United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) – After Ten Years of Being in Force

Abstract

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) was adopted in October 2003 and entered into force on 14 December 2005. It is the first comprehensive global instrument to fight corruption and great hopes are pinned on this convention. The article recalls why corruption is a serious problem and that the various cultural and legal backgrounds make it difficult to come up with a common definition. Hence the States are not equally ready to commit themselves to anti-corruption laws. The evaluation of the content and implementing measures of the UNCAC is embedded in the presentation of other instruments against corruption. In particular, the article describes the current status of the implementation mechanism by the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, and the results of the first cycle of the Implementation Review Mechanism (2010–2015).

Une coopération fiscale internationale inclusive et efficace : Points de vue des pays du Sud

“…UNCAC provides an example of the United Nations emerging in a key coordinating role amongst multiple overlapping regional and plurilateral initiatives. It was built on normative innovations developed by other organisations, including the OECD's Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, which was already well established, and the African Union's Convention on Combatting and Preventing Corruption, which was developed at the same time as UNCAC (Weilert 2016). The majority of these initiatives had a much narrower anti-bribery focus, whereas UNCAC included a wider range of criminalised conduct in both the private and public sector, and also had a much more substantive focus on areas such as 'preventative measures, international cooperation, and asset recovery' (Rose 2015: 97, 104).…”

UNCAC aided information sharing (cooperation): an Indian experience

“…Looking at the literature on the UNCAC and specifically cooperationwe find, "comparative" (Carr, 2007) and "critical" (Babu, 2006;Brunelle-Quraishi, 2011;Rose, 2015) evaluations of its provisions, literature examining the ineffectiveness of its "peer-review process" (Weilert, 2015;Carraro and Jongen, 2018) or "compliance" to its provisions arising from normative underpinnings (Webb, 2005). However, Webb does not go on to analyse whether the UNCAC serves a coordination or cooperation game (Webb, 2005).…”

Tackling suspect wealth: towards an accountable and transparent future?

“…It is a significant achievement that a broad consensus on suspect wealth and anti-corruption can be incorporated into largely binding international treaties. As a result, the crucial question is on state parties executing the guidelines, as retrieving economic fugitives and stolen assets is intrinsically connected to state sovereignty (Weilert, 2016). At the same time, to motivate a multilateral agreement among states, the UNCAC is also committed to protect state sovereignty (Weilert, 2016).…”

“…As a result, the crucial question is on state parties executing the guidelines, as retrieving economic fugitives and stolen assets is intrinsically connected to state sovereignty (Weilert, 2016). At the same time, to motivate a multilateral agreement among states, the UNCAC is also committed to protect state sovereignty (Weilert, 2016). This has left the execution of the UNCAC to the states’ discretion, which has produced mixed outcomes in stolen assets recovery.…”

“…Countries with large financial centers should take proactive legal and administrative measures to recover illicit assets. As the UNCAC stipulates that governments should restitute money without attached conditions, there is a need for a system of transparency and accountability in assets recovery and development projects (Weilert, 2016). When there are conflicts on extradition and human rights issues, such as the case of the USA and China, finding a common ground is particularly challenging but important.…”