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
·清明节,我去了天安门广场
·立场主义与道德主义(网络版)
·饥饿的中国—写在冯彦伟绝食抗议榆林市政府野蛮暴行的第48小时
·大学生社团的使命
·激 活 宪 法
·孙志刚事件:知识、媒介与权力
·司法的归司法,舆论的归舆论?—从张金柱案到黄静案
·谁能阻止一个人心底的眼泪—日记16则,纪念父亲
·生活是维权运动的源头活水
·虚构的故事
·体制的边界
临沂计划生育调查手记
·蒙河边的抗争—临沂计划生育调查手记之一
·“我家亲戚被抓了22口”—临沂计划生育调查手记之二
·她的眼里没有泪水—临沂计划生育调查手记之三
·到办公室上课去!—临沂计划生育调查手记之四
·不扎也得扎!—临沂计划生育调查手记之五
·学习班—临沂计划生育调查手记之六
·向人性宣战—临沂计划生育调查手记之七
·“盯关跟主义”—临沂计划生育调查手记之八
·人性不曾屈服—临沂计划生育调查手记之九
·野蛮是如何炼成的?—临沂计划生育调查手记之十
·后记:
·有谁战胜过真相
·法治中国需要中国法律人的良知及责任—致世界法律大会中国代表的公开信
·从上书到公开信
·是谁在“严重威胁社会秩序”?—关于游行示威权利的行政复议申请书
·致陈光诚的一封信
·用微笑来面对那些制造恐惧的人——和高智晟在一起的一个下午
·2+2=4的自由
·推倒「新闻柏林围墙」——透视中国新闻自由的前景
·恢复收容遣送制度等于开历史倒车
·陈光诚案凸显中国法治的困局
·暗夜里的光明之舞
·中国维权运动往何处去?
·陈光诚是如何被定罪的?(补充版)
·Crusader in a legal wilderness
·China’s blind Justice
·China's Political Courts
·以公民的姿态挺身而出/闵家桥
·“最可贵的是她有健康的公民意识”——关于公民王淑荣的对话
·“阳光宪政”的护卫者/民主与法制杂志
·要让好人走到一起,才能合力纠错——奥美定事件亲历者访谈录/南方周末
·李卫平: 被迫走出书斋的维权者——著名维权律师滕彪访谈录
·太阳城:写在第三期“名家说法”被命令取消之后
·滕彪印象/法制日报
·Rule of Law requires our consciousness and responsibility
·临沂野蛮计生与陈光诚事件维权大事记(2006-11-7)
·耻为盛世添顺骨
·中国时报专访:盼与政府互动 和平维权
·滕彪博士:精神家园的守望者/刘爽
·司法改良和公民维权——学而思沙龙的网谈
·学术、政治与生活——2006年12月17日做客沧海论坛在线交流记录
·黎明前的见证
·看看我们的朋友——致受难中的高智晟和他的妻子和孩子
·临沂警匪暴行录
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(五——七)
·中国当代宪政主义者的困境和选择/林泽波
·通过汉语改变中国
·茶人滕彪/萧瀚
·崔英杰案:“慎杀时代”的第一个考验
·死刑、司法与中国人权
·废除死刑的中国语境——在第三届世界反死刑大会上的发言
·司法独立,和谐中国——2007年“两会”之际的公民呼吁/许志永 滕彪
·彻底改革司法才能避免滥用死刑
·崔英杰案,在多重反思中寻找契机
·从“两会”看赎回选票运动
·关于尽快将青岛市四方区政府违法拆迁行为纳入法制轨道的法律意见书
·青岛野蛮拆迁:袁薪玉被控放火和妨害公务案一审的当庭辩护意见
·维权书简·戴脚镣的舞者
·被遗忘的谎言——就《成都晚报》事件致中宣部长和教育部长的一封信
·滕彪:可怕的“冤案递增律”
·不是我不明白
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
·专访滕彪律师:《律师法》2007修订与维权/RFA张敏
·The Real China before the Olympics/Teng Biao,Hu jia
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
[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