This article considers the interpretation of the provisions of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention that regulate investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery. The central claim is that the function of these ‘enforcement obligations’ is to prevent under-enforcement, discriminatory enforcement or concealed enforcement. Interpretation should involve close attention to the specificities of their text as well as the contexts in which the obligations operate, and, when those methods fail, their functions. These claims are illustrated through a study of the application of the provisions to Canada’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin case.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kevin E. Davis (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: