Ethics & corruption
How can international law be strengthened to hold state and nonstate actors accountable for large-scale corruption schemes.
International law must evolve with robust enforcement mechanisms, transparent reporting, cross-border cooperation, and inclusive accountability standards that deter schemes, protect whistleblowers, and empower victims while upholding due process and sovereign equality.
August 08, 2025 - 3 min Read
International law confronts a persistent gap between aspirational norms against corruption and the practical ability to constrain powerful actors who exploit jurisdictional seams. Large-scale schemes often span multiple states, leveraging opaque financial networks, vendor favoritism, and political influence to siphon public resources. Strengthening accountability requires clarifying the legal status of nonstate actors within core anti-corruption instruments, expanding universal jurisdiction where appropriate, and upgrading cooperation frameworks so investigative bodies can share evidence, freeze illicit assets, and coordinate prosecutions without violating due process. A more ambitious treaty architecture could create baseline obligations that translate into tangible consequences for violations, regardless of where the perpetrator resides.
One foundational step is to standardize definitions and thresholds for grand corruption across international instruments, ensuring consistency in what counts as criminal behavior and what resources are at stake. Harmonizing asset-recovery procedures helps governments trace proceeds through layered financial systems and ensures returns to affected communities rather than dispersed into off-shore pockets. However, standards must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores diverse political and economic contexts. Instead, they should provide scalable frameworks that empower domestic authorities while offering clear guidance on evidence requirements, mutual legal assistance, and the evidentiary burden necessary to sustain cross-border prosecutions in diverse legal regimes.
Build universal, credible enforcement through asset tracing and sanctions.
The interplay between international norms and domestic enforcement is where real leverage lies for anticorruption. States often hesitate to pursue aggressive action against powerful allies or clients for fear of political retaliation or economic disruption. By embedding accountability into binding agreements with credible enforcement mechanisms, international law can shift incentives without dictating internal political choices. This requires not only punitive provisions but also restorative components, such as repatriation of misappropriated funds, independent oversight bodies, and publicly reportable sanctions that hold governments and corporations publicly answerable. Building trust hinges on predictable rules and a demonstrated track record of success against perpetrators.
Independent oversight is essential to guarantee that prosecutions remain fair and transparent. International bodies should set up quasi-judicial facilities or empower existing mechanisms to review high-profile corruption cases that implicate multiple jurisdictions. Such bodies must have real investigative powers, access to bank records, and the authority to issue provisional measures to preserve assets pending final judgments. Crucially, they should operate with a high standard of impartiality, appoint diverse jurists, and maintain strong safeguards for civil liberties. When international institutions demonstrate unwavering impartiality, domestic courts gain credibility, and cooperation becomes less burdensome, leading to swifter, more consistent outcomes.
Encourage transparent finance and responsible corporate conduct across borders.
Asset tracing has emerged as a practical cornerstone of effective anti-corruption strategy. International cooperation must extend beyond sharing information to coordinating civil and criminal proceedings that follow the money trails. The creation of centralized registries for beneficial ownership, cross-border bank screening, and real-time data collaboration would help prevent shell companies and layered ownership structures from masking illicit gains. In addition, automatic sanctions for identified beneficiaries can deter involvement by increasing the cost of corrupt conduct. Yet sanctions should be proportionate, legally grounded, and accompanied by avenues for redress, to avoid excessive harm to innocent stakeholders.
A robust enforcement regime also depends on empowering whistleblowers and protecting witnesses. International law can strengthen protections by requiring safe channels for disclosures, ensuring anonymity where requested, and guaranteeing remedies against retaliation. Clear, procedural guarantees that whistleblowers cannot be penalized for providing information in good faith will encourage reporting from diverse sources, including civil society and media. Moreover, international standards should coordinate with domestic labor, privacy, and data-security laws to balance transparency with rights. When whistleblower protections are reliable, evidence flows more freely, investigations proceed more efficiently, and public trust in anti-corruption efforts grows.
Strengthen cooperation, transparency, and inclusivity in rule-making.
Corporate accountability is indispensable to reducing systemic corruption. International law should require full disclosure of beneficial ownership, origin of funds, and conflict-of-interest disclosures for entities involved in public procurement and state concessions. Criminal liability for corporate officers who knowingly facilitate schemes should align with evolving concepts of corporate culture responsibility. In practice, this means linking compliance programs to enforceable consequences, mandating independent audits of high-risk sectors, and ensuring that procurement rules invite competitive bidding with public visibility. A truly effective regime channels civil liability and criminal penalties together, discouraging complicity by reducing impunity for both individuals and organizations.
Beyond punitive measures, international law can promote restorative justice by mandating predictable restitution processes and community-based remedies. When communities affected by corruption receive timely compensation or remediation, the legitimacy of public institutions is restored and resilience is built. Treaties could define standard timelines for asset recovery, restitution strategies, and mechanisms for monitoring post-recovery governance to prevent future lapses. This approach complements deterrence with tangible equity, reinforcing the impression that rule of law serves all citizens, not just political or economic elites. The result is a broader public buy-in to international anti-corruption norms.
Align procedural safeguards with ambitious accountability goals.
The inclusivity of treaty design matters as much as the content. Civil society, prosecutors, judges, and financial regulators from diverse regions should have seats at the negotiation table. Their participation helps ensure that norms reflect varied experiences and do not privilege one model of governance over another. Transparent drafting processes, open consultations, and public reporting on negotiation milestones build legitimacy and reduce backroom bargaining. International law gains legitimacy when rules reflect shared values about human dignity, accountability, and the precautionary principle in financial management. Inclusive processes also expand domestic coalitions necessary for sustained reform.
Likewise, capacity-building initiatives must accompany new obligations. Effective implementation requires training for investigators, prosecutors, and judges in cross-border evidence collection, digital forensics, and international cooperation mechanisms. Financial literacy programs for public officials help prevent misinterpretation of complex transactions. Technical assistance should be long-term rather than episodic, with measurable milestones and independent evaluations. By enhancing domestic capabilities, states can better meet international standards and demonstrate genuine commitment to reducing corruption rather than merely signaling ambition.
A balanced approach is essential to maintain legitimacy while pursuing tough consequences. International law must protect against overreach, ensuring that prosecutions respect due process and the presumption of innocence. At the same time, sanctions and asset freezes should be designed so as not to unduly harm the general population or disrupt essential services. This tension requires nuanced judicial review, independent monitoring of enforcement actions, and redress mechanisms for those wrongfully targeted. International legal instruments should also specify review procedures to correct errors promptly, reinforcing confidence in the system and discouraging arbitrary state behavior.
Ultimately, strengthening international law against corruption hinges on coherent design, relentless implementation, and sustained political will. When multilateral regimes articulate clear, enforceable duties with predictable consequences, state and nonstate actors alike recalibrate their incentives. The most effective frameworks combine asset tracing with robust domestic reform, transparent governance, and real opportunities for redress. As norms firm up and institutional capabilities expand, the cost of engaging in large-scale corruption rises. That convergence of norms, accountability, and practical enforcement holds the promise of a more equitable global order where public resources serve the common good rather than private interests.
