining, and reasoning processes of both European governance and European regulation, the odd position of European governance, which oscillates between legislative and administrative functions, can be targeted more adequately.

Although the concept of “AI governance” is frequently used in the debate, it is still rather undertheorized. Often it seems to refer to the mechanisms and structures needed to avoid “bad” outcomes and achieve “good” outcomes with regard to the ethical problems artificial intelligence is thought to actualize. In this article we argue that, although this outcome-focused view captures one important aspect of “good governance,” its emphasis on effects runs the risk of overlooking important procedural aspects of good AI governance. One of the most important properties of good AI governance is political legitimacy. Starting out from the assumptions that AI governance should be seen as global in scope and that political legitimacy requires at least a democratic minimum, this article has a twofold aim: to develop a theoretical framework for theorizing the political legitimacy of global AI governance, and to demonstrate how it can be used as a compass for critially assessing the legitimacy of actual instances of global AI governance. Elaborating on a distinction between “governance by AI” and “governance of AI” in relation to different kinds of authority and different kinds of decision-making leads us to the conclusions that much of the existing global AI governance lacks important properties necessary for political legitimacy, and that political legitimacy would be negatively impacted if we handed over certain forms of decision-making to artificial intelligence systems.

Contents: Introduction by the editors: China's Rise as a Global Actor, its Consequences for Global Governance and How Europe Copes with it Jean-Christophe Defraigne, Jan Wouters, Tanguy de Wilde and Pierre Defraigne PART I: THE CHANGING OF BALANCE IN THE GLOBAL ORDER 1.1 China Shakes the World: The Challenges of the Shift in the Global Balance of Power Jean Christophe Defraigne 1.2 China and the EU in Global Governance: Seeking Harmony in Identities Wang Yiwei 1.3 Europe, China and the Group of Twenty Stewart Fleming PART II: CHINA, EU AND THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE WORLD TRADING SYSTEM 2.1 China and the European Union in the World Trade Organization: Living Apart Together? Jan Wouters and Matthieu Burnay 2.2 What Lessons Can Learn from the Doha Round Wang Xiaodong 2.3 Beyond European Conditionality and Chinese Non Interference: Articulating the EU-China-Africa Trilateral Relations Wu Chien-Huei PART III: CHINA, EU AND THE RESTRUCTURING AND THE WORLD FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEM 3.1 A Monetary G3 with a Multilateral Perspective Pierre Defraigne 3.2 Prospects for the International Monetary System: Key Questions Michel Aglietta 3.3 Is the Renminbi Undervalued? Sylvain Plasschaert 3.4 Dynamic Engagement: China's Participation in International Monetary Institutions Qu Bo PART IV: CHINA-EU AND THE CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY 4.0 Intro. Global Climate Governance and the Energy Challenge: European and Chinese Perspectives David Belis and Simon Schulz 4.1 Preface. China-EU and the Challenge of Global Climate Change and Energy Richard Cooper 4.2 Climate Change, Technology Transfer and the Low-carbon Economy Development in China Chen Jingquan 4.3 EU-China Climate Relations: The Clean Development Mechanism and Renewable Energy in China Pei-fei Chang, David Belis and Hans Bruyninckx 4.4 The Challenge of Energy: China, the European Union and the Restructuring of Global Governance Bernard Snoy 4.5 China, the EU and Sustainable Energy: Cooperation, Competition or Conflict? Bram Buijs PART V: CHINA-EU, GLOBAL SECURITY AND POLITICS 5.1 The European Union vis a vis China: A Question of Power and Coercion? Tanguy de Wilde 5.2 The US-Japan Alliance and the Rise of China: Implications for the East Asian Security Order and the EU's Regional Role Elena Atanassova-Cornelis 5.3 The EU and China: Emerging Global Powers Capable of Balancing US Hegemony and Shaping a New World Order? Hanne Cuyckens 5.4 BRICs, China and the Emerging World Order. Is the PRC Writing a New Global Script? Jagannath P. Panda 6. Concluding Remarks: China-EU Relations in Turbulent Times: Which Way Forward? Jan Wouters and Matthieu Burnay Index

Environmental policymaking has been equated with the art of making the right decisions based on an insufficient understanding of the underlying problems. Given the tremendous complexities of the earth system, effective global environmental governance must rely on scientific information on both the kind of problem at stake and the options for decisionmakers to cope with it. Some global environmental problems, notably stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, and biodiversity conservation, have thus sparked off formidable increases in scientific research. Remarkable too is the enormous expansion of international scientific cooperation for assessing this accumulated knowledge and for synthesizing it in a form accessible and useful to decisionmakers. About 2,500 scientists, for example, have been working with the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its three-volume assessment report Climate Change 1995, (1) and the Global Biodiversity Assessment of 1995 (2) involved roughly 1,500 experts in this field. The immense networks of scientists, experts, national governments, private bodies, and international organizations engaged in these major global environmental assessments can be understood as distinct international institutions within the larger endeavor of global environmental governance, consisting of internationally accepted general principles for producing, synthesizing, and legitimizing expert knowledge; international norms and rules regulating this synthesis and the evaluation of knowledge in specific cases; and pertinent decisionmaking procedures. The main function of these institutions is not environmental protection as such, but comprehensive and reliable scientific advice on the state of the environment and on policy options, which reduces transaction costs for governments. (3) In a world society that is becoming increasingly interlinked and interdependent, science and expert advice is needed to inform decisionmakers on the complex problems they face, leading to a likely increase in the relevance of scientific advisory institutions in international relations. But although enormous efforts are undertaken in these scientific advisory institutions, political scientists need to question their actual effects both on national decisionmaking and on international politics. It is not yet fully understood what exact role the existing advisory institutions play in the course of global environmental governance and how this influences international politics and national decisionmaking. The debate on regimes and institutions in global governance has long concentrated on the general effects of institutions on national decisionmaking, (4) but only recently has the specific impact of scientific advisory institutions received attention from students of international relations. In the early 1990s, for example, it was shown that an epistemic consensus about the interpretation of science reached within international assessment processes influences negotiations and may help create international environmental regimes. (5) More generally, political scientists have worked on the role of ideas in international relations, (6) on information systems within environmental regimes, (7) and on the social construction of science for policy in global environmental regimes. (8) Likewise, substantial research has been directed to the impact of international scientific advisory institutions on the political process in industrialized countries in the areas of climate change and regional air pollution. Most of this research has indicated a generally significant impact of advisory institutions on the behavior of actors in the North. (9) Another interesting finding of this research is that noticeable differences in effectiveness exist between Western industrialized countries and the countries in transition to a market economy in Eastern Europe. …

Corruption in Indonesia and in other countries has become a latent problem and is very difficult to eradicate. Various attempts have been made to eradicate this corruption: both at the country level itself and at the international level. In general, the eradication of corruption is carried out through the establishment of a corruption eradication agency or institution which is legalized through a law. Furthermore, the following presentation is a case study of Indonesia and South Korea on how to eradicate corruption.
 
 The practice of money laundering has often involved cross-border transactions, because by conducting such transactions between countries, it is very effective in eliminating traces of illegal flows of funds. With the increasing globalization of the international financial system, money laundering, as a criminal activity, is becoming more and more common, but in turn it greatly affects and damages the global social and financial system.
 
 In summary, it can be concluded that in the era of globalization the problem of corruption and money laundering is becoming increasingly widespread because the existence of this crime involves many factors that cross national boundaries. The problem of corruption and money laundering is the dark side of globalization. Handling corruption and money laundering cannot be resolved quickly and easily, but it takes time, commitment, political will, and support from all parties: national government, society, and multilateral cooperation. Learning from South Korea, Indonesia and the international community, for example, requires a more efficient structure-based bureaucratic reform by upholding the spirit of 'Good Governance' and 'Check and Balance' which is expected to encourage all elements of the nation to work together to solve corruption at a practical level.

This chapter introduces the notion of Shari’ah as a multilevel and multifaceted concept. It reviews both classical and contemporary scholarship to show that Shari’ah law in regard to financial institutions has its own special characteristics, but not ones that make it incompatible with the global regulation of financial institutions. It offers a discussion of global governance and good governance from this perspective and then closes with an analysis of the case of Islamic financial institutions and their supervisory boards as an example of the intersection of good global governing practices and Shari’ah. The chapter does not claim that these institutions as they currently stand are paragons of good global governance in action; rather it seeks to argue that these institutions can be engaged with and can serve as examples of good global governance in action so long as they continue to be developed and evaluated by scholars across disciplines.