Abstract

The dissertation proposes to explain the discrepancy between the mounting condemnation of corruption and the persistent resistance to such condemnation. It shows that resistance is subtly realized through the exercise of the practive of dual intentionality, where apparently legitimate constructions hide corrupt intentions, and serve at the same time to secure the support of official enforcement in case of corrupt recalcitrance. The dissertation proposes to look at how the condemnation of corruption and dual intentionality interplay in international commercial arbitration, inasmuch as it is a business dispute settlement process that occurs accross many legal systems and conceptions. In an effort to explain the lack of uniformity in arbitral solutions when it comes to dealing with corruption in arbitration, the dissertation suggests that one is able to distinguish between an indifferent and a repressive attitude. Such attitudes control arbitral decision-making on such matters as jurisdiction, evidence of corruption and applicable law

Details

Actions