The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) is the legally binding international anti-corruption instrument. UNCAC provides a unique opportunity to mount a global response to a global problem. Adopted by the UN General Assembly in October 2003, it is the first global framework to harmonise anti-corruption efforts worldwide.With 148 countries bound by it, UNCAC offers a truly global chance for change. It is widely recognised as the most promising initiative to curb the scourge of corruption. This convention is unique not only in its worldwide coverage but also in the extensiveness and detail of its provisions. The convention entered into force in December 2005, and as of February 2011 there are 148 countries that are acknowledged as Parties to the convention. The UNCAC embodies a comprehensive approach to corruption, recognising the importance of both preventive and punitive measures. It also addresses the cross-border nature of corruption, and includes provisions on the return of ill-gotten assets.This convention holds great promises for civil because it provides a mandate for the participation of citizens and civil society organisations in accountability processes.
Convention Highlights
Prevention
Corruption
can be prosecuted after the fact, but first and foremost, it requires
prevention. An entire chapter of the Convention is dedicated to
prevention, with measures directed at both the public and private
sectors. These include model preventive policies, such as the
establishment of anticorruption bodies and enhanced transparency in the
financing of election campaigns and political parties. States must
endeavour to ensure that their public services are subject to safeguards
that promote efficiency, transparency and recruitment based on merit.
Once recruited, public servants should be subject to codes of conduct,
requirements for financial and other disclosures, and appropriate
disciplinary measures. Transparency and accountability in matters of
public finance must also be promoted, and specific requirements are
established for the prevention of corruption, in the particularly
critical areas of the public sector, such as the judiciary and public
procurement. Those who use public services must expect a high standard
of conduct from their public servants. Preventing public corruption also
requires an effort from all members of society at large. For these
reasons, the Convention calls on countries to promote actively the
involvement of non-governmental and community-based organizations, as
well as other elements of civil society, and to raise public awareness
of corruption and what can be done about it. Article 5 of the Convention
enjoins each State Party to establish and promote effective practices
aimed at the prevention of corruption.
Criminalization
The
Convention requires countries to establish criminal and other offences
to cover a wide range of acts of corruption, if these are not already
crimes under domestic law. In some cases, States are legally obliged to
establish offences; in other cases, in order to take into account
differences in domestic law, they are required to consider doing so. The
Convention goes beyond previous instruments of this kind, criminalizing
not only basic forms of corruption such as bribery and the embezzlement
of public funds, but also trading in influence and the concealment and
laundering of the proceeds of corruption. Offences committed in support
of corruption, including money-laundering and obstructing justice, are
also dealt with. Convention offences also deal with the problematic
areas of private-sector corruption.
International cooperation
Countries
agreed to cooperate with one another in every aspect of the fight
against corruption, including prevention, investigation, and the
prosecution of offenders. Countries are bound by the Convention to
render specific forms of mutual legal assistance in gathering and
transferring evidence for use in court, to extradite offenders.
Countries are also required to undertake measures which will support the
tracing, freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of
corruption.
Asset recovery
In
a major breakthrough, countries agreed on asset-recovery, which is
stated explicitly as a fundamental principle of the Convention. This is a
particularly important issue for many developing countries where
high-level corruption has plundered the national wealth, and where
resources are badly needed for reconstruction and the rehabilitation of
societies under new governments. Reaching agreement on this chapter has
involved intensive negotiations, as the needs of countries seeking the
illicit assets had to be reconciled with the legal and procedural
safeguards of the countries whose assistance is sought.
Several
provisions specify how cooperation and assistance will be rendered. In
particular, in the case of embezzlement of public funds, the confiscated
property would be returned to the state requesting it; in the case of
proceeds of any other offence covered by the Convention, the property
would be returned providing the proof of ownership or recognition of the
damage caused to a requesting state; in all other cases, priority
consideration would be given to the return of confiscated property to
the requesting state, to the return of such property to the prior
legitimate owners or to compensation of the victims.
Effective
asset-recovery provisions will support the efforts of countries to
redress the worst effects of corruption while sending at the same time, a
message to corrupt officials that there will be no place to hide their
illicit assets. Accordingly, article 51 provides for the return of
assets to countries of origin as a fundamental principle of this
Convention. Article 43 obliges state parties to extend the widest
possible cooperation to each other in the investigation and prosecution
of offences defined in the Convention. With regard to asset recovery in
particular, the article provides inter alia that "In matters of
international cooperation, whenever dual criminality is considered a
requirement, it shall be deemed fulfilled irrespective of whether the
laws of the requested State Party place the offence within the same
category of offence or denominate the offence by the same terminology as
the requesting State Party, if the conduct underlying the offence for
which assistance is sought is a criminal offence under the laws of both
States Parties".
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a multinational body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials that may be applicable to nuclear weapon development and by improving safeguards and protection on existing materials.
The NSG was founded in 1974 in response to the Indian nuclear test earlier
in that year. The test demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific
nuclear technology could be readily turned to weapons development.
Nations already signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) saw
the need to further limit the export of nuclear equipment, materials or
technology. Another benefit was that non-NPT and non-Zangger Committee nations, then specifically France, could be brought in.
A series of meetings in London from
1975 to 1978 resulted in agreements on the guidelines for export, these
were published as INFCIRC/254 (essentially the Zangger "Trigger List") by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Listed items could only be exported to non-nuclear states if certain
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards were agreed to or if
exceptional circumstances relating to safety existed.
The
name of the "London Club" was due to the series of meetings in London.
It has also been referred to as the London Group, or the London
Suppliers Group.
The
NSG did not meet again until 1991. The "Trigger List" remained
unchanged until 1991, although the Zangger list was regularly updated.
The revelations about the Iraqi weapons program following the first Gulf War led
to a tightening of the export of so-called dual-use equipment. At the
first meeting since 1978, held at the Hague in March 1991, the
twenty-six members agreed to the changes, which were published as the
"Dual-use List" in 1992, and also to the extension of the original list
to more closely match the up-to-date Zangger list. A regular series of
plenary meetings was also arranged as was the regular updating of the
two key lists.
India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea has not signed NPT.
500 crore.