BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches2006200720082009201020112012Media contact informationMedia updateMinisters releasesPublications
Madam Chair
I have the honour today to speak on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
CANZ welcomes this opportunity to further consider the Group of Legal Experts’ report. We remain deeply concerned about acts of sexual exploitation and abuse, and other serious crimes, allegedly committed by UN peacekeepers, including officials and experts. These are serious crimes unfortunately committed by those entrusted with responsibility and authority. Not only are such crimes abhorrent in themselves, they are a stain on the reputation of the UN and undermine the work of the Organisation and the dedicated majority of its staff. A failure by the UN and Member States to address the accountability of alleged offenders is inexcusable. We cannot tolerate impunity for such serious crimes.
For the sake of the victims, and to maintain the integrity of UN peacekeeping, in which we all have a stake, we must develop appropriate mechanisms to ensure that alleged offenders are investigated and prosecuted.
CANZ recognises there is currently a jurisdiction gap that may lead to impunity. Prosecution by the Host State of serious crimes committed by UN officials or experts is one option. But we recognise that the legal system in the Host State is not always in a position to respond. Once offenders leave the Host State of the UN peacekeeping mission, it is difficult to bring them to justice. The State of nationality of the offender will often have no jurisdiction, nor any adequate basis for mutual legal assistance or extradition.
CANZ believes that a new treaty could help to plug the gap in jurisdiction that leads to impunity for serious crimes committed by UN officials and experts in UN peacekeeping operations. We are ready to consider the draft Convention annexed to the Group of Legal Experts’ report. Some of the proposals in the draft Convention are familiar concepts. Many States already take jurisdiction, for example, over their nationals should they engage in child sex tourism.
The content of any new treaty however would require considerable further discussion. In particular, careful thought will also have to be given to the question of how potentially submitting UN officials and experts accused of crimes to the jurisdiction of one party to an armed conflict might affect the important principles of neutrality and impartiality. The role and responsibilities of the State of nationality also merit further thought.
The Ad Hoc Committee will need to consider carefully the scope of the Convention. We are not sure, for example, that quasi-universal jurisdiction over such crimes, as currently contained in the draft, would be appropriate. That may be broader than is necessary to address the current problem.
In other areas, however, we may wish to consider broadening the issue under discussion. One such question would be whether the Convention should cover not just civilian staff of peacekeeping missions, but also civilian staff in other UN operations, for example, those established for the purpose of delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance.
We also consider it is important, as stated in article 2(4) of the draft Convention, that any such treaty would not alter the situation of immunity from legal process in the Host State for UN officials and experts.
CANZ firmly believes that UN officials and experts must be held accountable for any serious crimes they commit in UN peacekeeping operations, and that justice must be done and be seen to be done. We look forward to engaging constructively in all aspects of this important debate.
Thank you
Madam Chair
