transnational crime and global criminology: … · transnational crime and global criminology:...

Transnational Crime and GlobalCriminology: Definitional, Typological,and Contextual Conundrums

David 0. Friedrichs

Introduction

ARLY IN THE 21ST CENTURY, A SPECTER HAUNTS THE FIELD OF CRIMINOLOGY: THE

specter of globalization. Throughout most of its history, criminology hasbeen principally preoccupied with crime and its control as a local phenom-

enon. During the course of the 20th century, criminologists increasingly found itnecessary to attend to crime in a national (or federal) context, and the control ofsuch crime as a federal endeavor. In particular, organized crime and white-collarcrime (especially in its corporate form) were recognized to transcend local and stateborders (e.g., Cressey, 1969; Clinard and Yeager, 1980). In the most recent era,and with spiraling intensity at the outset of the new century, a small but growingnumber of criminologists have focused upon crime as a transnational or globalphenomenon (e.g., Karstedt and Bussmann, 2000; Sheptycki and Wardak, 2003). Inconjunction with the recognition of transnational and global dimensions to crime,criminologists increasingly recognize the limitations of traditional criminal justiceinstitutions--local, state, and federal-in addressing such crime (e.g., Reichel,2005; Sheptycki, 2002). Accordingly, we are now witnessing the emergence of aglobal criminology.

Who are the criminologists at the forefront of the shift to a global frameworkfor the field of criminology? Disproportionately, they are criminologists whoseideological orientation falls on the progressive side of the spectrum. There areseveral reasons for this. Progressive (or leftist) criminologists are by definitionespecially focused upon the crimes of the powerful as opposed to the crimes of thepowerless. Transnational crime is disproportionately the crime of relatively pow-erful organizations and entities, in part because some level of power or resources

DAvID 0. FRIEDRICHS is Professor of Sociology/Criminal Justice and Distinguished University Fellowat the University of Scranton. He is author of Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in ContemporarySociety (Thomson/Wadsworth, 1996; 2004; 2007) and Law in Our Lives: An Introduction (Roxbury,2001; 2006) and editor of State Crime, Volumes I and II (Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1998). He has alsopublished on such topics as the legitimation of legal order, radical/critical criminology, violence,narrative jurisprudence, postmodernism, crimes of states, and white-collar crime. In 2005, he receivedthe Lifetime Achievement Award of the Division on Critical Criminology of the American Society ofCriminology.

Social Justice Vol. 34, No. 2 (2007)4

Transnational Crime and Global Criminology

is necessary to commit crime effectively on a global scale. Second, progressivecriminologists are collectively less likely to do the type of work that is dependentupon major grant support, and the principal funding entities are oriented towardfunding projects focused upon conventional forms of crime and its control. Third,progressive criminologists are especially likely to be engaged with the large-scaleissues of the global political economy that are inevitably entangled with issues oftransnational crime and its control.

If specialization of focus is the norm within academe, my own interests areabout as far removed from such a focus as possible. The contribution I propose tomake here goes to fundamental definitional, conceptual, and typological issues,and the provisional "mapping" of an emerging scholarly terrain. At the outset, it isnecessary to provide some perspective on the criminological enterprise itself.

Criminological Parochialism and States of Denial

Early in the 21st century, it remains the case that conventional forms of crimeand their control, within a local context, persist as the dominant focus of crimi-nological inquiry. The principal concern with this dominant focus of mainstreamcriminology is one of proportionality and the relative neglect of alternatives toconventional crime as sources of significant social harm. In a parallel vein, main-stream criminology has studied primarily the traditional criminal justice system inrelation to crime, and not alternative institutions of social control. Altogether, aninverse relationship exists between demonstrable levels of harm caused by variousactivities of individuals and social institutions and the level of criminological at-tention to the form of harm. These different levels of attention are also reflected inthe allocation of research grant funds. If a 21st-century criminology is to transcendsuch parochialism and attend much more fully to transnational forms of crimeand their control, and the global context within which such crime and its controloccurs, the specific sources of this parochialism must be identified. They surelyinclude: patterns of personal and professional socialization, and a commitment totraditional disciplinary boundaries; the reward structure within the discipline; thehigher probability of "successful" outcomes for conventional research projects,relative to those addressing more complex global issues; and a "state of denial"about the complicity of powerful entities and individuals in criminal conduct.

Criminology as a field may well be too wedded to the theories, methods, andsubstantive concerns that emerged principally in the mid-20th century period, a timevery different from the present. Other, cognate areas of intellectual inquiry maywell be adapting more fully to a rapidly evolving, globalized, postmodern environ-ment than is the case with criminology. For some time now, various commenta-tors have suggested that criminology is in crisis, in some sense (e.g., Braithwaite,1989; Chan, 2005; Cohen, 1988; Nelken, 1994). It is here claimed that critical orprogressive criminology has been more responsive to the rapidly evolving globalsocial environment than is the case with mainstream criminology.

5

FRIEDRICHS

But some objections have either been voiced or can be anticipated in responseto the call for greater criminological attention to transnational forms of crime andcriminal justice, and a global context. First, by virtue of their training criminolo-gists do not have the professional competence to address the relevant phenomenaon a sophisticated level, and simply become "commentators" in relation to suchmatters. Then, if criminologists address phenomena outside their traditionalareas of competence, the question arises whether this will diminish respect forcriminology per se, and even inspire direct attacks from those who believe thatcriminologists are infringing on their turf. Furthermore, it could be objected that ashift by criminologists to global concerns would be a counterproductive allocationof finite criminological resources. As suggested earlier, the practical challenges ofresearching transnational forms of crime and justice are likely to be considerablygreater than is the case with conventional, domestic forms of crime and justice.In the context of graduate programs in criminology, is it ethically problematic toencourage graduate students to explore transnational and global crime issues if suchwork is less likely to enhance their employment and tenure prospects?

The foregoing may all be legitimate concerns. Nevertheless, the guiding premisehere is that if criminology as a field is to remain relevant as the 21st century pro-gresses, it must increasingly adopt a global framework and increasingly concern itselfwith transnational forms of crime and criminal justice. If a global criminology isstill at a rather early stage of development, it seems especially desirable to establisha potent and coherent conceptual framework for such a criminology. This articleaspires to contribute to the constructive development of such a framework.

Global Criminology in Relation toOther Macro-Criminological Perspectives

Criminologists who address transnational forms of crime and the control of suchcrime have adopted different terms for the criminological enterprise with whichthey are engaged. This generates a certain level of confusion. I wish here to proposesome possible resolutions of such confusion. First, we have comparative criminol-ogy and criminal justice (e.g., Beirne and Nelken, 1997; Dammer and Fairchild,2006). Comparative criminology addresses the nature of the crime problem andthe form and character of the criminal justice system in countries around the world.Comparative criminology has in fact been a recognized strain of criminologicalinquiry for many decades. Courses on comparative criminology and criminal justiceare quite widely offered. Some foundational knowledge in comparative criminologywould appear to be an essential prerequisite for the study of transnational forms ofcrime and justice, although in the narrow sense a comparative criminology neednot focus on such forms of crime or justice.

Second, we have a transnational criminology (e.g., Andreas and Nadelmann,2006; Sheptycki and Wardak, 2003). Such a criminology is focused principallyupon transnational or cross-border forms of crime, and endeavors on various lev-

6


els to control or respond effectively to such crime. Recognition of the growth andsignificance of such crime is certainly widely diffused, and at least some forms ofsuch crime have inspired a fair amount of attention from criminologists and fromgovernment entities. Students of organized crime, in particular, have focused uponthe increasingly transnational character of many forms of such crime, includingdrug trafficking, arms trafficking, human trafficking, and money laundering (e.g.,Edwards and Gill, 2003; Galeottie, 2005). Entities such as Interpol play a significantrole in addressing such crime (DeFlem, 2001).

Third, we have an international criminology (e.g., Morrison, 2005; Rotheand Mullins, 2006). The focus here is on international crime-or crime that isspecifically recognized widely across nations as a crime against humanity-andinternational law, as well as on the institutions of international law. The Nurem-berg trials following World War II were an important landmark in the emergingrecognition of the international character of certain forms of crime. With variousinternational tribunals addressing genocidal actions in Kosovo and Rwanda, amongother places, and the recent establishment of the Permanent International CriminalCourt, recognition of the specifically international character of some forms of crimeand justice has intensified.

Finally, the term global criminology is best applied to the study of the evolvingsocietal context within which crime and criminal justice now exist (e.g., Barak,2000; Findlay, 1999). Here the focus is on globalization and its consequences inrelation to crime and criminal justice, and the role of the global economy and itsregulation in this regard. The harms perpetrated by international financial-andtrade-institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, andthe World Trade Organization have been little attended to by criminologists, butare part of the subject matter of a global criminology (Friedrichs and Friedrichs,2002; MacKenzie, 2006).

Other terms have been used to encompass the criminological study of theforms of crime and their control that concern us here. Macro-Criminology, forexample, is a term applied to the study of large-scale criminological phenomena.To date, however, this term has been applied principally to macro-dimensions ofconventional forms of crime and criminal justice. Also, the term SupranationalCriminology has been adopted by a group of European criminologists, with a baseat the University of Maastricht, who have been interested in large-scale forms ofharm such as genocide, and the control of such crime (see Friedrichs, 2007).

Admittedly, there is considerable overlap between the forms and foci of thedifferent nontraditional "criminologies" just identified, and sometimes these termshave been applied quite interchangeably. Certain questions arise in this context:Can one move toward a resolution of this terminological confusion? Can oneachieve some consensus on the optimal use of such terminology? What is the in-terrelationship of the key foci of these different forms of emergent criminologies?Can "canonical" works within each of the criminological approaches delineated

7

here be identified, and does such an exercise bring commonalities and differencesbetween them into sharper focus?

In many of the growing number of surveys of different forms of transnationalcrime there is often a lack of coherence in the ordering of the topics subsumed underthat heading: e.g., terrorism, organized crime, sex trafficking, crimes of states, andso forth. Is there a logical ordering for this range of activities? Is the transnationalelement proportionally equivalent for all these forms of crime? Can this be reliablymeasured? Does it make a difference in terms of analysis?

What is the status of attention to the types of concerns identified here in graduateprograms in criminology and criminal justice? Although courses in comparativecriminology are relatively common, and have been for some time, courses specifi-cally on transnational, international, and global issues seem to be less common. Anumber of readings on transnational crime have now been published, but to datethere are no textbooks in the conventional sense on transnational, international,and global criminology. A new journal, Global Crime, is now published, althoughits focus is currently on transnational organized crime. Criminology and criminaljustice as fields continue to remain wedded principally to a 20th-century local/state/federal framework and this is reflected in graduate curriculums. But just as the lawschools have increasingly recognized in recent years their need to transform theirprograms to more fully reflect a globalized world, the same will surely be true ofgraduate programs in criminology and criminal justice.

A Provisional Genealogy for a Global Criminology

It may be a useful exercise to engage in a genealogy of criminological con-cerns. What is the "ancestry" of emerging criminological specialties or lines ofinquiry? Historical approaches in the field of criminology most typically focusupon the development of theories, criminological personalities, or criminologicalinstitutions. Much less attention has been directed to the emergence of differentsubstantive interests.

A global criminology that focuses on crimes of powerful entities (includingstates) in the context of a transnational framework surely has its seminal roots inEdwin H. Sutherland's (1940) 1939 American Sociological Society PresidentialAddress. His call for attention to white-collar crime challenged the almost exclusivecriminological focus upon conventional forms of crime that was the norm up to thistime, and remained the case for some time afterwards. Sutherland's book (1949),White-Collar Crime, addressed the crimes of major U.S. corporations, and in thisregard also extended the scope of criminological inquiry from individuals and gangsto organizations, and from predominantly local entities to national entities.

It took several decades before scholarship on white-collar crime achievedsome real momentum--sometime in the 1970s. Sutherland's original conceptionof white-collar crime was restricted, however, to private-sector activity, principallyof corporations. Some of the surveys of white-collar crime that began to appear

8 FRIEDRICHS


by the early 1980s had a more inclusive conception of crimes of the powerful, toembrace the crimes of public officials (e.g., Simon, 2006). In the late 1980s, mostspecifically with William Chambliss' (1989) 1988 American Society of Criminol-ogy Presidential Address, we get the more formal emergence of attention to whathe labeled state-organized crime, or crimes of states. The 1990s witnessed furtherdevelopment of a criminology of such crime, into the new century (e.g., see Rotheand Friedrichs, 2006). The publication of Penny Green and Tony Ward's (2004)State Crime represents another formal stage in the establishment of a full-fledgedcriminology of crimes of the state. These developments surely encompass and providea point of departure for the various emerging lines of inquiry now being pursuedwithin the framework of a transnational, international, or global criminology.

Obviously, some other strains of criminological inquiry have contributed as well,especially comparative criminology and the criminology of organized crime. To alimited extent, global criminology may draw upon the criminological investigationof professional crime. Nonetheless, neither mainstream criminological explorationof conventional forms of crime and juvenile delinquency, nor traditional forms ofcriminal justice, contribute in a measurable way to this lineage.

Within the context of the sparse and concise genealogy outlined above, somebasic questions arise. Which variables impede, and which promote, the growth ofa particular field of inquiry? Why was the emergence of a substantial criminol-ogy of white-collar crime so limited until the 1970s? What kinds of factors wouldcontribute to a more rapid development of a transnational or global criminology?

State-Corporate Crime, Crimes of Globalization, and Finance Crime asTransnational, Hybrid Forms of White-Collar Crime: A Typological Approach

I strongly favor a typological approach to the understanding of crime. All typolo-gies are problematic, and incorporate some distorting and artificial dimensions. Yetthey are necessary to reduce incoherence and confusion. A useful typology clarifiesmore than it obfuscates. Furthermore, a typology should adopt some scheme forordering or grouping related types of crime, on criteria such as level of harm.

In my typological approach to white-collar crime (Friedrichs, 2007), I differentiatebetween core types of white-collar crime and cognate, hybrid, and marginal forms.Corporate crime and occupational crime are the core types. For a global criminology,however, cognate and hybrid types of white-collar crime are especially significant,and accordingly some of these types are identified and discussed here.

Governmental crime-or crime that occurs within the context of government- isthe principal cognate form of white-collar crime. State crime (or crime of the state)is macro-level harm carried out on behalf of the state or its agencies; politicalwhite-collar crime is crime carried out by individuals or networks of individualswho occupy governmental positions and seek economic or political advantage forthemselves or their party.

I have formulated a typology of crimes of the state, centered upon the "core"

9

FRIEDRICHS

criminal activity of the particular state. Accordingly, I differentiate between acriminal state, with a central project of a crime against humanity such as genocide(exemplified by the Nazi state); a repressive state, with a core project of systematicdenial of basic rights to citizens or some group of citizens (exemplified by the caseof Apartheid South Africa); a corrupt state, with systematic looting of the state forthe benefit of the leadership and relatives or associates of the leadership (exemplifiedby Suharto's Indonesia); and a negligent state, characterized by a basic failure toalleviate forms of suffering that the state could address (exemplified by a wealthyUnited States with homeless people and many people with AIDS).

Admittedly, this typology is contentious and open to challenge on the claim thatany such classifications are either politically biased or fundamentally arbitrary, orboth. Some states--for example, Saddam Hussein's Iraq-could be said to combinein almost equal measure elements of each of these core projects. My convictionremains, however, that a typology of this sort at least provides a solid point ofdeparture for exploring more fully each of the principal forms of harm associatedwith the activities of state officials acting on behalf of the state.

The concept of state-corporate crime was introduced by Ronald Kramer andRaymond Michalowski in 1990, with core contributions to the literature on thistopic now brought together in an edited collection (Michalowski and Kramer, 2006).Such crime, involving a cooperative venture between the state and private-sectoractors, must increasingly be addressed in terms of transnational dimensions withina global context. It may be useful to break this concept down further to capture whoinitiates and takes the lead in the cooperative venture, and whether organizationalor individual benefits are central.

The term crimes of globalization addresses the demonstrable harm that resultsfrom the policies and practices of the international financial and trade institutions,principally the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World TradeOrganization (Friedrichs and Friedrichs, 2002; MacKenzie, 2006). Criminologistshave almost wholly neglected such crime. The original inspiration to explore thisform of crime came from the experience of the author's daughter living amongand working with Thai fishing people whose way of life was being destroyed bya World Bank-financed dam.

The international financial and trade institutions are inherently transnational intheir operations. They put themselves forth as engaged in productive activities andas combating political corruption, but they are themselves sources of destructiveoutcomes and foster some forms of political corruption while tolerating otherforms. The international financial institutions are inherently criminogenicbecause they reward getting out loans for projects, not attention to long-termhuman and environmental consequences of the funded projects. Furthermore,the international financial institutions operate without formal oversight on theirpolicies and practices.

The term finance crime refers to the large-scale illegal and unethical policies and

10


practices occurring in the higher echelons of our financial system: e.g., consumerand investment banks, the mutual funds industry, and the insurance industry. Theterm reflects a perception that many of the activities that occur in this context are notbest captured by either "corporate crime" or "occupational crime." Finance crimesoften involve networks of elites acting cooperatively, increasingly across borders.Individuals and groups of individuals use their control over organizational policiesand practices to benefit themselves principally, and their organization secondarily,if at all. Disentangling organizational from individual benefit can be a challenge inthese cases. But the nature of large-scale financial institutions and enterprises incrimes in a globalized world calls for more criminological attention.

The Adoption of a Global, Postmodern Context

A basic premise here is that our world is infinitely complex, and becomingever more complex. Furthermore, any efforts to characterize the present state ofthe world -- and there appears to be an exponential increase in the number of booksdoing so-will be incomplete or distorted in some sense, due to the complexityand dynamic character of our world today. Some efforts to characterize the worldtoday are essentially descriptive, some are analytical, and some are polemical.Some such efforts are more persuasive than others.

Another premise is that any endeavor that analyzes transnational or global crimemust adopt some version of a characterization of our world to provide a context forsuch analysis. What are the criteria for our adoption of a particular characterizationof our world, and is such adoption in any sense objective? Should the adoptionof a characterization aspire to be objective? A characterization that is coherent,persuasive, and supported by incontrovertible facts is worthy of adoption.

Globalization is indisputably one key dimension of understanding the worldtoday. Some broad themes pertinent to globalization can be stated. First, it is a"buzzword" of our era. Salient dimensions include the acknowledgment that thereare new and enduring elements of globalization. It has political and cultural dimen-sions, as well as economic dimensions. Transnational corporations and internationalfinancial institutions play a central role in an increasingly globalized world, but arefundamentally undemocratic. The global market has expanded, and has complexand contradictory tendencies. Although there are both winners and losers in anexpanded neoliberal global economy, benefits are very unequally realized, andinequalities are expanding. Intensified global interconnections and communicationare central. In the view of some, globalization is a new form of colonialism. Theclaim of "free trade" in a globalized world is hypocritical and misleading, sincethe trade policies are rigged to favor the developed countries and the corporationsbased in those countries. Many aspects of a Western, corporate, and IFI-dominatedglobalization have inspired atavistic rage toward the West. The earlier optimisticassessments of globalization's potential have eroded.

An ever-expanding globalization is only one dimension-- although an especially

I1I

FRIEDRICHS

important one--of our present evolving context. A steady increase in postmodernelements is another important dimension. Concisely, this refers to a shift from thecentral role of such distinctive features of modern society as industrialization,urbanization, bureaucratization, mass communication, and mobilization to a post-modern society, where computers (as opposed to machines), virtual communities(as opposed to physical communities), adhocracies (as opposed to less flexiblebureaucracies), interactive communication (as opposed to traditional forms of masscommunication), and fluidity-or movement in and out (as opposed to conven-tional forms of geographical and social mobility)--become increasingly dominant.In traditional societies, crime and its control are largely local and individual; inmodern societies crime and its control are increasingly national and organizational;in postmodern societies, crime and its control are increasingly global and a func-tion of networks.

Although the notion of a postmodern society should not be directly confusedwith postmodern philosophy, two concepts of Baudrillard's (1994) that emergefrom this literature may be especially helpful in making sense of some aspects oftransnational financial crime. First, the concept of hyperreality holds that realityhas collapsed and has been replaced by image, illusion, and simulation. Second,the concept of intertextuality refers to a complex and infinite set of interwovenrelationships, with everything related to everything else. If one considers some ofthe major corporate crime cases of the recent era--such as Enron-- one cannot helpbut be struck by the central role of simulations in some sense at the core of Enron'soperations, as well as the complex networks of parties (including auditors, stockanalysts, investment bankers, and corporate lawyers) complicit in some way in thefraudulent activity (see Friedrichs, 2004a). Surely, concepts of this nature can alsobe applied to an understanding of transnational crime and its control. Students oftransnational crime in a rapidly evolving world must engage quite fully with theliterature on globalization and the postmodern, as well as with other endeavors tocharacterize this world. In the recent era, for example, we have claims that we nowlive in a "risk society" or a "network society" (Beck, 1992; Castells, 1996). Suchcharacterizations need not be accepted uncritically, but should be addressed in anyeffort to provide an appropriate framework for the understanding of transnationalcrime and its control.

The Declining World Order and Transnational Crime

Beyond the need to address the broader global and societal context within whichtransnational crime and its control occur today, it seems useful to me to also adopta more specific characterization of this world. An escalating number of books havebeen published-and continue to be published-that attempt to do this. Needlessto say, these characterizations are hardly uniform, and may clash on some keyissues. Richard A. Falk's (2004) The Declining World Order: America's ImperialGeopolitics seems to me an especially persuasive, coherent, and factually sound

12


characterization of our world today. First, Falk usefully identifies different forms ofglobalization: corporate (neoliberal), supporting maximum autonomy for marketforces; civic, the various alternatives to the neoliberal model put forth by its crit-ics; imperial, post-September 11 U.S.-dominated global governance; apocalyptic,the Islamic fundamentalist vision; and regional, signified by such regionalizingendeavors as the European Union. For Falk (2004: x),

the framing of world order is a more tenuous and contested reality,particularly influenced by the behavior of various kinds of transnationalnetworks, ranging from criminal to religious, by global corporations,banks, hedge funds, financial traders, by regional actors, by the leadersof the first "global state"...and by a constellation of civil society actorspursuing an assortment of global policy agendas.

Falk (p. 4) goes on to identify, I believe quite correctly, some of the mostsalient "post-Westphalian" developments: the rise and fall of Eurocentrism,colonialism and decolonialism, the advent of weapons of mass destruction, theestablishment of international institutions, the rise of global market forces, theemergence of global civil society, and revolutionary new technologies. All of thesedevelopments should be integrated in some form into the analysis of transnationalcrime and its control. Falk (p. 3) also identifies some significant new trends inthe world today, including the resurgence of global religion, the emergence oftransnational social forces, the rise of transnational crime, the expansion of legaland illegal migration patterns, the diffusion of global, integrated television, and themilitarization of the planet. Falk includes the "rise of international crime" on hislist of such trends. His book then examines the key attributes of our contemporaryglobal circumstances in some depth. He concludes with a provocative claim thatthe foreign policy pursued by the George W. Bush administration is increasinglytaking on the form of "global fascism." The emergence of an U.S. global empirewith a fascist character has immense implications, and is also part of the contextwithin which transnational crime and its control must be understood.

Sovereignty, Nationalism, and Legitimacy

Some concepts that traditionally have not figured significantly in the vocabularyof criminology have greater prominence in relation to an emerging global criminol-ogy. Sovereignty is one such concept. Despite the term's various meanings, centralin this context is the state's exclusive control over the territory bounded by itsborders. The term "jurisdiction" is part of conventional criminal justice discourseand parallels that of sovereignty in certain respects. In a world of increasing global-ization and transnational crimes, however, sovereign claims become increasinglyproblematic or irrelevant--e.g., in the case of the Chernobyl catastrophe, aerosolin relation to global warming, etc. (Sands, 2005: 1; 5-16). Sovereignty claims are

13

FRIEDRICHS

now an illusion in terms of their traditional meaning. They are increasingly invokedtojustify various forms of state-organized lawbreaking. Criminologists must attendto sovereignty issues as they intersect with transnational crime and its control.

Nationalism is another concept little addressed within criminology. In the senseof putting one's own nation's interest and cultural values first, nationalism has along and problematic history. Nationalism in one view is a form of socio-pathologyin the context of a world of weapons of mass destruction. Criminology as a fieldhas studied individual and gang pathologies quite extensively. Which principlescan be applied to the pathologies of nations? Significant points of intersectionexist between issues of nationalism and transnational crime and criminal justice.Nationalistic tendencies promote or deter transnational crime. How is nationalismdirectly complicit in some forms of transnational crime? Do transnational crimeand the promotion of international criminal justice contribute to a resurgence ofnationalism?

Finally, the concept of legitimacy refers to an order of authority perceived tobe valid and deserving of compliance. This concept has been important in macro-level analyses within sociology and political science, and an aspect of law-relatedscholarship, but not within criminology. Legitimacy becomes increasingly compli-cated in a globalized, postmodern world. Legitimacy claims become increasinglyproblematic and contested as one moves from the local to the global. On whatspecific grounds are the legitimacy claims of international tribunals based? Whatare the consequences for their effectiveness if legitimacy is largely withheld fromsuch institutions? How do globalization and emerging postmodern tendenciesfoster legitimacy crises domestically? How do legitimacy crises create conditionsconducive to promoting certain forms of transnational crime?

International Tribunals, International Law, and Global Governance

Although criminologists and criminal justicians have written quite extensivelyon local, state, and federal courts and trials, international tribunals have beenlargely neglected by such scholars. However, a small number of criminologistshave begun to examine such tribunals. John Hagan's (2003) Justice in the Balkans:Prosecuting War Crimes in the Hague Trial adopts an essentially mainstreamframework to examine the workings of this particular tribunal. Dawn Rothe andChristopher W. Mullins' (2006) The International Criminal Court: SymbolicGestures and the Generation of Global Social Control applies a critical perspec-tive to an understanding of the procedural, conceptual, and practical dimensionsof the International Criminal Court. Both the potential and the limitations of suchtribunals should engage the interest of a growing number of criminologists in anincreasingly globalized world. Criminologists should be able to provide usefulinsights into the issues arising in relation to the international tribunals and trials byundertaking systematic comparisons with the operations of traditional (domestic)criminal courts and trials.

14


Historically, criminology and criminal justice have focused upon local, state,and federal law, not international law. In 2003 the new dean of the Yale Law School,Harold Hongju Koh, noted that just as law schools shifted attention from state tonational law late in the 19th century, now law schools must shift more attentionfrom national to international law (Santora, 2003). Criminology and criminaljustice, in terms of their curriculum and their scholarly focus, must undertake aparallel shift.

The problem of crime, and the justice system response to it, has been addressedtraditionally within the context of local, state, and federal governments. One of thebig questions going forward is whether an ever more interconnected global worldwill also lead in the direction of global governance. The notion of a global govern-ment is, of course, immensely problematic, and generates serious concerns acrossthe ideological spectrum. The performance of the United Nations as a rudimentaryinstitution of global governance has all-too-often disappointed its adherents andoutraged its detractors. According to Anne-Marie Slaughter (2004), a very realform of global governance is in place today through the international network ofdiplomats and other government officials who work together cooperatively onmany matters of international concern. But criminologists will find it increasinglynecessary to engage with the evolving debate on global governance, especially inrelation to the implications of such governance for transnational and internationalforms of crime, and their control.

Conclusion: An Agenda for Global Criminology

First, an emerging global criminology should attempt to arrive at some consen-sus on defining itself coherently. It should identify the parameters of expandedcriminological concerns within the context of globalization. It should address thedefinition of crime issue anew within this context. It should attend to defining thekey terms associated with an emerging global criminology clearly and cogently.It should develop a coherent typology of global crime or transnational crime, andof the institutions of control of such crime.

A global criminology needs to address systematically the formidable method-ological issues that arise in relation to studying global and transnational crime. Itshould adopt a credible "world order" framework within which transnational formsof crime and its control can be analyzed. It should identify optimal strategies forpromoting a broader awareness within the discipline of the need to adopt a globalframework. It should identify viable and useful empirical projects that can advancethe understanding oftransnational crime and its control. It must also identify optimalstrategies for securing funding and support for such projects. It needs to identify themajor policy issues that now arise in relation to transnational crime and its control,and the optimal resolution of these issues. Finally, it needs to delineate the relation-ship of an emerging criminology to a range of disciplines- including internationallaw and comparative politics-that address some of the same concerns.

15

Acknowledgments: This article was originally drafted while I was serving as Vis-iting Professor of Law at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. I appreciatethe support of the law school, as well as a faculty research grant from my homeinstitution, the University of Scranton.

REFERENCES

Andreas, Peter and Ethan Nadelmann2006 Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime in International Relations. New

York: Oxford.Barak, Gregg (ed.)

2000 Crime and Crime Control: A Global View. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Baudrillard, Jean

1994 Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Beck, Ulrich

1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Beirne, Piers and David Nelken (eds.)

1997 Issues in Comparative Criminology. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Braithwaite, John

1989 "The State of Criminology: Theoretical Decay or Renaissance?" Australian andNew Zealand Journal of Criminology 22,12: 9-137.

Castells, Manuel1996 The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Chambliss, William J.1989 "State-organized Crime." Criminology 27: 183-204.

Chan, Janet2005 "Globalization, Reflexivity and the Practice of Criminology." J. Sheptycki and

A. Wardak (eds.), Transnational and Comparative Criminology. London: Glass-house Press.

Clinard, Marshall B. and Peter C. Yeager1980 Corporate Crime. New York: The Free Press.

Cohen, Stanley1988 Against Criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Cressey, Donald R.1969 Theft of the Nation: The Structure and Operation of Organized Crime in

America. New York: Harper and Row.Dammer, Harry R. and Erika Fairchild

2006 Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. Third edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

DeFlem, Mathieu2002 Policing World Society: Historical Foundations of International Police Coop-

eration. New York: Oxford University Press.Edwards, Adam and Peter Gill

2003 Transnational Organized Crime: Perspectives on Global Security. New York:Routledge.

Falk, Richard A.2004 The Declining World Order: America's Imperial Geopolitics. New York: Rout-

ledge.Findlay, Mark

1999 The Globalization of Crime. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

FRIEDRICHS16

Transnational Crime and Global Criminology 17

Friedrichs, David 0.2007 "Towards a Criminology of International Crimes: Producing a Conceptual and

Contextual Framework." R. Haveman and A. Smeulers (eds.), Towards a Crimi-nology of International Crimes. Antwerp: Insentia. Forthcoming.

2004a "Enron et al.: Paradigmatic White-Collar Crime Cases for the New Century."Critical Criminology 12: 113-132.

2004b Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society. Third edition.Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Friedrichs, David 0. and Jessica Friedrichs2002 "The World Bank and Crimes of Globalization: A Case Study." Social Justice

29,1: 3-36.Galeottie, Mark (ed.)

2005 Global Crime Today: The Changing Face of Organized Crime. Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Green, Penny and Tony Ward2004 State Crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption. London: Pluto.

Hagan, John2003 Justice in the Balkans: Prosecuting War Crimes in the Hague Tribunal. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Karstedt, Susanne and Kai-D. Bussmann (eds.)

2000 Social Dynamics of Crime and Control: New Theories for a World in Transition.Portland, OR: Oxford.

Kramer, Ronald C. and Raymond J. Michalowski1990 "State-Corporate Crime." A Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Society of Criminology, Baltimore (November): 7-12.Mackenzie, Simon

2006 "Systematic Crimes of the Powerful: Criminal Aspects of the Global Economy."Social Justice 33:1: 162-182.

Michalowski, Raymond J. and Ronald C. Kramer (eds.)2006 State-Corporate Crime: Wrongdoing at the Intersection of Business and Govern-

ment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Morrison, Wayne

2005 Criminology, Civilization and the New World Order. London: Cavendish Pub-lishing.

Nelken, David (ed.)1994 The Futures of Criminology. London: Sage Publishing.

Reichel, Philip (ed.)2005 Handbook of Transnational Crime and Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rothe, Dawn and David 0. Friedrichs2006 "The State of the Criminology of Crimes of the State." Social Justice 33,1:

147-161.Rothe, Dawn and Christopher Mullins

2006 The International Criminal Court: Symbolic Gestures and the Generation ofGlobal Social Control: The International Criminal Court. Lanham, MD: Lex-ington Books.

Sands, Philip2005 Lawless World: Making and Breaking Global Rules. London: Penguin.

Santora, Marc2003 "Battling the Darkness with the Law as His Lamp." New York Times (November

11): B2.Sheptycki, James

2002 In Search of Transnational Policing: Towards a Sociology of Global Policing.Dartmouth: Ashgate.

Sheptycki, James and Ali Wardak (eds.)2003 Transnational and Comparative Criminology. London: Glasshouse.

18 FRIEDRICHS

Simon, David R.2006 Elite Deviance. Eighth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie2004 A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sutherland, Edwin H.1949 White-Collar Crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.1940 "White-Collar Criminality." American Sociological Review 5: 1-12.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Transnational Crime and Global Criminology:Definitional, Typological, and Contextual Conundrums

SOURCE: Soc Justice 34 no2 2007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.csudh.edu/global_options/default.htm

transnational crime and global criminology: … · transnational crime and global criminology:...

Documents