滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[The Conundrum of Compromise/Robert Precht]
滕彪文集
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
·貪官、死刑與民意
·茉莉:友爱的滕彪和他的诗情
·萧瀚:致滕彪兄
·万延海:想起滕彪律师
·滕彪:被迫走上它途的文學小子/威廉姆斯
·中国两位律师获民主奖/美国之音
·独立知识分子——写给我的兄弟/许志永
·滕彪的叫真/林青
·2011年十大法治事件(公盟版)
·Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Under Assault
·《乱诗》/殷龙龙
·吴英的生命和你我有关
·和讯微访谈•滕彪谈吴英案
·吴英、司法与死刑
·努力走向公民社会(视频访谈)
·【蔡卓华案】胡锦云被诉窝藏赃物罪的二审辩护词
·23岁青年被非法拘禁致死 亲属六年申请赔偿无果
·5月2日与陈光诚的谈话记录
·华邮评论:支持中国说真话者的理由
·中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报
·陈光诚应该留还是走?/刘卫晟
·含泪劝猫莫吃鼠
·AB的故事
·陈克贵家属关于拒绝接受两名指定律师的声明
·这个时代最优异的死刑辩词/茉莉
·自救的力量
·不只是问问而已
·The use of Citizens Documentary in Chinese Civil Rights Movements
·行政强制法起草至今23年未通过
·Rights Defence Movement Online and Offline
·遭遇中国司法
·一个单纯的反对者/阳光时务周刊
·“颠覆国家政权罪”的政治意涵/滕彪
·财产公开,与虎谋皮
·Changing China through Mandarin
·通过法律的抢劫——答《公民论坛》问
·Teng Biao: Defense in the Second Trial of Xia Junfeng Case
·血拆危局/滕彪
·“中国专制体制依赖死刑的象征性”
·To Remember Is to Resist/Teng Biao
·Striking a blow for freedom
·滕彪:维权、微博与围观:维权运动的线上与线下(上)
·滕彪:维权、微博与围观:维权运动的线上与线下(下)
·达赖喇嘛与中国国内人士视频会面问答全文
·台灣法庭初體驗-專訪滕彪
·滕彪:中国政治需要死刑作伴
·一个反动分子的自白
·强烈要求释放丁红芬等公民、立即取缔黑监狱的呼吁书
·The Confessions of a Reactionary
·浦志强 滕彪: 王天成诉周叶中案代理词
·选择维权是一种必然/德国之声
·A courageous Chinese lawyer urges his country to follow its own laws
·警方建议起诉许志永,意见书似“公民范本”
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·对《集会游行示威法》提起违宪审查的公开建议书
·滕彪访谈录:在“反动”的道路上越走越远
·因家暴杀夫被核准死刑 学界联名呼吁“刀下留人”
·川妇因反抗家暴面临死刑 各界紧急呼吁刀下留人
·Activist’s Death Questioned as U.N. Considers Chinese Rights Report
·Tales of an unjust justice
·打虎不是反腐
·What Is a “Legal Education Center” in China
·曹雅学:谁是许志永—— 与滕彪博士的访谈
·高层有人倒行逆施 民间却在不断成长
·让我们记住作恶的法官
·China’s growing human rights movement can claim many accomplishments
·總有一種花將會開遍中華大地/郭宏治
·不要忘记为争取​自由而失去自由的人们
·Testimony at CECC Hearing on China’s Crackdown on Rights Advocates
·Tiananmen at 25: China's next revolution may already be underway
·宗教自由普度共识
·"Purdue Consensus on Religious Freedom"
·Beijing urged to respect religious freedom amid ‘anti-church’ crackd
·“中共难容宗教对意识形态的消解”
·非常规威慑
·许志永自由中国公民梦不碎
·滕彪维园演讲
·Speech during the June 4th Vigil in Victoria Park in Hong Kong
·坦克辗压下的中国
·呂秉權﹕滕彪赤子心「死諫」香港
·【林忌评论】大陆没民主 香港没普选?
·曾志豪:滕彪都站出來,你呢?
·June 2014: Remembering Tiananmen: The View from Hong Kong
·The Strength to Save Oneself
·讓北京知道 要甚麼樣的未來/苹果日报
·否認屠殺的言論自由?
·Beyond Stability Maintenance-From Surveillance to Elimination/Teng bia
·从稳控模式到扫荡模式
·為自由,免於恐懼越絕壑——記滕彪談中國維權路
·就律协点名维权律师“无照”执业 滕彪答德国之声记者问
·法官如何爱国?
·滕彪给全国律协的公开信
·郑州十君子公民声援团募款倡议书
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
The Conundrum of Compromise/Robert Precht

   The Conundrum of Compromise
   
   18 May 2016
   Author: Robert Precht
   Category: Public Interest Law


   
   The American Bar Association Under Fire
   
   The controversy surrounding the American Bar Association’s decision not to publish the memoirs of famed human rights activist Teng Biao allegedly because it feared angering the Chinese government and jeopardizing its programs in the country points to a universal problem facing foreign businesses and organizations working in China. When are moral compromises appropriate?
   
   Varieties of Moral Compromise in China
   
   The need to make compromises arises in numerous contexts. Should scholars agree to not research certain subjects in order to get keep their visas to China? Should American universities agree to curtail academic freedom in order to have access to Chinese students? Should businesses agree to the forced turnover of intellectual property rights in order to enter into a joint agreement with state-owned Chinese companies?
   
   Moral compromise may be a fact of life, but it is a perilous door to open. All sorts of bad acts can be pushed through in the name of expediency. There needs to be some checkpoint at the door to determine when a moral compromise is reasonable and when it’s not.
   
   A Reasonable Test
   
   In cases where organizations make a moral compromise to continue doing business in China at least three factors should be considered to determine the reasonableness of the compromise. Essentially, it is a cost-benefit analysis. The critical feature is that it is a transparent process. The three factors are: (1) Degree of harm caused by the compromise. Is the organization directly or indirectly contributing to human rights violations and, if so, how severe is the violation? (2) Competing good protected by the compromise. Is the organization benefiting people by making the compromise? (3) Effect on organization's integrity. Is the compromise in question consistent or inconsistent with the organization’s mission?
   
   Case Study: Google
   
   Scholar George C. Brenkert examined this question in the context of Google’s experience in China in the early 2000s. Google agreed to Chinese government demands that it filter out search results of sensitive topics making it impossible for Chinese users to find links to topics such as the Tiananmen massacre or Falun Gong. Brenkert found that Google was obediently complicit in a human rights violation by assisting the Chinese government to restrict the free flow of information. Nevertheless, Brenkert concluded that the compromise was reasonable. The harm to Chinese citizens was real but relatively slight -- they were prevented from obtaining information but nobody’s physical freedom was at stake. The competing good protected by the compromise was great. Google is a global company, and by acceding to the government’s demand it was protecting its ability operate in a hugely important market. As to integrity, although Google’s mantra is “Don’t be evil,” the compromise in question was not inconsistent with its overall integrity as a for-profit company. Finally, Google attempted to mitigate the damage cause by filtering search results on the mainland by providing an alternate, unfiltered search engine in Hong Kong that Chinese users could access.
   
   Transparency and Accountability
   
   Reasonable people can disagree whether a given compromise is justified. The virtue of having explicit factors to weigh is that it makes the compromise process transparent and subject to analysis. Without standards, organizations and businesses can just say, in effect, we considered all the factors and decided the compromise was warranted. The problem with that approach is that it allows organizations to escape accountability for actions that arguably hurt human rights in China.
(2016/05/20 发表)
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场