A Comparison of Compliance Reviews based on the UN Convention against Corruption

Abstract

The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) was signed in Merida, Mexico, on 9 December 2003 and entered force on 14 December 2005 after receipt of the 30th ratification. It has now been signed by 140 states and ratified by 94 (as at June 2007).1 UNCAC deals with the key issues of prevention, criminal law and international cooperation as well as the recovery of illicitly acquired assets. It stands out from other conventions by virtue of its broad scope of application and affords a unique opportunity to effectively curb corruption in the long term if implemented worldwide. The convention is part of the international trend towards stepping up anti-corruption efforts,2 but unlike other international accords it is not limited to any region or sector. Now in force, UNCAC provides a suitable instrument for both policy dialogue and development cooperation at regional, national and local level and it should be incorporated in German development assistance as a contribution to promoting good governance. The present paper was prepared by the sector project “Supporting the Implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption – UNCAC” (Project no. 2004.2169.3).3 The paper is a contribution to the debate on why anti-corruption should be mainstreamed more firmly in German development cooperation and aims to ascertain which measures are needed to assist partner countries in implementing UNCAC. By drawing comparisons (Indonesia, Colombia, Cameroon), we can identify parallels in national compliance so far and the changes needed to implement UNCAC and analyse current national measures or institutions in corruption prevention. Proceeding from this, we pinpoint possible assistance needs and select lessons learned. We include Germany in the comparison to illustrate that structures in place here and the initiatives introduced for ratification and implementation can be applied in development cooperation. The paper is based on the compliance reviews4 drafted in the four countries. As these reviews were prepared in different ways, their priorities differ. Due to these we also assess the different approaches and specify which method might be suitable as best practice for preparing reviews in future.