Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 76-6 (1976) · Gifts to Foreign Officials
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Roe Foreign Official Gift Prohibition
prevails over
Roe Host-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe Local Custom Legality Invoked as Ethics Justification
Roe Firm Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Violation
prevails over
Roe Firm Competitor Gift-Practice Non-Justification Compliance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe Firm Ethics Compliance Competitive Disadvantage
Roe Cross-Cultural Consistent Ethical Compass
prevails over
Roe Situational Ethics Non-Practice International
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Argument
Roe Firm Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Violation
prevails over
Roe Firm No-Choice Defense Rejection Domestic Analogy
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competitive Necessity No-Choice Defense Invocation
Roe Firm Ethics Code Spirit-and-Letter Dual Compliance
prevails over
Roe Firm Situational Ethics Non-Practice Foreign Context
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Argument
Roe Foreign Official Gift Prohibition
prevails over
Roe Situational Ethics Non-Practice International
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Argument
NSPE BER When-in-Rome Rescission Ethics Erosion Resistance
prevails over
Roe Firm Situational Ethics Non-Practice Foreign Context
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Argument
Roe Off-Contract Implicit Gift Condition Non-Acquiescence
prevails over
Roe Firm Off-Contract Implicit Gift Condition Non-Acquiescence
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe Firm Coercive Foreign Contract Conditioning
Roe Firm Cross-Cultural Consistent Ethical Compass Maintenance
prevails over
Roe Firm Situational Ethics Non-Practice Foreign Context
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Argument
Roe Firm Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Violation
prevails over
Roe Firm Situational Ethics Non-Practice Foreign Context
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Argument
Roe NSPE Extraterritorial Ethics Compliance
prevails over
Roe Host-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Roe Local Custom Legality Invoked as Ethics Justification
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Roe Cross-Cultural Diplomatic Sidestepping vs Roe Foreign Official Gift Prohibition
Roe Foreign Official Gift Prohibition vs Roe Off-Contract Implicit Gift Condition Non-Acquiescence
What the board concluded
- It would unethical for Roe to accept the contract and make the gifts as described.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Roe Host-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse yields to Roe Foreign Official Gift Prohibition. The yielding obligation ("Roe Host-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
98-2
Gifts To Foreign Officials - Application...
|
Engineer A Ethics Beyond Legal Minimum International Practice | Engineer A Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse | Engineer A Home Country Legal Permissibility of Foreign Official Payments |
|
17-7
Public Health Safety and...
|
Engineer A Post Council Override State Federal Escalation Traffic Safety | Engineer A Public Authority Awareness Non-Excuse Further Escalation | Public Authority Awareness Without Adequate Regulatory Action; Public Authority Awareness Without Adequate Regulatory Action - Engineer A Case |
|
22-4
Duty to Report Misconduct
|
Engineer Doe Post-Termination Environmental Regulatory Reporting | Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review Obligation Engineer A Both States | Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential |
|
05-4
Failure to Disclose Full Impact of Development
|
Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure | Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case | Client vs. Public Interest Tension in Public Hearing Presentation |
|
19-1
Disclosure of Personal Information
|
Engineer A 25-Year Performance Record Materiality Rebuttal Present Case | BER 75-5 Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Application | Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure State; Engineer A Privacy vs Deception Tension State |