Regulatory regionalism and anti-money-laundering governance in Asia
Regulatory regionalism and anti-money-laundering governance in Asia
复制标题
亚洲的监管区域主义和反洗钱治理
DOI：
10.1080/10357718.2014.978737
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Hameiri S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hameiri S
自20世纪80年代以来，打击洗钱的努力急剧加强。直到1986年，没有一个国家将洗钱-企图掩盖犯罪收益的来源以使其能够自由享有和使用-作为一种刑事犯罪，围绕这一问题的国际合作实际上是不存在的。然而，随着七国集团于1989年成立金融行动特别工作组（FATF），反洗钱（AML）法规可能已成为实施最广泛的国际法规 *Shahar Hameiri是默多克大学国际政治高级讲师和亚洲研究中心研究员。<S. murdoch.edu.au> Lee Jones是英国伦敦玛丽皇后大学政治与国际关系学院国际政治高级讲师。<l.c. qmul.ac.uk>第69卷，第2期，144-163页，https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2014.978737regulatory地球上的政权。今天，只有两个司法管辖区-伊朗和朝鲜-完全拒绝执行FATF的40项建议框架，甚至朝鲜也于2012年10月开始与FATF进行讨论。FATF扩展到亚洲反映了自上世纪90年代末以来反洗钱运动的加强。特别组织威胁要公开将不遵守规定的司法管辖区列入“黑名单”，最终于2000年2月发布了一份不合作国家和地区名单，国际银行利用该名单重新评估投资风险，促使资金从几个地区外逃。这些“制裁”是由于人们对跨国有组织犯罪的日益关注，以及后来对911后恐怖主义融资的关注而得以实施和合理化的。1997年，成立了一个专门的区域组织-亚太反洗钱工作组，以促进和监测建议的执行情况。亚太反洗钱工作组的成员从阿富汗到美国，其主要作用是协调成员国定期进行的相互评估，并帮助金融行动特别工作组制定新的洗钱类型学和反洗钱政策和程序。随着亚洲国家对制裁的威胁作出反应，将洗钱定为刑事犯罪，并采纳了FATF的建议，亚洲反洗钱工作组的成员国从1997年的13个增加到今天的41个，其中只包括朝鲜和几个太平洋岛国。亚太反洗钱工作组和类似的区域机构是执行反洗钱金融行动特别工作组建议的核心，因为反洗钱金融行动特别工作组本身是一个规模小、影响范围有限的组织，不参与管理和协调相互评估进程，而相互评估进程是确保遵守建议的主要机制。这篇文章提出了两个有关FATF制度的相关论点。首先，他认为亚洲的反洗钱治理是向监管区域主义（尤其是在经济事务方面）更广泛转变的一部分。其执行和运作不依赖于篡夺国家主权或能力的区域组织，甚至不依赖于政府间协调。相反，它需要重新调整表面上的国内机构，使其插入区域治理制度，并在各自国家和社会的其他部分部署国际纪律（见Hameiri和Jayasuriya 2011，2012; Jayasuriya 2009）。因此，FATF和APG不是国际和区域组织通常理解的凌驾于国家主权之上的超国家机构，而是监管网络的中心，协调国内机构管理跨国问题。FATF的建议和APG的监测具有高度规范性，需要进行法律的修改和.
The effort to combat money laundering has intensified dramatically since the 1980s. Until 1986, no country treated money laundering-the attempt to disguise the origins of criminal proceeds to allow them to be freely enjoyed and used-as a criminal offence in its own right, and international cooperation around this issue was practically non-existent. However, following the Group of 7’s creation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 1989, anti-money-laundering (AML) regulation has become perhaps the most widely implemented international*Shahar Hameiri is Senior Lecturer in International Politics and Research Fellow in the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University. <S.Hameiri@murdoch.edu.au> Lee Jones is Senior Lecturer in International Politics in the School of Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary University of London, UK. <l.c.jones@qmul.ac.uk>Vol. 69, No. 2, 144-163, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2014.978737regulatory regime on earth. Today, only two jurisdictions-Iran andNorth Korea —decline entirely to implement FATF’s 40 Recommendations framework, and even North Korea began discussions with FATF in October 2012. FATF’s spread to Asia has reflected an intensified AML campaign since thelate 1990s. FATF threatened to publicly ‘blacklist’ non-compliant jurisdictions, eventually issuing a list of Non-Cooperative Countries and Territories in February 2000, which international banks used to reassess investment risks, precipitating capital flight from several territories. These ‘sanctions’ were enabled and rationalised by growing concern about transnational organised crime and, later, by post-September 11 concern about terrorist financing. In 1997, a dedicated regional organisation-the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG)—was established to promote and monitor the implementation of the Recommendations. The main role of the APG, whose membership stretches from Afghanistan to the USA, is to coordinate periodic mutual evaluation exercises by member states and to help FATF develop new moneylaundering typologies and AML policies and procedures. As Asian states responded to the threat of sanctions and criminalised money laundering, and adopted FATF’s Recommendations, the APG’s membership grew from 13 in 1997 to 41 today, excluding only North Korea and a few tiny Pacific Island countries. The APG and similar regional bodies are central to implementing FATF’s Recommendations, since FATF itself is a small organisation with limited reach, which is not involved in managing and coordinating the mutual evaluation process, the main mechanism used to ensure compliance. This article makes two related arguments about the FATF regime. First, weargue that AML governance in Asia is part of a broader shift to regulatory regionalism, particularly in economic matters. Its implementation and functioning does not rely upon regional organisations usurping national sovereignty or capacities, or even upon intergovernmental coordination. Instead it requires the rescaling of ostensibly domestic agencies such that they are inserted within regional governance regimes and deploy international disciplines in other parts of their respective states and societies (see Hameiri and Jayasuriya 2011, 2012; Jayasuriya 2009). FATF and the APG are thus not supranational institutions overriding national sovereignty, as international and regional organisations are typically understood, but rather the hubs of a regulatory network, coordinating domestic agencies to manage a transnational problem. The FATF Recommendations and APG monitoring are highly prescriptive, requiring legal changes and the …
登录
查看更多内容
国家权力
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
The Classical Review
影响因子：
--
作者：
D. Tompkins
通讯作者：
D. Tompkins
区域世界：美洲帝国中的亚洲和欧洲
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
張珈健
通讯作者：
張珈健
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Karolin Papst
通讯作者：
Karolin Papst
亚洲贸易一体化
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
H. Dieter
通讯作者：
H. Dieter
发展中国家的监管国家：它能存在吗？我们想要它吗？
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
D. Jarvis
通讯作者：
D. Jarvis