Dear Delegates,

It is with great pleasure we welcome you to the Sixth General Assembly

committee of this year’s IHSMUN.

As one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, the General Assembly
is the main deliberative, policy-making, and representative body of the
organization. The sixth general assembly deals primarily with legal matters and
is the primary forum for the consideration of international law and other legal
matters concerning the United Nations.

The topic under debate in this committee for the duration of this conference will
be; The Criminal Accountability of UN Officials on UN Programs.

These matters are especially important in view of the current reform agenda for
the administrative structures, aiming at increased efficiency, accountability and
transparency – in field missions as well as within the wider UN system.

This Background Guide serves as an introduction to the topics for this

committee. However, it is not intended to replace individual research. We
encourage you to explore your Member State’s policies in depth and have a
well-researched understanding of the agenda as a whole.

We look forward to two days of lively and intense debate, and wish all of you
the best of luck for this conference. Please feel free to contact us for any further
queries you may have.

With Best Regards,

Aditi Kichloo (aditikichloo@gmail.com)

Srinidhi Mualidharan (msrinidhi5812@gmail.com)
Kashvi Khare (kashvi5012@gmail.com)
 I. Introduction

With over almost 60 years of peacekeeping operations in play, it is undeniable that the world
has significantly benefited from the contributions of the United Nations (UN), be it from
relief missions in times of natural calamities, to supporting innocent civilians in war- ravaged
states. However, such operations have unfortunately, also given rise to a steady pool of
criminal acts, committed by the very bastions of hope, being recorded in the annals of world
history.

The crimes - primarily sexual violence and abuse - in developing are often in need of such aid
and unfortunately, on peacekeeping missions, have been nothing short of predatory in nature.

By extension, peacekeepers are often not only involved in monitoring and facilitating cease-
fires, they are also significant parties who assist belligerents in implementing peace
settlements signed and whom, are conventionally seen to be protectors of refugees and their
camps. Inadvertently, with the close proximity of peace keepers to locals, abuse has been
made opportune.

Given the UN is a representation of certain ideals of principle and justice, it has in one way or
another failed to stay true to its fundamental values. These abhorrent actions of peacekeepers
no doubt tarnish the image of the body. Not only does that entail reduced faith for the efforts
and practices of the UN, it will also significantly affect the efficacy of policies that are
implemented, putting world order in jeopardy. Therefore, this issue is one that needs a
unanimous and resolute solution that is delineated by the council. A failure of which holds
dire consequences to the state of world affairs.

II. Definition of Key Terms

Criminal accountability

Also referred to as criminal liability, can be briefly described as ‘the condition of being
actually or potentially subject to a legal and/or criminal obligation.’

Therefore, for someone to be held criminally accountable for an action, it must be

demonstrated that he or she has performed an act or failed to perform an act (omission),
which causes a foreseeable result of criminal standing, and he or she also had the intention
(guilty mind), to do so.

UN Officials

Generally, includes all people who hold or have held an office position or a position of
significant status within the United Nations System. A full list of the sub-categories of
officials, and official positions can be found on the United Nations site.
Peacekeepers

These are people who aim at preserving and protecting peace, especially international
enforcement and supervision of peace within hostile states and communities.

Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations

The Vienna convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 is an international treaty that defines
a framework for diplomatic relations between independent countries. It specifies the
privileges of a diplomatic mission that enable diplomats to perform their function without
fear of coercion or harassment by the host country. This forms the legal basis for diplomatic
immunity.

III. Discussion on the topic

Concept of accountability

The legal liabilities of UN officials and peacekeeping operatives in the foreign country they
serve or the state to which they are deployed have always been limited. These officials enjoy
near impunity from the legal systems of the foreign state they are deployed in, primarily to
safe guard them from any unfair prosecution in the distressed state.

Although the bulk of the international community agrees that any and all UN operatives
should be liable for their actions and be accountable in accordance with international law,
there is still dissent with regards to the extent to which they should be held accountable.
Following the World Wars, it was taken into account that the perils and spoils of war
sometimes make certain crimes such as sexual exploitation and abuse inevitable.

This was evident in the lack of cases regarding sexual violence post-WW2 in Nuremburg and
Tokyo Trials. Such sentiments still do persist in some developing communities across the
world.

With that said, it must be recognized that over the years, advances in human rights and
international legal standards have very clearly highlighted the intolerance of acts that
compromise humanity and justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, inter alia, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention Against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provide for legal framework to
incarcerate such crimes. Furthermore, The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women specifically addresses the issue of trafficking women and
girls and the exploitation of women through prostitution. These should protect vulnerable
communities against possible abuse. The reality of the situation however, is markedly
different.

Challenges with accountability

A plethora of United Nations agreements and other conventions promise to uphold the
principles of justice and protect the rights of the vulnerable across the globe, irrespective of
race, language or religion. Most recently, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution in
2013, on women, peace, and security which requests “the Secretary-General to continue and
strengthen efforts to implement the policy of zero tolerance on sexual exploitation and abuse
by UN personnel and urges concerned Member States to ensure full accountability, including
prosecutions, in cases of such conduct involving their nationals.”

There is undeniably a growing recognition of the severe ramifications, UN agents committing

crimes entails. Unfortunately, this has not translated into a significant enough decrease in the
occurrence of such crimes, predominately sexual in nature. As per the UN Model Status of
Forces Agreement as well as the common stance adopted by the UN office of peacekeeping
affairs, the sole jurisdiction to incarcerate troops or officials deployed in the foreign state lies
with the troop-contributing country. In other words, the UN will repatriate alleged individuals
concerned, make recommendations to the party’s country and ban the individual from
future operations.

In 2007, the UN returned 100 Sri Lankan peacekeepers from Haiti over allegations of abuse
and sexual exploitation of underage girls and solicitation of prostitutes. Several other cases
have also resulted in the extradition of the accused officials. There are three main problems
with extraditing such alleged criminals.

Firstly, holding trials back in the countries of these individuals has practicality concerns.
Assessing evidence or witnesses becomes a significant issue; not only does it prove difficult
to obtain evidence from the host countries, there is generally a lack of willingness of
witnesses to come forth and testify in a foreign state.

Second, even if there are witnesses to testify, the case may not even be taken by local courts
in the first place, as the statues in place may not always account for extraterritorial
prosecutions. For instance, despite multiple allegations that the Indian Peacekeeping troops
deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo were involved in child prostitution ring, it is
unclear as to whether the local courts have prosecuted them; seeing a lack of substantial
frameworks to prosecute transnational crimes locally.

Third, there is always the genuine concern of gaps in the legal frameworks that alleged
individuals might choose to exploit, preventing certain crimes or certain categories of crimes
committed from being incarcerated. All in all, the troops being deployed in peacekeeping
operations enjoy de facto impunity. The stigma, fear, trauma and isolation that such crimes
effectuate, make it a requirement that special investigation strategies be employed to address
them. The framework of which is one that needs to be considered carefully and earnestly.

Limitation of greater accountability and host state legal jurisdiction

Beyond the concerns of establishing accountability, there is a very real problem of a lack of
legal frameworks and jurisdiction in host countries. The context of peacekeeping operations
is often dysfunctional states undergoing serious political instability or otherwise, disaster
struck communities. In both cases, there are no avenues to address the crimes in significance,
given the situation to bring the case to court may not be appropriate or if there are no proper
frameworks to begin with.

It must also be understood the communities where the peacekeeping operations take place are
not conventionally prosperous. Often women and girls willingly engage in sexual
gratification in return for monetary gifts and food; prostitution is a source of income and in
their condition, the only way to survive.
This is yet again another key consideration of the topic; solutions should transcend just
establishing more accountable frameworks for mitigating crimes committed by agents of the
UN. They should instead focus on addressing the crux of the problem.

The Vienna convention on diplomatic relations

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 codified the customary law of
diplomatic relations that had developed in the previous millennia, including the scope of
diplomatic immunity.
The privileges and immunities that are granted to diplomats are based on functional
necessity; required to enable the diplomat to effectively perform his prescribed duties.
The Vienna Convention provides that diplomats, diplomatic mission staff members, the
families of diplomatic agents, and personal servants of mission members shall receive
varying degrees of immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving State.

The Vienna Convention is explicit that without prejudice to their privileges and immunities,
it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and
regulations of the receiving State. Nonetheless, there have been incidents where diplomats
have not only violated the law of the host country but also violated the human rights of other
citizens and yet, got away without any significant punishment.
As Mark P. Lagan rightly said, Diplomatic Immunity must not become diplomatic impunity
In recent times, there is a growing tendency amongst the diplomats to abuse their diplomatic
status to commit acts prohibited by law and still claim immunity from legal process. The
States-parties also aggravate this situation by selectively interpreting the rules in their favor,
ignoring the fact that reciprocity is the basis for the successful functioning of the diplomatic
protection.

Case studies

i. Three American diplomats were caught by the police roaming around a Russian
military testing site and were immediately sent back via train on Monday, 14th
October 2019. The area where they were intercepted is of heightened interest to
Western intelligence agencies after a mysterious military accident took place there in
August. The incident saw radiation levels briefly spike and killed at least five
employees of Russia’s Rosatom state nuclear corporation.
Though protected by diplomatic immunity, they are accused of breaking the law as
they did not have the special permits foreigners needed to visit the area.

ii. In October of 2019, an unknown Russian diplomat was said to be spying over highly
classified Bulgarian data and was told to leave Bulgaria in 24 hours as a part of its
right of diplomatic immunity.
Prosecutors said the diplomat has since last September held conspiratorial meetings
with Bulgarians, including with a senior official with a clearance for classified
information from Bulgaria, the European Union and NATO.
Prosecutors said the diplomat has since last September held conspiratorial meetings
with Bulgarians, including with a senior official with a clearance for classified
information from Bulgaria, the European Union and NATO.

iii. Notoriously, in 2005, the UN has had to deal with the case in the Democratic Republic
of Congo, where several peacekeeping troops sent to assuage the plight of a devastated
 community, were implicated in allegations of sexual harassment of the women and
children there. It was reported that troops had offered food and in some instances, small
amounts of money for sexual favors. Such cases of sexual exploitation have worryingly
prevailed in several countries where UN peacekeepers were deployed. Other cases
include the trafficking of people from affected states and abuse of locals.

IV. Conclusion
The UN should focus on preventive legal measures as well as punishment. This may include
a training program where all personnel are informed of the united nations stance on sexual
exploitation. In order to do so, sexual exploitation must be first defined as a serious
misconduct, and an expedited system to deal with exploitation in cases where diplomatic
immunity may be involved must be established, the secretary general’s 2003 bulletin is a
good starting point. The implementation of this bulletin as a universal standard of conduct for
all military personnel in the peacekeeping force may aid in encouraging proper conduct of
these diplomatic officials.

The breach of law and misuse of diplomatic immunity tarnishes the image of the United
Nations as a body and fails to comply with the basic ethics and morals that uphold this
institution. It is thus imperative that this issue be tackled with immediately and that the
committee as a whole, come to a common consensus on how to eradicate this problem.

V. Bibliography
https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/gal3485.doc.htm

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bulgaria-russia-espionage/bulgaria-asked-russia-to-recall-
diplomat-over-spying-allegation-idUSKBN1X71KK

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-diplomats/russia-protests-after-catching-u-s-
diplomats-near-military-test-site-idUSKBN1WW0X7

https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iii-
3&chapter=3&lang=en

https://conduct.unmissions.org/enforcement-accountability