Border Control Mechanisms

This article discusses the importance of integrity in border control mechanisms and how it can benefit both the private and public sector. It highlights the ten building blocks for customs integrity and various measures to prevent customs integrity, including the Revised Arusha Declaration, OECD council recommendations, and the UN convention against corrupt activities.

Running head: BORDER CONTROL MECHANISMS 1
Border Control Mechanisms
Name:
Institutional affiliation:

2
Border Control Mechanisms
Custom administrations have a greater responsibility in expediting word trade while
implementing integrity in border to border goods and services exchanges and the public
revenue collection. Empirical evidences indicates that dealing with integrity issues in
customs can develop benefits to both the private and public sector as well as the entire
community. This can also help to handle the revenue loss that comes as a result of
corruption which is custom related. Additionally reinforcing transparency, impartiality,
and good governance elements in customs lead to impeccable reduction in trade cost for
many nations. Finally, reduction of asymmetries in information, improving regulations
accountability and enforceability plus reducing chances for utilizing discretionary
powers for personal gain, enhanced integrity offers organization a better conviction that
they will get good and continued treatment from official of the public hence the ability
to compete equally in foreign markets.
The effects of failure to address issues on integrity as regards customs and several
border agencies is weighty. It exposes the community at large to global threats related to
the globalization’s dark side (Border, 2016). For example, when there is insufficient
border control systems there can be increase in organized crime by enabling smuggling
and illicit trade. These ranges from highly prohibited goods like hard drugs to pirated
and fake consumer goods.
WCO and OECD are aware of the reality that many aspects of customs work might be
exposed to corrupt deals. For instance, border corruption is seen as one of the major
three hindrances for good and services importation in the private sector. In real sense,

3
customs can contribute to better opportunities to seek illicit rents because of the
officials’ regulation into the global flow of goods together with open powers in rules and
procedures application. The innate international supply chains complexity also develops
exposures which may encourage a number of individuals and businesses to get involved
into corrupt practices. Therefore it is significant that risks from these complications are
outlined and effectively organized to outdo any incentive that might contribute to
corrupt behavior. Effective integrity risks address in customs needs a common
responsibility among governments, the community and private sector as well.
WCO, in a strategic document referred to as “customs in the 21st century” pointed at ten
integrated building blocks which were seen to be interlinked to updated efficient and
effective custom administration. Among the building blocks is integrity that proves
fighting a vice like corruption, enhancing quality governance and protecting integrity are
essential to today’s effective custom administration. In the year 2003, members of WCO
applied the Revised Arusha Declaration that points at the ten main factors which might
be considered by a quality national customs integrity. This kind of programs for customs
integrity can depend on a robust training and improvement measures. It can also result in
an organizational culture that supports high integrity levels showing, transparency,
consistency, fairness and honesty.
Additionally, various measures targeting to prevent customs integrity might be derived
from the 1998 OECD council recommendation on enhancing ethics in public service
conduct (Tomba, & Wallinga, 2018). Secondly, it can be drawn from the 1998 OECD
council recommendation concerning integrity of the public. Thirdly is from chapter two

4
of the UN convention against corrupt activities (uncac). OECD recommendations for the
years 1998 and 2017 offer a comprehensive framework of policies for strengthening
integrity and ethic management in the public sector. This would happen through
involvement of the government and society at large. Given that UNCAC is a general
strategy to counter corruption, in chapter to it provides numerous precise regulations
which must be executed by the nations to the UN convention against corruption.
The revised Arusha Declaration
Among various regulations and declarations, the WCO created the Arusha Declaration
in the year 1993 (Jap, & Ganesan, 2010). The declarations concerns integrity customs
targeting at improving the effective of its members administrations in the risks and
opportunities that might lead to corruption elimination. In the year 2003, the WCO
Council employed a revision of the Arusha declaration with an inclusion of integrity
development guide which acts as a wide-ranging integrity instrument to eliminate the
severe impacts of corruption.
The revised declaration is the central instrument and major feature of an international
and appropriate framework to counter corruption and the growing integrity level for the
members of WCO. It offers the biggest actual basis for the growth and execution of
integrity and anticorruption approaches relevant to the operating environment of the
customs.
The development guide is articulated within 10 principles of the Revised Arusha
Declaration and provides support to the standardization and harmonization of the

5
avoidance, control and reporting of corruption and reinforcement of integrity in
administrations. The ten pillars include
 Investigation of audit
 Commitment and leadership
 Framework of regulations
 Management in human resource
 Transparency
 Organizational culture and morale
 Automation
 Private sector relationship
 Modernization and reform
Methodology applied in compiling ethical practices within borders
OECD (organization of economic cooperation and development) was given a
responsibility by G20 ACWG to compile a document to be discussed indicating the
appropriate practices drawn from the questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to each
G20 nation in the year 2015 December. The general aim of the document was to diffuse
and account for better practices from the countries on enhancing integrity in customs.
Of the twenty, nineteen nations responded to the questionnaire. The countries include
china, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Italy, India, France,
Mexico, Korea, turkey, United States, japan, Russian federation, Indonesia, Spain,
Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Analysis of the answers provide by these nations was
done on desk research and follow up queries through conference calls and emails. Input

6
provided was clarified by customs administrations who were the participants of the
survey (Jap, 2010). The document summarized answers to the questionnaire while
highlighting what was deemed good practices pointed out by different administrations
and also outlining the reasons as to why such practices are seen as good practices.
Public institutions tasked with implementation of customs and border administrations
Practices
1. Independent organization or agency – United States, Italy, South Africa, Korea,
Argentina, Canada, China
2. Department in Tax Administration – Spain, Brazil, Mexico, United Kingdom,
France.
3. Others
(i) Ministry of Finance – India, Japan, Russian Federation, Indonesia,
Germany.
(ii) Specific ministry – Australia, Turkey
Commitment and leadership
Leadership from the administrations and the team of executive management is key to
promoting integrity in boarder operations (Border, 2016). By nature leadership of
integrity from the top is founded on the commitment to lead through example and to
implement and design efficient strategies for anticorruption. Border administration
integrity approaches should be properly integrated with wider national anticorruption
frameworks and get support from the top most political level to attain the intended
outcomes.

7
Administration are responsible for various critical roles are to development of a country.
They include protecting citizens, facilitating trade, collecting revenues, competitiveness,
and increasing security of the nation. Borders administrators are accountable in ensuring
there is transparency and accountability mechanisms. An often utilized good practice is
to make administrators oversight independently. Thus is ensured that there is effective
management of their operations, implementation and are of common interest with the
public interest.
It is much obvious that efficient integrity risk control approaches will not only infer
developing integrity risk regulations (Lynch, & Allen, 2006). They also use the
produced data through such controls to assume corrective practices when necessary.
Thirdly, they measure the strategy’s effectiveness and adapt it to the continuously
growing risks of integrity emanating from varying business atmosphere and practices.
Assessment of risk
Continuous and quality integrity risk mitigation frameworks involve a balance
integration of reactive and proactive measures. Reactive measure aim at reacting to
breaches of integrity that have already taken place. Such include external and internal
audits, approaches to report inappropriate actions, protocols of incident tracking and
investigations. On the other hand, proactive measures target at avoiding breaches of
integrity prior to their occurrence. Example of those measures are developing correct
value statements and strategies which advocate for integrity and excellence, proper
monitoring of the application of necessary regulations and procedures. Secondly, they
design appropriate assessment of the execution of relevant regulations and procedures.

8
Thirdly, they conduct relevant clearance on security when employing new staff and
continuing integrity evaluation all through the careers.
Several boarder administrations have established continued risk control frameworks
which include reactive and proactive measures. In Canada, every kind of control is
delegated to its own division (Bosworth, 2018). That kind of duties segregation works in
favor of the development of certain expertise, promotes peer evaluation of customs
procedures and provision of various perspectives on the development and application of
the risk control measures.
Canada’s CBSA delegation of responsibilities with respect to integrity risk management
The obligations related to risk management approach are segregated among different
groups which are accountable to creating plans for audit and associated measures
(Lynch, & Allen, 2006). They also execute the plan of the audit and making sure there is
security in the overall agency.
Professional integrity and security programs division
This division is tasked with making audit reactions and formulating action plans,
security policy, corporate reporting, business continuity management, security
awareness and training, management of emergency, and other related initiatives. The
following are summarized functions of the unit
 Creating and sustaining a combined security program management approach and
a departmental security plan
 Organize performance evaluation standards for professional standards and
security directorate programs.
 Making sure there is always plans for business continuity for critical services.

9
 Establishment and maintenance of the agency’s strategic emergency control
framework.
 Development and maintenance of the agency’s framework of integrity to make
sure there is better integrity and professionalism standards in the workforce and
delivery of program.
 Creating and sustaining CBSA policies of security to align with the government
security policy.
 Advising and guiding management of the headquarters management and staff on
all matters of security
Ensuring monitoring
A greater number of border administrations have a department specially made
accountable for monitoring strategy implementation, or otherwise the responsibilities
may be given to another independent party. Audits are conducted to evaluate if anti-
corruption procedures and regulations are consistently and entirely implemented.
Good practices
Allowing legislative oversight is proper practice which might enhance accountability
and transparency (Jap, 2010). As several investigations and studies done before by
parliament will be publicized, this practice encourages good governance, accountability,
transparency, and quality governance within border and customs.
Additionally leadership and commitment related practices below are identified as perfect
integrity actions since they promote proper governance and accountability through
improving peer reviews, transparency and engaging external parties in thee
administrations oversight. These practices also enhance integrity in administrations

10
through diffusing the central values standards of an institution against which every
official is anticipated to adhere to.
The effects of failure to address issues on integrity as regards customs and several
border agencies is weighty. It exposes the community at large to global threats related to
the globalization’s dark side (Border, 2016). For example, when there is insufficient
border control systems there can be increase in organized crime by enabling smuggling
and illicit trade. These ranges from highly prohibited goods like hard drugs to pirated
and fake consumer goods.
WCO and OECD are aware of the reality that many aspects of customs work might be
exposed to corrupt deals. For instance, border corruption is seen as one of the major
three hindrances for good and services importation in the private sector. In real sense,
customs can contribute to better opportunities to seek illicit rents because of the
officials’ regulation into the global flow of goods together with open powers in rules and
procedures application. The innate international supply chains complexity also develops
exposures which may encourage a number of individuals and businesses to get involved
into corrupt practices. Therefore it is significant that risks from these complications are
outlined and effectively organized to outdo any incentive that might contribute to
corrupt behavior (Huang, et. al., 2016). Effective integrity risks address in customs
needs a common responsibility among governments, the community and private sector
as well.
WCO, in a strategic document referred to as “customs in the 21st century” pointed at ten
integrated building blocks which were seen to be interlinked to updated efficient and

11
effective custom administration. Among the building blocks is integrity that proves
fighting a vice like corruption, enhancing quality governance and protecting integrity are
essential to today’s effective custom administration. In the year 2003, members of WCO
applied the Revised Arusha Declaration that points at the ten main factors which might
be considered by a quality national customs integrity (Walters, 2016). This kind of
programs for customs integrity can depend on a robust training and improvement
measures. It can also result in an organizational culture that supports high integrity
levels showing, transparency, consistency, fairness and honesty.
Additionally, various measures targeting to prevent customs integrity might be derived
from the 1998 OECD council recommendation on enhancing ethics in public service
conduct (Tomba, & Wallinga, 2018). Secondly, it can be drawn from the 1998 OECD
council recommendation concerning integrity of the public. Thirdly is from chapter two
of the UN convention against corrupt activities (uncac). OECD recommendations for the
years 1998 and 2017 offer a comprehensive framework of policies for strengthening
integrity and ethic management in the public sector. This would happen through
involvement of the government and society at large. Given that UNCAC is a general
strategy to counter corruption, in chapter to it provides numerous precise regulations
which must be executed by the nations to the UN convention against corruption.
The revised Arusha Declaration
Among various regulations and declarations, the WCO created the Arusha Declaration
in the year 1993. The declarations concerns integrity customs targeting at improving the
effective of its members administrations in the risks and opportunities that might lead to

12
corruption elimination. In the year 2003, the WCO Council employed a revision of the
Arusha declaration with an inclusion of integrity development guide which acts as a
wide-ranging integrity instrument to eliminate the severe impacts of corruption (Tomba,
& Wallinga, 2008).
The revised declaration is the central instrument and major feature of an international
and appropriate framework to counter corruption and the growing integrity level for the
members of WCO. It offers the biggest actual basis for the growth and execution of
integrity and anticorruption approaches relevant to the operating environment of the
customs.
The development guide is articulated within 10 principles of the Revised Arusha
Declaration and provides support to the standardization and harmonization of the
avoidance, control and reporting of corruption and reinforcement of integrity in
administrations. The ten pillars include
 Investigation of audit
 Commitment and leadership
 Framework of regulations
 Management in human resource
 Transparency
 Organizational culture and morale
 Automation
 Private sector relationship
 Modernization and reform

13
Methodology applied in compiling ethical practices within borders
OECD (organization of economic cooperation and development) was given a
responsibility by G20 ACWG to compile a document to be discussed indicating the
appropriate practices drawn from the questionnaire (Bingi, et. al., 2009). The
questionnaire was given to each G20 nation in the year 2015 December. The general aim
of the document was to diffuse and account for better practices from the countries on
enhancing integrity in customs.
Of the twenty, nineteen nations responded to the questionnaire. The countries include
china, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Italy, India, France,
Mexico, Korea, turkey, United States, japan, Russian federation, Indonesia, Spain,
Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Analysis of the answers provide by these nations was
done on desk research and follow up queries through conference calls and emails. Input
provided was clarified by customs administrations who were the participants of the
survey (Jap, 2010). The document summarized answers to the questionnaire while
highlighting what was deemed good practices pointed out by different administrations
and also outlining the reasons as to why such practices are seen as good practices.

14
References.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2017). Managing across borders: New organizational
responses. Sloan management review, 29(1), 43-53.
Balzacq, T. (2006). Security and the two-level game: The Treaty of Prüm, the EU and
the management of threats (No. 234). CEPS.
Berkinblit, M. B., Feldman, A. G., & Fukson, O. I. (2016). Adaptability of innate motor
patterns and motor control mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(4), 585-599.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., & Godla, J. K. (2009). Critical issues affecting an ERP
implementation. IS Management, 16(3), 7-14.
Bosworth, M. (2018). Border control and the limits of the sovereign state. Social &
Legal Studies, 17(2), 199-215
Calori, R., Lubatkin, M., & Very, P. (2014). Control mechanisms in cross-border
acquisitions: An international comparison. Organization studies, 15(3), 361-379.
Catthoor, F., Wuytack, S., de Greef, G. E., Banica, F., Nachtergaele, L.,
&Vandecappelle, A. (2013). Custom memory management methodology: Exploration
of memory organisation for embedded multimedia system design. Springer Science &
Business Media
Côté-Boucher, K. (2002). The diffuse border: intelligence-sharing, control and
confinement along Canada's smart border. Surveillance & society, 5(2).
Deresky, H. (2017). International management: Managing across borders and cultures.
Pearson Education India.

15
Geiger, M., & Pécoud, A. (2010). The politics of international migration management.
In The politics of international migration management (pp. 1-20). Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Huang, Y., Wongamorntham, S., Kasting, J., McQuillan, D., Owens, R. T., Yu, L., ... &
Border, W. (2016). Renin increases mesangial cell transforming growth factor-β1 and
matrix proteins through receptor-mediated, angiotensin II-independent mechanisms.
Kidney international, 69(1), 105-113.
Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. (2010). Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle:
Implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment.
Journal of marketing research, 37(2), 227-245.
Kennelly, R. J., Donahue, P. E., Farrell, B., & Cole, R. E. (2004). U.S. Patent No.
6,754,702. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Lynch, C. D., & Allen, P. F. (2006).
Management of the flabby ridge: using contemporary materials to solve an old problem.
British Dental Journal, 200(5), 258.
Tomba, G. S., & Wallinga, J. (2018). A simple explanation for the low impact of border
control as a countermeasure to the spread of an infectious disease. Mathematical
biosciences, 214(1-2), 70-72.
Tomba, G. S., & Wallinga, J. (2008). A simple explanation for the low impact of border
control as a countermeasure to the spread of an infectious disease. Mathematical
biosciences, 214(1-2), 70-72.
Walters, W. (2016). Border/control. European journal of social theory, 9(2), 187-203.
Walter, D. (2006). U.S. Patent Application No. 11/139,132.