Welcome to the committee of 6th legal. My name is Shelby Donine and I will be
your vice chair. I am a sophomore at Mission Viejo and I enjoy being a part of MUN. I
just wanted to tell you a few things about myself so you would get to know me a little. I
am currently on my high school’s volleyball team. Some of my favorite sports teams
include USC, The Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Angeles, and the Los Angeles Lakers. I
hope you guys have a great experience at this year’s mission conference.
I. Background of Criminal Accountability of UN Officials:
At its 61st session, the General Assembly referred allegations of criminal acts
performed by UN staff during peacekeeping missions to the Sixth Committee for
discussion. Numerous countries made statements on the topic, including all of the G20
nations. It was made especially clear that criminal conduct by UN officials and experts
degraded the credibility, image, and trustworthiness of not only the organization, but of
everything it stands for as well. Some thought that every UN operative should be held
accountable for these actions; many argued over including military observers and civilian
police. Obviously many demanded that the definition of what a crime or serious crime be
clearly classified. Some delegations believed that if a UN official/executive did commit a
crime that it would be at first up to the state that they were in at the time, unless the host
state’s legal system was either unable to process the defendant, or if their processes
involved human rights violation. The Ad Hoc Committee began its first session on the
9th of April, 2007 at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At the 2nd meeting, on
the 13th of April, 2007, the Ad Hoc Committee adopted its report, titled (A/63/54). Again
it was reiterated in the report that a Sixth Committee be created that would consist of
legal advisors and experts to focus on the UN’s legal aspects.
II. U.N. Involvement in Criminal Accountability of UN Officials:
The primary document regarding UN inflection and auto-justice is resolution
A/64/446. In this resolution, adopted on the 12th of November in 2009, the committee
recalled previous resolutions passed regarding sexual exploitation during UN operations
and extended its view to general criminal activity of UN officials. Emphasis in the
resolution is placed on allowing no UN official to go unpunished for their actions, so long
as the punishment does not involve human rights violations and includes due process. It
encouraged states to extend their jurisdiction over their citizens so that they may
prosecute them for crimes they commit as UN officials. This way, officials would be
punished by the country where they are from. It was encouraged that all states facilitate
investigations by providing evidence to other nations and the U.N. so that they could
work cooperatively to process criminals. Extradition of U.N. officials held in custody was
to be facilitated by the nations in possession of such persons, and individual countries
were also responsible for the protection of witnesses to the crimes of the officials. The
resolution called for a standard to be set when member nations recruit personnel to serve
as U.N. officials. Such personnel should have the highest standard of conduct and morals.
In addition, an increase in the training of officials was proposed. Finally, the resolution
assures that U.N. officials who suffer false allegations will have their credibility restored.
The topic has been added to the agenda of the sixth committee for future debate, and
further programs for maintaining accountability of officials will be implemented.
III. Possible Solutions for Criminal Accountability of UN Officials:
Possible solutions to the topic share a general objective. The problem is “What do
we do if a UN official/observer commits a crime in a foreign country?” The case could be
made that it be left up to the legal system of whatever country they are in. However,
others argue that if their system is corrupt or uses inhumane punishment that it should be
left to some other state. Many of the nations that made statements at the 67th session
underlined the importance of a zero tolerance policy. Due to these statements, there is not
a major difference in solutions. Solutions to this problem can range from letting the UN
determine punishment and trial to letting the host state decide the terms of the situation.
Many countries are willing to negotiate on this. All countries believe that the guidelines
for officials and the definition of a punishment should be as clear as possible. The real
debate is on how the trial should be carried out. The countries that want trial in a state
would have to meet certain terms that other countries would decide on, and vice versa.
The terms would be negotiated by the bloc(s) that does not get their initial choice on trial
handling.
IV. Bloc Positions for Criminal Accountability of UN Officials:
Western bloc: This bloc includes the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. This bloc is in favor of
trials in the host state but with an evaluation to see if the host state is fit to try the
criminal.
African bloc: This bloc includes all African countries. Most believe in host state trial
with no terms, but several nations are partially in agreement with the Western and
European blocs, and this excludes Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria.
European bloc: This bloc includes most European countries. This bloc has an almost
identical opinion to the Western bloc.
Asian bloc: Countries from the Central and Eastern Asia regions are included in this
group. These countries are strong in their opinion of trial by the UN but with consent and
a prosecuting team from the host state.
Oceania/Southeast Asian bloc: The majority of nations in this bloc are in favor of the
Western bloc’s beliefs, nothing more.
Middle Eastern bloc: This group includes countries from Africa such as Egypt, Libya,
Tunisia, and Algeria and all Middle Eastern/Arabian peninsula located countries. This
bloc is in favor of almost complete UN control over the trial and punishment selection of
an accused criminal. The host state is basically not involved.
V. Questions to Consider for Criminal Accountability of UN Officials:
1. What is my country’s involvement with criminal accountability of UN officials?
2. In what ways can UN officials violate human rights?
3. Where have criminal acts committed by UN officials occurred?
4. Has your country been directly abused by UN officials?
VI. Works Cited for Criminal Accountability of UN Officials:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/64/446
http://www.un.org/law/criminalaccountability/
http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/67/CrimAcc.shtml
https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/ga/sixth/68th-session/agenda/78/