International Legal Transactions - Assignment Example

There are two kinds of bribery, both of which are anathema to international law. Active bribery is the deliberate “promising, offering, or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage to any of its public officials… to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or functions, whether the undue advantage accrues to the official or to a third person”. On the other hand, passive bribery is the “request or receipt…or acceptance of an offer or promise of such an undue advantage by a public official (Deming 106).

Definitely, international law provides the Anglian Ministry of Justice with legal bases for prosecuting LuxAuto and its officials for engaging in the active bribery of foreign public officials i.e. that of Maurya. primarily because of the leadership of the United States which in 1970 enacted RICO or the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and then in 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(FCPA). Realizing the magnitude of the pernicious effects to the economy and the morality and the morale of the citizens by the bribery of public officials and the fact that judges and public offices were already available for a price, the USA via FCPA tirelessly and actively pursued the prosecution of US companies in American courts for the bribery of public officials even if the transactions occurred in foreign shores.

Soon, 34 US companies were prosecuted for involvement in foreign bribery and 7 civil actions were successfully pursued (Bannon & Collier 305). Because the playing field was disadvantageous to US multinational companies which allegedly lost out against foreign MNCs, US lobbied hard to make an international law that was similar to FCPA but globally encompassing and enforceable with the International Court of Justice. The solution proved to be the convening of 29 members and 5 non-members of the OECD or Organization