The Fight against Corruption by International Organizations

I. INTRODUCTION Corruption, an ineradicable element of politics across time and place, is universal.1 Every state grapples with corruption and its negative effects.2 It is a natural consequence of the often-symbiotic relationship between business and government,3 and its total elimination is impossible.4 While corruption is present in all states, it is clearly more pervasive in some states than in others5 because corruption evolves and is defined in a largely state-specific manner.6 Consequently, it is difficult to effectively analyze and address this problem, especially within the frequently unsettled context of developing states.7 Corruption in general makes both political governance and economic development more difficult.8 One must differentiate, however, between distinct levels of corruption.9 Small-scale for instance, tends to be relatively benign.10 Large-scale corruption may be a significant problem for a number of reasons, however, not only because of the diversion of public funds to government officials and the business elite, but also because it highlights the difference in interests between the government and the people.11 This long-term social fracture represents the most damaging aspect of corruption.12 Several progressive factors are near-universal predicates for large-scale corruption.13 The most pervasive is a culture of corruption, a lack of public morality that often develops out of an ineffective party and a bloated and unwieldy bureaucracy devoid of any sense of civic responsibility.14 In addition, a lack of transparency in government affairs allows instances of corruption to be hidden effectively from the public.15 In turn, public disillusionment may become widespread, leading to the exit of the masses from the political system, which further facilitates corruption.16 The cycle is difficult to overcome once it has become institutionalized.17 In recent years, the overall global perception of corruption has changed from acceptance as a quirk of various political systems to the recognition of its harm and a desire to mitigate its effects.18 While corruption often has its origin in the domestic sphere, it has assumed an increasingly international character, partly due to the rise of multi-national corporations and the increasing use of foreign bank accounts.19 These international effects have led to the creation of multilateral alliances against corruption that have become commonplace in the past decade.20 A number of agreements have been signed with the aim of mitigating this problem in member states.21 Considering that the tremendous loopholes provided by the international system have contributed significantly to its large-scale proliferation, it is perhaps ironic that international cooperation has emerged as the strategy du jour for fighting corruption.22 The ratification of these agreements, however, holds promise for future gains.28 Despite this promise, there is reason for pause. State leaders, for example, may conduct campaigns in participating states superficially, without a serious commitment to goals.24 Those employing this strategy often seek to placate and appease both domestic and international actors and to strengthen their power base with the promise of future reform.25 The use of such anti-corruption rhetoric by political leaders appears to be increasing as a way to take advantage of the growing global awareness of the negative consequences of corruption.26 Not only will such a strategy forestall genuine reform efforts, but it may also convince a state's people of the inevitability and uncontrollability of corruption.27 In order to prevent leaders from exploiting initiatives, therefore, organizations must present programs that necessarily translate language to action.28 The Inter-American Convention against Corruption (InterAmerican Convention) and the Agreement Establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) are two pacts ratified in the midst of this global movement to fight corruption. …