In Defense of the United Nations (at least in Cambodia)

Chapman lawprof John Hall has a curious op-ed in the WSJ (subscription required) attacking the Cambodia hybrid war crimes court. He calls it “another U.N. corruption scandal in the making.” But this is really unfair to the U.N. (and when was the last time I wrote that sentence, maybe never?)



Professor Hall is really arguing that the problem with Cambodian court is too much control and participation by local Cambodian lawyers and judges who are controlled by the current governing regime. Fair enough. But this isn’t really, or at least primarily, the U.N.’s fault. It is the Cambodian government, which would not accept a war crimes court without the current setup, that is causing the problems. There is no evidence, at least in Hall’s op-ed, of U.N. officials acting “corruptly.” Rather, there is evidence that Cambodian officials are acting corruptly, and the U.N. has failed to stop them. But the U.N., by the terms of its agreement with Cambodia, has very little authority. And none of the member countries of the U.N. have any desire to give the U.N. more authority. In any event, it is simply unfair and misleading to call this a “U.N.” corruption scandal.



There are plenty of real U.N. corruption scandals, such as the Oil for Food program, which involved real allegations of kickbacks and bribes to U.N. officials. But this is simply not one of them, and it is unfair to call it one.