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
·努力实现匪治
·Hongkong: the Unbearable Weight of the Revolution
·Courts are told what decision to make in important cases
·RISKY BUSINESS fighting for Human Rights in China
·藏族、維吾爾族、南(内)蒙古族以及漢族活動人士的聯合聲明
·A STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY FROM A TIBETAN, UYGHUR, SOUTHERN MONGOLIAN,
·The Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion
·如果有人倾听你对 昨夜梦境的复述(诗四首)
·China’s Empty Promise of Rule by Law
·Sensing subversion, China throws the book at kids' libraries
·VOA时事大家谈:中国司法不独立,如何进行司法改革?
·VOA时事大家谈:通奸女官员被“游街”:罪有应得还是侵犯人权?
·滕彪:中共“依法治国”的画皮
·What will this crackdown on activists do to China’s nascent civil soc
·浦志强、滕彪:李保华诉周国平名誉权纠纷案代理词
·The most dangerous job in law
·关于撤销《黑龙江省垦区条例》的建议
·Selective Blindness over China and Huamn Rights
·中共体制是一个不定时的炸弹/VOA
·滕彪在伦敦闹市被打劫
·「西方學者自我審查問題嚴重」/BBC
·CHINA'S LONG ROAD TO DEATH PENALTY REFORM
·Blood, Justice and Corruption: Why the Chinese Love Their Death Penalt
·完善我国宪法人权保护条款的建议
·计生基本国策是完全错误的
·死刑作為政治籌碼
·Human Rights Advocates Vanish as China Intensifies Crackdown/NYT
·学者滕彪等人探望基督徒母亲被殴打/RFA
·‘Did We Stand on the Side of Tank Man?’
·The Quest to Save the World's Scholars From Persecution and Death
·北京准备出手整肃海内外NGO与学术界
·时事大家谈:中国新国安法,党国不分?
·Comments on the draft law on Foreign NGO Management
·评《境外非政府组织管理法》和《国家安全法》草案
·《回到革命》亮相香港书展
·China is moving toward a new totalitarianism
·Uncivil/ The Economist
·《回到革命》编选说明、封面设计说明
·习近平为何清洗人权律师
·Why Xi Jinping is Purging China’s Human Rights Lawyers
·CCP party has an exaggerated fear of a color revolution
·維權律師享受和集權者鬥爭樂趣
·Toast at the Stateless Breakfast
·"China é responsável por 90% das execuções mundiais"
·敗訴多於勝訴的名律師(上)
·敗訴多於勝訴的名律師(下)
·China's international relations at a time of rising rule of law challe
·Seven Chinese activists wrote to the Dutch King
·七名中国民主人士致信荷兰国王
·專訪維權律師滕彪對中國法治人權的解讀
·中共的政治株连
·Dictatorship is a Decapitator, Whether it Tortures You or Treats You W
·Innocence project movement in China rises to aid the wrongfully convic
·好處沙龍【選後台灣如何面對中國巨變】
·“你恐惧,中共的目的就达到了”
·SOME QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ASK PRESIDENT XI
·Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in C
·Leaked Email: ABA Cancels Book for Fear of ‘Upsetting the Chinese Gov
·Is the ABA Afraid of the Chinese Government?
·Middle way should not be the only voice: Chinese activist to Tibetans
·Middle way not the only way for Tibet, says Chinese rights lawyer
·被曝光的电邮:怕惹恼北京美国律师协会取消出版《黎明前的黑暗》
·美律协违约拒为滕彪出书 国会要求解释
·高智晟:ABA和滕彪哪個更應該強大
·Lawmakers Pounce After ABA Scraps Book by China Rights Lawyer
·American Self-Censorship Association/WSJ
·An interview with China’s foremost rights lawyer Dr Teng Biao
·纽约时报:中国律师新书命运引发在华NGO自我审查争议
·Is China Returning to the Madness of Mao’s Cultural Revolution?
·The Conundrum of Compromise/Robert Precht
·Congress Still Calling Out ABA Over Canceled Book Deal
·No country for academics: Chinese crackdown forces intellectuals abroa
·中共血債大於其他專制國家
·江绪林之死反映中国知识分子精神痛苦唯有自杀寻求解脱
·"THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME BRAVE ACTIVISTS WHO REFUSE TO KEEP QUIET"
·“你们全家都是共产党员!”
·滕彪和江天勇获第25届杰出民主人士奖
·访滕彪:中国司法何以如此“高效率”
·'China wacht een revolutie, ik hoop een vreedzame'
·Arrestatiegolf China toont angst van regime
·ENTRETIEN AVEC LE DéFENSEUR DES DROITS DE L'HOMME TENG BIAO
·Le Parti communiste chinois est confronté à une série de crises
·英媒:遭受打击 中国知识分子被迫出国
·709 Crackdown/ Front Line Defenders
·Cataloging the Torture of Lawyers in China
·南海仲裁的法理基础及其对中国的政治冲击
·the Comfort of Self-Censorship
·G20前夕美国家安全顾问会晤中国人权人士
·Chinese dissidents urge Obama to press Xi Jinping on human rights at G
·China blocks major civil society groups from monitoring G20 summit
·Open Letter to G20 Leaders attending the 2016 G20 Summit
·自我审查的自我安慰/滕彪
·细雨中的独白——写给十七年
·Rights lawyers publicly shamed by China's national bar association
·沉默的暴行
·中共“长臂”施压 维权律师滕彪妻子被迫离职
·除了革命,中国已经别无道路
·高瑜案件从一开始就是政治操控
·毛式文革与恐怖主义之异同——国内外专家学者访谈
·最高法维护狼牙山五壮士名誉 学者批司法为文宣服务
·滕彪和杨建利投书彭博社 批评美国大选不谈中国人权议题
[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