Jurisdiction

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139565332.009

Article 4 - Jurisdiction

from Part II - Commentary

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2015

Mark Pieth

Edited by

Mark Pieth ,

Lucinda A. Low and

Nicola Bonucci

Show author details

Mark Pieth: Affiliation:
Universität Basel, Switzerland
Mark Pieth: Affiliation:
Universität Basel, Switzerland
Lucinda A. Low: Affiliation:
Steptoe and Johnson LLP
Nicola Bonucci: Affiliation:
OECD

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Jurisdiction

Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the bribery of a foreign public official when the offence is committed in whole or in part in its territory.

Each Party which has jurisdiction to prosecute its nationals for offences committed abroad shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction to do so in respect of the bribery of a foreign public official, according to the same principles.

When more than one Party has jurisdiction over an alleged offence described in this Convention, the Parties involved shall, at the request of one of them, consult with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.

Each Party shall review whether its current basis for jurisdiction is effective in the fight against the bribery of foreign public officials and, if it is not, shall take remedial steps.

Official Commentaries

Article 4 – Jurisdiction

The territorial basis for jurisdiction should be interpreted broadly so that an extensive physical connection to the bribery act is not required.

Nationality jurisdiction is to be established according to the general principles and conditions in the legal system of each Party. These principles deal with such matters as dual criminality. However, the requirement of dual criminality should be deemed to be met if the act is unlawful where it occurred, even if under a different criminal statute. For countries which apply nationality jurisdiction only to certain types of offences, the reference to ‘principles’ includes the principles upon which such selection is based.

Type: Chapter
Information: The OECD Convention on Bribery
A Commentary
, pp. 322 - 348

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565332.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2013

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

Arsava, A. F. (1999), ‘Zypernkonflikt unter Berücksichtigung des Völkerrechts’ in Bundesministerium für Landesverteidigung (ed.), Jahrbuch für internationale Sicherheitspolitik, Vienna, also available at > Sicherheitspolitik > Publikationen > AutorenGoogle Scholar

Arzt, G. (1990), ‘Erfolgsdelikt und Tätigkeitsdelikt’, 107 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht168Google Scholar

Beck, U. (1998), Was ist Globalisierung?, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar

Bertossa, C. A. (2003), Unternehmensstrafrecht – Strafprozess und Sanktionen, BernGoogle Scholar

Blakesley, Ch. L. (1999), ‘Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction’ in Bassiouni, C. M., International Criminal Law, 2nd edn, New York, 33Google Scholar

Cassani, U. (1996), ‘Die Anwendung des schweizerischen Strafrechts auf internationale Wirtschaftsdelikte (Art. 3–7 StGB)’, 114 Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht237Google Scholar

Cassani, U. (2010), ‘Grenzüberschreitende Korruption – Internationale Zuständigkeit der schweizerischen Strafjustiz’ in Ackermann, J.-B. and Wohlers, W. (eds.), Korruption in Staat und Wirtschaft, Zürich, 17Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, P. (2011), Les dispositifs juridiques internationaux de lutte contre la corruption des agents publics étrangers, ToulonGoogle Scholar

Gilbert, G. (1996), ‘Crimes Sans Frontières: Jurisdictional Problems in English Law’ in Dugard, J. and van den Wyngaert, (eds.), International Criminal Law and Procedure, Aldershot/Brookfield (US)/Singapore/Sydney, 101Google Scholar

Gless, S. (2011), Internationales Strafrecht, BaselGoogle Scholar

Heinze, C. (1997), ‘Zur Frage der Vereinbarkeit der Aufnahme von Zypern in die Europäische Union mit dem Völkerrecht, dem Recht der EU und den Zypern-Verträgen von 1959/60, Kurzgutachten der Republik Türkei’, available at

Hillier, T. (1998), Sourcebook on Public International Law, LondonGoogle Scholar

Hoffmann, R. and Wyser, J. (2010), ‘Going East: Korruptionsbedingte Risiken für Unternehmen und Mitarbeiter’, Gesellschafts- und Kapitalmarktrecht, 24

Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T. (1996), Lehrbuch des Strafrechts: Allgemeiner Teil, 5th edn, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Jung, H. (1979), ‘Die Inlandsteilnahme an ausländischer strafloser Haupttat. Regelungsgehalt und Problematik des § 9 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StGB’, Juristenzeitschrift, 325

Kontorovich, E. (2004), ‘The Piracy Analogy: Modern Universal Jurisdiction's Hollow Foundation’, 45(1) Harvard International Law Journal183Google Scholar

LaFave, W. R. (2000), Criminal Law, 3rd edn, St. Paul (US)Google Scholar

Lenz, S. and Mäder, W. (2013), ‘Grenzüberschreitende Korruption: Die Anwendbarkeit des schweizerischen Unternehmensstrafrechts aus Sicht der Praktiker’, 1 Forumpoenale33Google Scholar

Magrini, P. (2003), ‘L'attuazione della Convenzione OCSE contro la corruzione negli Stati membri: il quadro comparato’ in Sacerdoti, G. (ed.), Responsabilità d'impresa e strumenti internazionali anticorruzione, MilanGoogle Scholar

Marsch, A.-C. (2009), Strukturen der internationalen Korruptionsbekämpfung. Wie wirksam sind internationale Abkommen?, OsnabrückGoogle Scholar

Chevalier, Miller (2008), FCPA Alert, ‘Siemens agrees to landmark $800 million settlement’, 15 December 2008, available at

Müller, J. P. and Wildhaber, L. (eds.) (1982), Praxis des Völkerrechts, BernGoogle Scholar

Nagel, S. (2007), Entwicklung und Effektivität internationaler Massnahmen zur Korruptionsbekämpfung, TübingenCrossRef Google Scholar

Nicholls, C., Daniel, T., Bacarese, A. and Hatchard, J. (2011), Corruption and Misuse of Public Office, 2nd edn, OxfordGoogle Scholar

O'Shea, E. (2011), The Bribery Act 2010, A Practical Guide, BristolGoogle Scholar

Passas, N. (1999), ‘Globalization, Criminogenic Asymmetries and Economic Crime’, 1(4) European Journal of Law Reform399Google Scholar

Pieth, M. (1997) [cited Pieth 1997b], ‘Internationale Harmonisierung von Strafrecht als Antwort auf transnationale Wirtschaftskriminalität’, 109 Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft756CrossRef Google Scholar

Raphael, M. (2010), The Bribery Act 2010, Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar

Rumpf, Ch. (2004), ‘Zur Rechtslage Zyperns: Grundlagen und Konfliktlinien’, available at

Spahn, E. K. (2013), ‘Multijurisdictional Bribery Law Enforcement: The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention’, 53 Virginia Journal of International Law Digest1Google Scholar

Van den Wyngaert, Ch. (1989), ‘Double Criminality as a Requirement to Jurisdiction’ in Dugard, J. and van den Wyngaert, (eds.) (1996), International Criminal Law and Procedure, Aldershot/Brookfield (US)/Singapore/Sydney, 131Google Scholar

Weinstein, M. J., Meyer, R. J. and Clark, J. D. (2012), The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Compliance, Investigations and Enforcement, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Book contents

Article 4 - Jurisdiction

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive