从Petrobras案看美国《反海外腐败法》的域外管辖问题  

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act from the Petrobras Case

作　　者：陈宇[1] CHEN YU(Law School,Renmin University of China,Beijing 100872,China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《河北法学》2020年第5期167-186,共20页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目《跨国公司犯罪的法律控制问题研究》(11JJD820014)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：Petrobras案反映了美国《反海外腐败法》(FCPA)的域外管辖权存在合理性的问题。通过回顾该法的立法历史和研究其条款的规定,分析FCPA针对外国公司的典型案例,表明美国FCPA执法机构宽泛地解释法律,借助微弱的连接点,扩大FCPA域外管辖权的行使范围。这既与美国国内法和司法实践中确定行使域外管辖权的合理性平衡检验标准不一致,同时也不符合《经合组织公约》和习惯国际法规则的要求。究其实质,美国《反海外腐败法》一方面为国际社会治理跨国贿赂提供了国际公共产品,另一方面也在维护了美国和美国公司的利益,收取额外的霸权收益。The Petrobras case reflects the question of whether the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(FCPA)has extraterritorial jurisdiction.By reviewing the legislative history of FCPA and studying its provisions,analyzing the typical cases of FCPA against foreign corporations,it indicates that the FCPA agencies have broadly interpreted the law and expanded the scope of FCPA’s extraterritorial jurisdiction with weak connection.This is not consistent with the standard of reasonableness balancing test in US law and judicial practice,nor does it meet the requirements of the OECD Convention and customary international law rules.In essence,on the one hand,the FCPA provides international public goods for the international community to control transnational bribery,and on the other hand,it also safeguards the interests of the United States and American companies and collects additional hegemonic gains.

关 键 词：反海外腐败法 反腐败 域外管辖权 连接点 合理管辖原则 

分 类 号：DF94[政治法律—国际法学]