Deeply concerned that foreign officials facing allegations of criminal conduct often escape legal repercussions by their home state,

Transcription

1 The Security Council, Recalling the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 regarding the rights of foreign ambassadors, and the Convention of the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946, Deeply concerned that foreign officials facing allegations of criminal conduct often escape legal repercussions by their home state, Alarmed by the allegations of abuse by United Nations personnel and peacekeeping troops who are protected by diplomatic immunity, Affirming the responsibility of peacekeeping operations to protect civilians within missions zones as confirmed by paragraph 16 of this Council s resolution 1674 (2006) on Protection of civilians in armed conflict, Reiterating the resolve of this Council to advance the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular the target of Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, to develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels, 1. Urges the Secretary-General immediately issue a policy Bulletin setting out an interpretation of the 1946 Convention: a. Clarifying that the United Nations has zero tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse, and b. Stating that immunity does not apply when such cases of sexual exploitation and abuse arise; 2. Recommends the amendment of the Convention of the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946 to specifically exclude crimes of sexual exploitation and abuse from the immunity granted to UN personnel; 3. Declares that the duty and right of the Secretary-General to waive diplomatic immunity be passed on to the Security Council, or a two-third majority vote of the General Assembly. 4. Resolves that should allegations of abuse emerge, peacekeepers be tried by the International Criminal Court if there is jurisdiction, and that individuals accused, or convicted, by the Court shall be prohibited from any current and future peacekeeping missions; 5. Further Recommends, in agreement with General Assembly Resolution 58/82, that attacks against peacekeeper troops and United Nations personnel are classed as criminal offences in the host state s law and further, that this is a non-negotiable requirement in agreements between the United Nations and host countries; 6. Directs all Member States to adjust their domestic legislation so that absolute diplomatic immunity is replaced with functional diplomatic immunity;

2 7. Demands that all Member States conduct a transparent investigation into allegations of criminal conduct of peacekeeping troops and diplomats of their state, keeping in mind that: a. All inquiries must be initiated within 30 days from when the foreign official is accused, b. All investigations must be completed within 6 months from the time they were initiated, c. The host state must agree that the proceedings provide sufficient justice throughout the entire investigation and if not, the host state reserves the right to send the alleged criminal immediately to the International Criminal Court for investigation; 8. Urges that all individuals charged with serious misuse of diplomatic immunity be charged to the effect of perjury in the International Criminal Court; 9. Implores all Member States to remove diplomatic immunity immediately following: a. Allegations of human right abuse of civilian populations, b. Criminal activity conducted outside of the foreign representative s official role; 10. Calls for the amendment of Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 so that detention or arrest of a foreign official is allowed if the host state believes that withholding detention would further endanger that state s civilian population.

3 Having existed for centuries, diplomatic immunity is an integral aspect of international relations. While historically, the ideas of diplomatic immunity were the basis for customs such as not harming foreign messengers, in modern times, diplomatic immunity has firmly taken its place as a legal doctrine. Diplomatic immunity is a status granted to diplomatic personnel that exempts them from the laws of a foreign country. Foreign diplomats receive immunity both from the host state s domestic law and international law through the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Rather diplomats in foreign countries remain subject to the law of their home country. There are two types of diplomatic immunity: absolute and functional immunity. Absolute immunity provides protection from every form of legal proceeding. Regardless of the crime committed, a diplomat with absolute immunity cannot be prosecuted by the host state. Functional immunity is when foreign officials have protection from legal proceedings only in respect of actions they perform in their official capacity. For example, if an official with functional immunity assaults another diplomat in a trade meeting, they would be immune from prosecution. However, if that official assaults someone in a bar on the weekend, then they will no longer be protected by diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity helps prevent pressure being put on countries by falsely charging foreign officials, and therefore helps facilitate international relations: states would be unwilling to send foreign representatives to other countries if their safety was not guaranteed. While diplomatic officials receive extensive protection, the Vienna Convention explicitly states that they must respect the laws of their host state. Despite this rule, diplomatic immunity has been abused on numerous occasions. When a foreign official breaks a law in their host state, the only recourse the host country has, is to inform the diplomat s home state that the official is persona non grata (unwelcome). The only way a diplomat can actually be prosecuted is by their home state. This means that many diplomats commit serious crimes, such as sexual assault, but do not receive punishment for it. Further, sometimes host states violate the law of diplomatic immunity. An example is the seizure of the United States embassy in Iran in 1979 by supporters of the Islamic Revolution. Fifty American diplomatic officials were held hostage for over 400 days. In situations such as these, the only recourse home states have is international legal action (e.g. economic sanctions or military intervention). It is not only state officials that have diplomatic immunity. In 1946, one of the earliest conventions: the Convention of the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations was passed. Under this convention, the United Nations itself and its personnel are covered and are therefore immune from any legal proceedings. Not only can they not be prosecuted for a crime, but they are not required to cooperate with investigations or testify in court. The convention was intended to

4 ensure that states could not use false charges or spurious prosecutions against UN staff as political weapons. 1 The only way immunity for UN officials can be waived is if the Secretary-General believes that immunity would impede the course of justice and it can be waived without prejudice to the interests of the United Nations. 2 The Secretary-General does not only have this right to uphold justice, but also a duty to do so. There have been calls for the Convention to be amended to specifically exclude crimes of sexual exploitation and abuse from the immunity granted by United Nations personnel. Another less drastic alternative that is perhaps easier to implement, is for the Secretary-General to issue a policy Bulletin providing an interpretation of the 1946 Convention clarifying that the United Nations did not intend to protect individuals who have committed sexual exploitation and abuse. 3 The United Nations Peacekeeping corps has been around since the inception of the UN in The first peacekeeping operation was used in the first Israeli War in 1949, and since then over 69 operations have taken place in over 53 countries. 4 Operations are established by the UN Security Council, and they often act as a barrier to disputes, with statistics from international organisations showing a decrease in recurring violence when peacekeeping missions are present. Most peacekeepers, including internationally recruited staff, locally recruited staff, military observers and civilian police, are protected under diplomatic immunity. When the Security Council authorises a peacekeeping mission, a Status of Force Agreement is entered into with the host country. This Agreement establishes the rights and privileges of the foreign personnel present in a host country. The top contributors of military experts, troops and police to United Nations Peacekeeping are Nepal, Benin and Malawi. 5 Military troops and private security companies hired by Member States, known as Blue Helmets, are not covered by the Convention. They report to their own military commanders. Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) enter into a Memoranda of understanding with the United Nations which state that only the TCCs can prosecute their own military members who are accused of crimes. They cannot be persecuted by their host state or the United Nations. The issue with peacekeeper immunity is that they are rarely held accountable if they commit crimes. In one of the few attempts to increase transparency and accountability, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon named the nationalities of peacekeeping troops facing sexual abuse allegations. 6 Despite this, the lack of accountability means that peacekeeping troops are essentially 1 Code Blue, Fact Sheet: Privileges and Immunity of the United Nations, last modified May , accessed 25 May 2017, url: 2 The Convention of the Privileges and Immunities 1946, Section United Nations Peacekeeping, History of Peacekeeping, accessed 25 May 2017, url: 5 United Nations Peacekeeping, Troop and police contributors, accessed May , url: 6 France-Presse, Agence UN report: peacekeepers from 21 nations accused of sexual abuse, March , accessed 26 May 2017, url:

5 unrestrained. An investigation of UN peacekeeping missions over the past 12 years found nearly 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers. 7 It is extremely rare for the alleged perpetrators to be prosecuted. If the accused are Blue Helmets, the United Nations cannot do anything. They have no jurisdiction over the peacekeeping troops and instead have to leave punishment to the home states. When 132 Sri Lankan peacekeepers exploited nine children in a sex ring in Haiti, 114 of the troops were sent home, but none were ever imprisoned. 8 Allegations of French peacekeeping troops sexually abusing children is also being investigated by the French authorities, but they have provided little information and have not announced any charges against the soldiers. 9 Should there be a separate independent body that can investigate and punish foreign officials for their alleged crimes if their home states refuse to do so, or would this undermine the principle diplomatic immunity? How do we hold home states liable if they fail to investigate or prosecute their foreign officials who have allegedly committed crimes? Should there be punishments for such states who do nothing? Should the Convention of the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations be amended to specifically exclude certain crimes (e.g. sexual abuse)? Would this be sufficient protection for civilians who suffer at the hands of UN personnel, or would such an action simply undermine the principle of diplomatic immunity? Is your state negatively affected by peacekeepers violating your laws, or is your state one who sends peacekeeping troops? How will this position impact your view on the resolution? Fact Sheet: Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations Troop and police contributors UN child sex ring left victims but no arrests %20left-victims-but-no-arrests How far does Diplomatic Immunity go? Resolution drafted by: Liam Hutching Briefing paper prepared by Liam Hutching Copyright 7 Doods, Paisley, AP Exclusive: UN child sex ring left victims but no arrests, last modified April , accessed 27 May 2017, url: UN-child-sex-ring-left-victims-but-no-arrests 8 9