FICSA notes that the 1954 Report on standards of conduct in the international civil service was prepared at the request of ACC, rather than at the request of the Member States of the UN General Assembly. It is the Federation's view that ICSC is not the appropriate body to review the standards of conduct. Chapter III, Articles 9 through 18 of its Statute define the functions and powers of the Commission. The Commission has included its consideration of the Standards within the framework of human resources management. However, in the Federation's view, the consideration of ethics and the development of standards of conduct are not components of human resources management.

As FICSA stated in its presentation to ACC in October 1998, the reasons for a revision of the standards of conduct should be identified clearly. However, the introduction to the draft standards prepared by ICSC offers only broad, unsubstantiated generalizations such as: "much has changed in the world and in the organizations of the United Nations common system in the nearly half century since the 1954 Standards were issued"; "the nature of services rendered by international organizations has evolved, as has the relationship between staff members and their organizations"; there has been a move "away from rules-based systems to values- and results-based systems with increased decentralization and greater devolution of responsibilities to lower levels of management."

FICSA would like to know: which changes in the world have given rise to the purported need to revise the Standards; how the relationship between staff members and their organizations has changed; and whether there really has been a move away from rules-based system in the UN system. Why, for example, does "post-industrial society require new ethical approaches"?

With regard to the approach used, FICSA would like to know which non-UN system standards of conduct were reviewed to determine the major concerns and trends. FICSA would also like to know whether the Commission studied the way in which standards of conduct at the national level have been promoted and implemented.

The 1954 version of the Standards was reviewed in 1981-82 by ACC in response to a proposal of the ILO Director-General, who expressed the ILO's concern about the "deterioration of the standards of conduct of international civil servants, DUE IN PART TO PRESSURE FROM NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIONS on their citizens serving as international civil servants and in part to actions by staff members themselves". It would seem to FICSA that standards established for staff are not intended - nor should they be - to address the unwillingness of Member States to respect the independence of the international civil service.

The Federation suspects that the main reason for the present initiative to revise the 1954 standards is the move towards establishing partnerships with the private sector to fund investment projects "to help poor countries meet social, environmental and human development goals" (UNDP Flash, 15 March 1999). While the effort to "get corporations to work with the UN to create projects and investments that uphold universal labour, environmental and human rights standards, including the right to be free of poverty" is laudable, it also raises a number of questions that have a direct impact on staff. For example, will UN staff work together on projects with the expatriate staff of multinationals whose expatriate compensation packages are many times more generous than those of the UN system? Will universal labour standards also be upheld for UN system staff? Will corporations in partnership with the UN system be obliged to adopt standards of conduct for their own operations? How will the organizations of the common system ensure that their private sector partners live up to the ideals spelled out in the UN Charter?

The Federation drafted the following "Principles governing the selection of corporations in UN partnership" to ensure that UN staff are not alone in accepting the responsibility for ethical conduct.

Principle 1. Equitable distribution of resources

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall take into account not merely the economic considerations, but also the social, environmental and ethical implications of their work. The responsibility of corporations in partnership with the UN for the sustainable welfare of the community is an integral part of their professional responsibility. Corporations in partnership with the UN shall ensure that their activity contributes to an equitable distribution of world resources.

Principle 2. Sustainability

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall take all steps to maintain sustainable systems of work and to avoid dangers which may cause death, injury or ill-health to any person. They shall also avoid damage to nature and goods by any act or omission as a consequence of the execution of their duties. Corporations in partnership with the UN shall take all steps to safeguard public interest in matters of health and safety.

Principle 3. Human Rights

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall respect and defend human rights, including trade union rights, in particular by promoting international standards. Employees of corporations in partnership with the UN shall have the right to be unionised and shall actively take part in the working community, in particular in unions, with their professional skills.

Principle 4. Regulations and Standards

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall familiarise themselves with the culture, economic and social background, laws and regulations appropriate to the country in which their work is being undertaken.

Principle 5. Professional Integrity

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall act in a manner which neither compromises nor impairs, nor is likely to compromise or impair, their professional integrity in the performance of their duties. In particular they shall take all steps to make business agreements clear and fair, including the social clauses. Corporations shall uphold equity and dignity and conduct their affairs faithfully.

Principle 6. Industrial Democracy

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall support the democratic process in industry, in particular collective bargaining and the establishment of arrangements for participation by employees in companies and in the workplace. Corporations in partnership with the UN shall seek to ensure that those affected by organisational change, or by the introduction of new technologies, are adequately consulted about the implementation of the changes and systems and their effect on working conditions.

Principle 7. Data Protection and Privacy

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall ensure that protection of personal data and privacy is effective, in particular by observing relevant national or international laws and regulations.

Principle 8. Information and Training

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall take steps both to maintain and develop the professional competence and knowledge of their employees within their special fields and to keep abreast of developments in economic, scientific, technical, social or other related disciplines relevant to their field of professional activity. Corporations in partnership with the UN shall take steps to further the information education and training facilities of their employees and to allow appropriate facilities for their employees so that they can participate in continuing professional development courses and seminars.

Principle 9. Confidentiality

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall make information public where disclosure is in the public interest.

Principle 10. Preferential treatment

Corporations in partnership with the United Nations shall not be given preferential treatment with regard to consideration of their bids for procurement contracts, nor shall information on the bids of other corporations be divulged to them.

Principle 11. Pension Fund Investments

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall in no way influence, or attempt to influence, the investment policy of the UN Joint Staff Pension Board; nor shall they benefit unfairly from such investments.

Principle 12. Profit-sharing

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall donate one percent of their net annual profits to the regular budget of the UN; such funds shall be earmarked for staff costs.

Principle 13. Honours, gifts or remuneration

Corporations in partnership with the UN shall neither offer nor receive any favour, gift or remuneration from any Government.

The Federation is of the view that changes are required to some of the provisions of the 1954 Standards. One has only to look at the following two provisions to realize that the ideas expressed in some of the standards need to be brought into line with fundamental labour rights such as freedom of expression and the right to petition and address the governing bodies of the organizations.

"30. Participation by staff representatives in the actual debates of legislative bodies, for the purpose of upholding their views in opposition to those of the Executive Head, is clearly inadmissable. Similarly, private efforts of staff representatives to influence delegations to support the views of the staff representatives cannot be tolerated." and

"42. It would obviously be improper for a staff member to attempt to use the Press to further his own interests, to air his own grievances, to reveal unauthorized information, or to attempt to influence policy decisions with which the organization is faced."

There is a major contradiction in the text as regards the purpose of the Standards of Conduct. Paragraph 13 states that "It is important always to bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of the Standards of Conduct is to inform, explain and inspire." However, in paragraph 5, it is stated that "according to general principles of labour law, when an employer provides to employees standards against which they are asked to regulate their behaviour, employees must abide by them and are subject to sanctions if they fail to meet them." In other words, whereas the 1954 Standards were integrity-based, the revision has established compliance-based norms which, if violated, should lead to sanctions.

The Federation does not support a move towards compliance-based codes of conduct.

According to general principles of labour law, the obligations of the employer or employing body are similarly established. In all national civil services that have adopted codes, standards or principles of conduct, reciprocal codes have been set out to define the duties of the employer with respect to the employee. Moreover, in addition to those principles which aim to safeguard the rights of the employee, and to prevent abuse by the employer, the rights of such employees are formally set out in labour laws at the federal and state or regional levels.

In the absence of labour law at the international level which can be invoked to safeguard the rights of international civil servants, it is especially important that the duties and obligations of the employer be clearly set out in standards of conduct for the international civil service. At the same time, Staff Rules and Regulations should be revised to include fundamental labour rights as set out in international labour conventions. For example, in the recently revised text of the Staff Regulations of the United Nations, Regulation 1.2 allegedly defines the basic rights and obligations of staff. Only one right however is mentioned: that "all necessary safety and security arrangements are made for staff carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them."

Finally, the concept of "employer" in the international civil service also needs to be clarified. For example, when an individual staff member suffers damage because of a decision taken by the Member States of the UN General Assembly based on a recommendation of the International Civil Service Commission on a term or condition of service, the appeal may only be addressed to an Executive Head as the "employer". However, are not the Member States the employing body of international civil servants? If so, the duties and obligations of the Member States as the employing body towards its staff also need to be stated.

Paragraph 15 states that "The Standards have also been frequently cited by the administrative tribunals of the common system when assessing the conduct of staff". However, only five examples are given. A search through the ILOAT database of judgments, TRIBLEX, did not yield any other judgments which treated the 1954 Standards as binding norms for staff members. In fact, under the "Written Rule" of the ILOAT, which lists the written texts that constitute the law of the international civil service, no mention is made of standards of conduct. Secondly, it is incorrect to state that administrative tribunals assess the conduct of staff. The Tribunals instead are called on by an individual staff member to judge whether an administrative action taken in response to the alleged misconduct of that staff member has been carried out in accordance with the Staff Rules and Regulations.

ILOAT Judgment 1369 states that "The Tribunal must enforce the law within the full ambit of the competence its statute vests in it. For that purpose it will apply any material rule of law, be it international or administrative or labour law or any other body of law. The only sort it will not apply is national law, save where there is express renvoi thereto in Staff Regulations or contract of employment." It is clear from this statement that standards and/or norms of conduct will be legally binding only if adopted by the organizations as rules/regulations. And therefore, the legal basis for assessing misconduct are the Staff Regulations and Rules.

In the commentary to the Foreword (para 19) it is stated that the aim of the foreword is to inform and inspire staff members and that emphasis had therefore been placed on the importance of staff members' contribution to the success of the organization. Unfortunately, the text of the foreword offers little to inspire, nor does one sentence buried in paragraph 16, "The success of international organizations depends on the contribution of their staff members." constitute any emphasis whatsoever on the valuable work carried out by international civil servants, often in harsh, insecure and dangerous conditions. FICSA would propose the following revision to the foreword.

"One of the major factors contributing to the success of international organizations is the contribution of their staff members. Their inspiration and motivation stem from ideals to which they are deeply committed. Those ideals shape the principles that guide their behaviour as international civil servants and are reflected in the following standards of conduct which all those who elect to serve the international community are called upon to observe.

"The following standards of conduct form a complementary guide to the principles and standards set out in articles 100 and 101 of the Charter of the United Nations and in the basic texts of specialized agencies, as well as in the organizations' Staff Regulations and Rules, and should be read together with those instruments.

"The standards which are outlined in the following pages are intended to provide sound guidance for conduct in the international civil service."

FICSA would suggest the following revision of paragraph 20:

"An understanding of the following values expected of an international civil servant should help staff members, administrators and executive heads respond fully and appropriately to the demands of their work."

1. Belief in fundamental human rights and basic international labour rights
2. Belief in the dignity, worth and equality of all people and nations, without regard to race, gender, religion, colour, national origin, marital status, sexual preference, age, physical disability and political conviction
3. Integrity based on probity, honesty and incorruptibility
4. Independence and impartiality
5. International outlook/global concern

FICSA would suggest the following revision of paragraph 25: Service in the United Nations and its specialized agencies should be consistent with the following the principles:

1. A high standard of competence and integrity should be the basis for the selection, recruitment and retention of staff. The same high standard should be maintained by staff throughout their career in the international civil service.
2. Job objectives should be defined jointly between staff and supervisor in accordance with the mandate and mission of the organization. Satisfactory achievement of those objectives should serve as the basis for contract renewal and career development.
3. Instructions from national governments or any other source external to the organization should neither be sought nor accepted; nor should national governments offer or provide instructions to international civil servants.
4. The interests of the international civil service should take precedence over personal and national interests and convictions in the performance of official duties.
5. International civil servants should receive and offer fair and equitable treatment without distinction of any kind with regard to race, gender, religion, colour, national origin, marital status, sexual preference, age, physical disability and political conviction.
6. International civil servants should be treated - and treat others - with respect and professionalism in an environment free of any form of harassment.
7. Official matters should be carried out with discretion; justifiable requests for confidentiality should be respected at every level.
8. Any advantage, honour, decoration, gift, remuneration, other economic benefit or promise/expectation of career advancement that compromises the independence and impartiality of an international civil servant should be neither sought nor accepted; nor should such benefits be offered.
9. The laws governing service in an international organization should be respected at every level. Contravention of any such law should be judged by the appropriate internal joint staff-management panel and the competent administrative tribunal.
10. The property of an international organization should be respected.
11. Recruitment, selection and career advancement in the international civil service should be determined solely on the basis of ability, knowledge, skills and competence, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal treatment.
12. Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value in strict adherence to the principles (Noblemaire and Flemming) governing pay setting in the international civil service.
13. The security of all international civil servants should be governed equally by effective measures aimed to safeguard their lives and those of their family members. The lives of international civil servants shall not be placed at undue risk or in undue jeopardy.
14. Elected representatives of the staff should enjoy protection against discriminatory treatment and/or prejudicial action based on their status and/or their activities as staff representatives. Such protection shall continue after the expiration of their mandate as staff representative.
15. A conflict of interest is a dealing or relationship that might create an impression of possible bias. To ensure impartiality, international civil servants have a responsibility to disclose all actual and potential conflicts that are reasonably known and could reasonably be seen as raising a question about their impartiality and integrity in the performance of their official duties.
16. The following fundamental principles should govern labour relations in the international civil service:

    Freedom of Association

    • International civil servants should have the right to freedom of association and this right includes the right to form and join the staff association or union of their choice and to create international associations of international civil servants.
    • International civil servants should be given the means to exercise effectively this right of association.
    • The staff associations or unions should have the right to affiliate with other international associations or unions as part of a federation. Collective Bargaining
    • International civil servants should have the right, through their staff associations or unions, to bargain collectively on their working conditions.
    • International civil servants' associations or unions should have the right to petition and address the governing bodies of their organizations.
    • International civil servants should have the right to take collective actions including the right to strike.
    Due Process and Judicial Review
    • International civil servants should be entitled to due process in the administrative hearing and the appeal process.
    • International civil servants should have access to an independent administrative tribunal composed of attorneys and jurists. This right of access shall include the rights of due process, a fair and speedy trial, and an oral hearing.
    • This right of access to an administrative tribunal should extend to individuals, staff associations and unions to represent the collective rights of the staff.
    Protection of Fundamental Rights
    • To protect the fundamental rights of all international civil servants, they should be given the rights extended under international human rights instruments as well as relevant international labor standards as embodied in ILO Conventions and Recommendations relating to conditions of employment.

The draft revisions to the text of the 1954 Standards have not contributed to making the standards more comprehensible or accessible. In some cases, for example, Loyalty, the proposal does not express the same sentiment as the existing standard. In this case, the existing standard is intended to address potential conflict between national and international loyalties, as well as potential conflict between the organization and the international civil service (see (d) above).

A second difficulty is that the draft revisions focus on staff members rather than all international civil servants, including administrators and executive heads. It should be made perfectly clear that such standards apply to all international civil servants.

A third difficulty is the use of the word "must" in nearly all the standards, implying a duty or obligation to comply. However, as stated in the Foreword, the Standards are not intended to be a legal instrument.

B. Implementation of standards of conduct at the national level: New Zealand and Australia

The main objective of Standards of Conduct is to promote ethical conduct at an individual and organizational level. There is general agreement about what constitutes ethical conduct: a broad responsibility to uphold the law, and to be honest, fair and responsive to the needs of the populations served. In addition, staff, administrators and employers should be professional, competent and apolitical.

The most appropriate way to ensure that international civil servants uphold and convey those principles and values is to adopt an integrated approach which balances the responsibility of the staff member and the obligations of the employing organization towards its workforce. An integrated approach has several key elements, as identified by the OECD.

1. Codes of conduct should be more than simplistic statements of rules for answering the complex ethical dilemmas faced by staff.

2. There must be genuine political support. Leaders must make it clear that unethical conduct will not be tolerated, and they need to set an example.

3. The legal framework must be clear and consistent, providing for action/sanction to be taken against unethical conduct, and providing protection for ethical conduct.

4. There should be efficient accountability mechanisms that make unethical activities hard to commit and easy to detect.

5. Training/orientation on ethics/organizational values is indispensable; managers need to be good role models.

6. Conditions of service need to be supportive. Staff are less likely to embrace initiatives in the ethical domain when they feel underpaid, overworked and insecure.

7. Organizational procedures should be transparent; information should be easily accessed by staff.

In its efforts to promote ethical conduct, the United Nations has effectively included only two of the elements promoted by OECD: it has established an oversight mechanism and drafted statements of rules and compliance-based standards. These elements, which should be part a comprehensive effort to ensure an ethical public service, only provide for the eventual punishment of wrongdoers. The five remaining elements of an integrated approach to this issue have not been addressed by the United Nations. FICSA maintains that action is required in all areas to ensure a balanced approach to ethics and values in the UN system.

The Federation has reviewed the Codes of Conduct for public service workers in the OECD Member States and would like to present the example of the procedures used in New Zealand, which is one of the Member States that has called for a Code of Conduct for International Civil Servants.

The State Services Commission (SSC) of New Zealand, as the central agency with the statutory responsibility to prescribe minimum standards of integrity and conduct, issued the Public Service Code of Conduct in 1990. The SSC commissioned a set of essays in 1991 to re-kindle interest within the Senior Public Service about duty, and to raise awareness about the need to re-affirm what were thought to be the "constants" governing the behaviour of public servants in New Zealand. Following that, SSC produced guidance material to articulate and promote those "constants", which was made available to all public servants generally. It forms the basis for understanding what constitutes appropriate conduct. The guidance series also acknowledges the difficulties of always finding an appropriate balance between private interests and public responsibilities. In 1994, SSC continued its efforts to promote ethics in public service with the publication of "Working Under Proportional Representation: A Reference for the Public Service".

FICSA notes that SSC is also implementing an educational programme aimed at promoting ethical sensitivity and awareness among public servants, since it has recognized that "the transmission of important cultural values will not necessarily occur unless undertaken in a planned and systematic way."

Most importantly, the Federation notes that the main objective of SSC "is to promote ethical conduct at an individual and organizational level consistent with a devolved management system, using an integrity-based approach, rather than a more traditional compliance or rule-based approach." The SSC has stated that "Ethics, by their very nature, are concerned with making choices, of using discretion. The aim of the integrity-based approach is to provide public servants with the basis on which decisions might be made and trust that they will apply sound principles accordingly."

The Federation similarly reviewed the Code of Conduct for public service workers in Australia, noting that the Australian Public Service (APS) devoted a decade to establishing and maintaining the critical balance between adopting management practices which contribute to efficiency and effectiveness and maintaining the values which distinguish public service. APS sought to retain the highest standards of probity, integrity and conduct; a strong commitment to service; dedication to accountability and merit as the basis for staffing.

The Public Services Commission under the guidance of the Management Advisory Board revised the "Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants". The revision involved extensive consultation with portfolio Secretaries and heads of agencies and their staff, union representatives, officials from other public sectors and academics. Three other publications guide the behaviour of public servants in Australia, one of which provides practical advice in the form of case studies. Further, the Australian Public Service and Merit Protection Commission (PSMPC) has promoted key messages through a national series of seminars, workshops and training modules. All management and executive training programmes include an element on conduct and ethics. At least one agency has established an Ethics Committee. The MAB has articulated a set of Key Public Service Values in "Building a Better Public Service".

The legal framework to ensure ethical conduct has been set out in the Public Service Regulations, and in the Public Service Act and other legislation dealing with anti-discrimination, occupational health and safety and the privacy of personal information. The main specific obligations are: perform duties with skill, care, diligence and impartiality; comply with the law and reasonable directions; treat members of the public and colleagues with courtesy; avoid waste and extravagance in the use of public resources; disclose possible conflicts of interest and take action to avoid those conflicts; certain personnel decisions are to be made without favouritsm or unjustified discrimination.

It is clear from this brief review that efforts made in Australia to encourage ethical conduct in the public service were focused in several areas, were ongoing and comprehensive, participatory and informative.

Conclusion

The United Nations is a complex, political and multicultural environment. Staff work in hundreds of duty stations, some of which lack functioning governments. Efforts to ensure ethical conduct thus should at least equal those made at the national level.

International civil servants require rights: the right to a secure working environment, for example, which is not an easy task for staff working in Kosovo, Kabul, Somalia and other areas where staff put their lives at risk. Providing occupational health and safety for international civil servants far surpasses the issue of asbestos in UN buildings.

International civil servants need to be protected from arbitrary management decisions, often taken with impunity far from the headquarters duty stations. At present, only staff on fixed-term or permanent contracts have the right to appeal. It goes without saying that anyone working for the UN system should have the right to appeal an administrative decision.

Staff representatives need rights to protect fundamental labour freedoms and to defend staff against unethical and arbitrary decisions that, in some cases, may mean the difference between life and death. An illegal contract termination in the UN system can mean repatriation to a home country deeply affected by internal conflict and war.

Based on its 46 years of representing international civil servants, FICSA can state with assurance that staff suffer the impact of unethical conduct much more often than they are involved in wrongdoing.

Ensuring that international civil servants live up to the highest ethical standards is much more than a question of internal oversight and strict compliance-based rules and standards, which will discourage initiative and innovation in the United Nations system. Should the Member States wish to encourage ethical conduct, many steps should be taken to enable staff to live up to the highest standards. The first step should be open consultations between the staff, their representatives and the administrations to develop a mutually-agreed set of core values and principles. It is one thing to know what is not permitted; it is altogether another thing to know what is. A second step should be the commitment of Member States to respect the independence of the international civil service and all relevant provisions of the UN Charter.