Much evidence points to the view that interstate issues should be settled through multilateral agreements is reeling. Trump, Bolsonaro, Xi and Putin are examples of politicians who instead choose a path of nationalism and monarchy. The USA's extraterritorial korruptionslagstiftning should be seen in this wider context.
the united states and Brazil has threatened to leave the Parisavtalen. The united states has re-introduced trade sanctions against Iran and has withdrawn from the UN treaty against arms trade. China has since 2017 a law that forces all citizens to abroad support the country's intelligence service. Common for this behaviour is a nationalist political and economic interests, in which trade and investment are key tools. Not rarely have the character of extortion. We have previously on SvD's Debate questioned whether the might is right must always prevail.
The basic reason for such a dubious order still allowed is, of course, that global companies do not want to lose such a financially important market as the american. Their interest of the low profile also favours a system of settlements outside the court with all the arbitrariness that entails.
A principlös posture becomes dangerous if countries increasingly adapts to the unilateral legislation of the economic powers in the world with a completely different view on the multilateral rules of the game or which question the democratic and human rights.
Few countries would also battle with a key ally to the united states. But a principlös posture becomes dangerous if countries increasingly adapts to the unilateral legislation of the economic powers in the world with a completely different view on the multilateral rules of the game or which question the democratic and human rights.
Unfortunately, the situations many when even a concerted policy within the EU does not solve the problem. To the banks Standard chartered and Unicredit coated with sanktionsavgifter about 639 million and 1.3 billion dollars for carrying out transactions with Iran is an example. Whether the EU last year adopted klimatklausuler in trade agreements will make itself felt in the new förhandlingstarten with the united states is still unclear.
more Important than the amount of the fines accruing to the who is the issue of mellanstagliga relationships and the legal principles we allow, and why. We welcome Sandberg's op-ed and find his suggestions to combat corruption, the interesting and commendable. That a tightening is needed is beyond doubt. The question is whether the EU laws will be enough.
We wish, and in addition to our politicians to take principled position on the nature of extraterritorial legislation whose implementation and compliance is mainly due to the legislator's financial position. What exactly is Sweden's and the EU's foreign and trade policy when it comes to these matters, not least when seen from a power perspective?