The International law

Numerous multilateral treaties have been enacted to address the problem of corruption. The chapter will examine five treaties, classified into regional and multiregional laws. The regional laws are the

Organization of American States Inter-American Convention against Corruption (Inter-American Convention), Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention and African Union Convention on

Preventing and Combating Corruption (AU Convention). The multiregional laws are the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public

Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Anti-Bribery Convention) and United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). The focus will be on the approach of such treaties with regard to transnational bribery and the grounds of jurisdiction for prosecuting the crime of transnational bribery.

       There has been extensive discourse on attempts to hold corporations responsible for violations of international law norms through civil liability. Such cases are dealt with in domestic courts.1 For example, in 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States by five Holocaust victims against International Business Machines for allegedly aiding and abetting crimes against humanity and violations of human rights.2 Attempts to hold corporations directly responsible for violations of international law norms are, however, controversial. One aspect of the call for direct corporate responsibility which seems uncontroversial is that which relates to international crimes such as crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity (core crimes).3 The consensus of distinguished experts is that corporations can be held responsible for such core crimes.4 International criminal law recognises that corporations can be held responsible for the core crimes, albeit still only through domestic jurisdictions. Currently, no international court addresses corporate responsibility even for ‘serious’ international crimes. This chapter will review the approach of current international law towards corporate liability for international corruption. Corporate responsibility in international law for such crimes is primarily recognised indirectly, through state mechanisms put in place to enforce relevant laws and soft-law initiatives. International corruption differs from the core crimes for which direct corporate responsibility is now being recognised; nevertheless, direct corporate responsibility is noless relevant for international corruption. The failure of states to hold corporations liable for the crime of international corruption calls for direct corporate responsibility. The possibility and implications of making corporations directly responsible under international law for the crime of international corruption will therefore be explored in this chapter. It must be said, however, that the state-centric structure of international law militates against the evolution of an international regime of corporate responsibility and liability.