Conventions overview

United Nations (UNCAC)

Adopted: 31 October 2003 by the UN General Assembly
Signatories: 140 (as of 15 February 2007). Opened for signature on 9 December 2003
Ratifications: 84 (as of 15 February 2007)
Entry into force: 14 December 2005
Open to: All countries and regional economic organisations
Official web page: United Nations Convention against Corruption

Related report and summary by Gtz (only in Spanish):
UNCAC Compliance Review Colombia (pdf) - summary

[Back to conventions intro]

The UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) was negotiated and agreed among approximately 129 nations. It represents international consensus about what states should do in the areas of corruption prevention and criminalisation, as well as international cooperation and asset recovery. It recognises the commonality and complexity of the problem among all nations and shared responsibilities in cases of cross-border corruption activities. Has great potential but major efforts needed for effecitve implementation. The adequacy of political will and resources not yet certain.

General structure: Eight chapters, 71 articles

I General provisions
II Preventive measures
III Criminalisation and law enforcement
IV International cosoperation
V Asset recovery
VI Technical assistance and information exchange
VII Mechanisms for implementation
VIII Final provisions

Coverage

Sectors covered: Public and private sector corruption
Corruption offences covered: Wide interpretation of corruption offences, including bribery, domestic and foreign; embezzlement; trading in influence and money laundering
Measures: Preventive, criminalisation and international cooperation measures, as well as technical assistance provisions. Criminal and civil sanctions.
Level of obligation: Mixture of mandatory and discretionary provisions

Monitoring Arrangements

Monitoring is not provided for in the text of the Convention itself. Rather, responsibility for reviewing implementation of the Convention lies with the Conference of States Parties. The Conference may put into place formal review mechanisms to assess the measures taken by states parties (and difficulties encountered) to implement the Convention.

Main benefits of the Convention

• International agreement on importance of addressing corruption with a comprehensive framework, setting common standards. It is the only Convention that is truly global.
• Asset recovery framework elaborated for the first time on a global basis, north and south.
• International cooperation framework improved for mutual law enforcement assistance, notably in extradition and investigations.
• Extensive coverage of ways, means and standards for preventive measures for public and private sectors.

Additional benefits

• Recognition of the role of the private sector and of private sector ("private-to-private") corruption as part of the problem.
• Requirements to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive civil, administrative or criminal penalties for the private sector; requirement that States establish accounting and auditing standards for private sector and eliminate tax deductibility of bribes (Art.12)
• Recognition of role of civil society in fighting corruption and need for access to information (Art.13)
• Requirement of liability of legal persons i.e. companies (Art.26)
• Recognition of need for long statutes of limitations (Art.29)
• Recognition of the need to protect witnesses, reporting persons and victims of corruption (Arts.32, 33)
• Recognition of the right of entities or persons who have suffered damages from corruption, to initiate legal proceedings for compensation. (Art.35)
• Recognition of the need for information exchange and technical and financial assistance, and of the special needs of developing countries in this regard (Arts. 60, 61, 62)

Main weaknesses

• No concrete provisions on a monitoring mechanism
• Current lack of resources for implementation
• Many provisions non-mandatory, creating risk of failure to develop common standards e.g. political party funding, private sector corruption, whistleblower protection
• Lack of mandatory requirement of nationality jurisdiction
• Very limited coverage of officials of international organisations