Thomas Conzelmann submitted a stakeholder opinion on the future reform of the UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM). It invites States parties to consider a number of changes to the UNCAC IRM in order to improve the quality and authority of the process:
- The introduction of plenary discussions of full country reports;
- The consistent use of country-specific policy recommendations to States parties and their endorsement by the whole membership;
- Greater involvement of civil society actors in the preparation of responses to the self-assessment checklist and during country visits;
- Revisiting findings of earlier review rounds during the next review of the same country;
- Greater transparency of the review process, including the publication of all documents from the peer review and an “active” publication strategy (press releases, briefings).
Find the stakeholder submission by Thomas Conzelmann here.
Background: The UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM) is a peer review process that assists States parties to effectively implement the UN Convention against corruption (UNCAC). As the review process nears the end of its second review cycle, States parties are currently considering changes to the mechanism.
The submission builds on the findings of the multiannual comparative research project on the authority of peer reviews in different international organizations and policy areas presented on the current webpage. Specifically, authority refers to the perceptions of the appropriateness of the mission, procedures, and outcomes of a peer review. Our research shows that the UNCAC IRM is perceived as less authoritative by government delegates and experts participating in the review compared to the GRECO, the WGB, and the UPR as well as other peer reviews organized in the OECD and the World Trade Organization (Carraro, Conzelmann & Jongen, 2019; Jongen, 2017; Jongen, 2018). This lower level of authority is partly due to specific institutional design features of the IRM. In particular, the lack of plenary discussion of country reports, the absence of recommendations to the state party under review, and the fact that some review documents are not made public are viewed critically by delegates and reduce the perceived legitimacy of the IRM.
The stakeholder submission flags these issues and makes proposals on how the situation can be remedied. Lessons learnt from other peer review mechanisms (Conzelmann, 2024) show possible ways forward.