Topic: 2025 – Criminal Accountability of UN Officials
Country: Finland
Delegate Name: Alayna Wigant
Position Paper: Criminal Accountability of UN Officials in the Context of Finland
I. Introduction
The question of how to ensure criminal accountability for United Nations officials has long posed a challenge for the international community. While functional immunity is necessary for the UN to operate independently and effectively, it can also create gaps in accountability when crimes—particularly serious offenses—are alleged. Finland, as a committed supporter of multilateralism, the rule of law, and international human rights standards, has consistently emphasized that legal immunity must not become impunity. This position paper outlines Finland’s legal framework, policy stance, and expectations regarding the criminal accountability of UN officials.
II. Legal Framework Governing UN Officials in Finland
1. UN Charter and Convention on Privileges and Immunities
Finland, as a UN member and a party to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPINU), recognizes the immunities granted to UN officials. These include:
Functional immunity for all actions performed in their official capacity.
Broader diplomatic-style immunity for certain high-ranking officials.
Finland applies these immunities domestically as required under international law.
2. Finnish Domestic Law
Finnish law incorporates international obligations related to immunity. In practice:
Finnish authorities may open preliminary investigations to ascertain whether alleged criminal acts fall within or outside an official’s functional immunity.
If conduct is not connected to official functions, immunity does not apply, and Finnish authorities retain jurisdiction.
In cases where functional immunity might apply, Finland looks to the UN Secretary-General (or appropriate UN body) as the competent authority to waive immunity when justice requires it.
3. Commitment to International Criminal Agreements
Finland is a State Party to key international instruments, including:
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Core human rights treaties
Anti-corruption frameworks such as the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
These reinforce Finland’s position that serious crimes cannot be shielded by immunity.
III. Finland’s Policy Position on Accountability
1. Immunity is Functional, Not a Shield for Misconduct
Finland stresses that the purpose of immunity is to protect UN operations, not to exempt individuals from responsibility. Accordingly:
Immunity must be interpreted narrowly.
Alleged criminal acts unrelated to official duties do not qualify for protection.
For serious crimes (e.g., sexual exploitation, corruption, assault), Finland advocates strongly for waiver of immunity.
2. Cooperation with UN Mechanisms
Finland supports strengthening UN internal accountability mechanisms including:
The Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
Conduct and Discipline Units (CDUs)
Information-sharing agreements between host states and the UN
Finland encourages transparent cooperation between domestic authorities and the UN to ensure impartial and effective investigations.
3. Protection of Victims and Due Process
Finland emphasizes:
Robust protections for whistleblowers and victims
Gender-sensitive procedures in cases involving sexual exploitation and abuse
The importance of fair trial rights for accused UN personnel under both UN and Finnish law
4. Zero Tolerance for Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA)
In line with its feminist foreign policy and leadership on gender equality, Finland strongly supports the UN’s zero-tolerance policy on SEA and advocates for:
Mandatory reporting of allegations
Criminal prosecution in the appropriate jurisdiction
Support services for victims, including those abroad in peacekeeping contexts
IV. Finland’s Expectations for Reform
Finland has consistently called for reforms at the UN to close accountability gaps, including:
1. Strengthening the Immunity Waiver Process
The UN Secretary-General should adopt a more transparent and predictable standard for deciding on immunity waivers, particularly for:
Serious criminal offenses
Offenses committed outside official duties
2. Enhancing Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
If Finnish nationals working for the UN commit crimes abroad, Finland supports applying Finnish criminal jurisdiction to ensure accountability when the host state is unable or unwilling to act.
3. Improving Reporting and Investigation Mechanisms
Finland supports:
Clear, uniform reporting pathways for allegations against UN personnel
Cooperation agreements to allow Finnish authorities access to relevant UN records
Independent oversight mechanisms with the authority to investigate misconduct
4. Compensation and Restitution for Victims
Finland advocates for:
Mechanisms within the UN system to provide compensation even when prosecution is impossible
Increased transparency about disciplinary action taken against UN personnel
V. Conclusion
Finland’s position is grounded in the belief that the legitimacy of the United Nations depends on the integrity of its personnel. While immunity remains a core requirement for the UN’s proper functioning, it cannot justify impunity. Finland therefore calls for:
Strict limitation of immunity to official functions
Waiver of immunity in cases of serious criminal conduct
Strong cooperation between Finnish authorities and the UN investigative system
Reforms to guarantee transparency, victim protection, and accountability
By upholding these principles, Finland seeks to strengthen both the UN and the rule of law globally.
