Jessica Mellen & Joshua Goodwin | August 5, 2026
United Nations Peacekeepers (Peacekeepers) are military, police, or civilian personnel who serve under the United Nations (UN) to “maintain or restore world peace and security… protect the most vulnerable and provide support to countries in transition from conflict to peace.” They act as the armed forces of the UN, taking action across the globe on behalf of the wider international organization. According to the UN, over two million people have served as peacekeepers under its flag since 1948. Peacekeepers’ roles and responsibilities “are evolving as peacekeeping mandates become more complex and multidimensional,” and operations have expanded from “monitoring ceasefires” to more broadly “protecting civilians, disarming ex-combatants, protecting human rights, promoting the rule of law, supporting free and fair elections, minimizing the risk of land-mines and much more.”
Despite their idealistic description, peacekeepers are prone to serious acts of violence and exploitation. Since 1990, 2,000 formal allegations, including more than 300 complaints by children have accused Peacekeepers of sexual exploitation. UN policy dictates that Peacekeepers “adhere to the highest standards of behavior and conduct themselves in a professional and disciplined manner at all times.” In addition to regular training regarding UN principles, policies, and guidelines, Peacekeepers also undergo mandatory “targeted trainings related to specific issues such as sexual abuse and exploitation.” Yet, the UN reports that “3.65 percent (2,360) of United Nations respondents [including Peacekeepers] stated that it was acceptable to pay for sex, and close to 1 percent (555) said that it was acceptable to engage in sexual activity with a child.” A third of those respondents held supervisory positions.
The noble goals and policies of the UN do not prevent perpetrators from gaining power within the organization. Instead, Peacekeeper and staff misconduct continues to create victims, who are left with few paths for justice. The UN has openly acknowledged the issue, but despite ongoing efforts to combat the problem since 2003, it has only gotten worse. According to the Report of the Secretary-General (“Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse”) from February 2025, there were 675 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse reported in connection with UN staff and related personnel (292) or implementing partners (383) in 2024, and 27 percent of those allegations involved child victims.
Though the UN has recognized the need for accountability in combating sexual exploitation by Peacekeepers, a problem at odds with their very purpose of ensuring the safety and human rights of vulnerable populations, the UN lacks the criminal prosecutorial power to hold peacekeepers accountable. Instead, they must rely on the often flawed legal system of the state hosting the peacekeeping mission to punish sexual exploitation. The UN additionally faces “significant” internal and external “barriers to reporting” matters of this type, meaning “that reported allegations represent only a fraction of actual sexual exploitation and abuse cases.”
Jurisdictional Obstacles to Prosecuting Peacekeeper Sexual Violence
Lack of jurisdiction is a major obstacle for Peacekeeper accountability. Currently, the perpetrator’s home state is the primary body with jurisdiction to criminally prosecute Peacekeepers for violations committed while on duty. Peacekeepers have the privilege of immunity in the nations where they are deployed, and only the “UN Secretary General can waive immunity and have them tried in the host country where the crime allegedly occurred.” This ability to waive immunity is only applicable when both the Peacekeepers’ home state “fail[s] to exercise jurisdiction” without an unreasonable delay and the accused Peacekeepers are still “at large in the area of operations” of the Peacekeeping mission. Further, since Peacekeepers are often deployed to “countries with failed judicial systems,” very few are prosecuted even though the Secretary General can waive immunity. As a result, the actual site of the offense does not offer the victims a forum for justice, and Peacekeepers are insulated from criminal consequences everywhere except their home state. Within their home states, accused Peacekeepers are “far from where the crimes have taken place,” which presents a massive impediment for successful prosecution akin to having a “rape trial without access to the victim, the crime scene, or witnesses.” Since the only countries with jurisdiction over the perpetrators are rarely able to bring them to justice, only the “most exceptional cases” are successfully prosecuted.
The UN’s well-intentioned “no tolerance policy” has proven to be both ineffective and unenforceable, offering little in the way of justice for victims. The UN pledges to take allegations seriously and perform internal investigations and discipline for violating the standards of conduct but relies on the member states with jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators as the mechanism for criminal consequences. This is a major problem, since there are “few examples of States standing up to meet their responsibilities in respect of sexual exploitation and abuse.” The UN asserts that “[a]ppropriate disciplinary action is taken against all persons who are found to have violated the UN standards of conduct,” but does not indicate what exactly that discipline involves. With the limits to the UN’s power to allow prosecution of its Peacekeepers, the stated desire to achieve appropriate discipline has no real effect outside of the individual’s role within the organization since referrals to prosecute rarely take place. According to the UN’s Compendium of disciplinary measures July 2009 – December 2024, there are 52 documented instances of “sexual exploitation and abuse” by UN staff members, with most of those incidents resulting in dismissal. Expulsion from the UN offers no true remediation to the victims of misconduct and does little to deter future behavior.
Instead, the UN can refer credible allegations of misconduct to members who have the authority to hold peacekeepers either criminally or civilly liable. Despite the assurances proffered by the UN and its recent programs aimed at ameliorating this issue (e.g. the Women, Peace, and Security agenda), member states have no obligation to prosecute peacekeeper perpetrators.
Even in the rare case where a Peacekeeper’s local immunity is waived, the host-country’s local justice systems are not a viable forum for justice. When the country is in a climate that requires a peacekeeping deployment, victims cannot rely on the local legal systems for recourse. United Nations Peacekeeping missions occur “in climates of armed conflict or post-conflict, in states or regions where there is little to no rule of law, and the law and order structure has collapsed.” This means that the nations where Peacekeepers are deployed are usually unable to hold the perpetrators accountable or to provide recourse for the victims.
Impediments to Effective Prosecution
Despite acknowledging “the ‘cancer’ of peacekeeper misconduct,” the UN’s current policy effectively relies on troop contributing countries to hold criminal trials with no access to the scene of the crime, the victim, or any witnesses. The UN refers cases to the “alleged perpetrator’s State of nationality and cooperates with national investigations,” but cannot ensure that the perpetrator’s home jurisdiction will use their prosecutorial discretion to pursue the matter. According to the February 2025 report titled Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, “approximately 65 per cent of cases concerning sexual exploitation and abuse have received no response, with some pending since 2008.” The same report also recognizes that the failure of states to act on the referrals significantly undermines the ability to prevent future harm and that “impunity prevails.”
Even if the offender’s home country made the rare decision to prosecute a peacekeeper for crimes abroad and in the course of duty, the UN’s current system is unlikely to have produced enough evidence for a successful prosecution. Unreliable investigations and lost or poorly gathered evidence lead to unworkable material for prosecutors. When even well-intentioned and motivated states lack the proper resources to conduct a trial and ultimately implement any meaningful, just solution, it is clear why there is such a pervasive lack of accountability for perpetrators and of justice for victims.
Alternative mechanisms for achieving UN Peacekeeper accountability exist, but face their own challenges in implementation and feasibility. For example, even though prosecution by the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) would be a positive development compared to existing structures, it is highly unlikely given the ICC’s jurisdictional limits. The ICC’s prosecutorial jurisdiction is limited to “genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes,” which leaves one-off or non-systemic instances of sexual violence outside of its scope because this only gives the ICC jurisdiction over sexual violence in the context of “a large-scale attack.” Since the UN systemically allows for peacekeepers to evade accountability, it is unlikely to meet the definition of systemic sexual abuse for purpose of ICC prosecution.
Despite the UN’s efforts to improve their own preventative, investigative, and tracking systems for sexual exploitation by UN members, jurisdictional barriers leave the ultimate burden to rest with member states that can actually criminally prosecute Peacekeeper perpetrators. However, the home states of peacekeepers often lack the motivation, resources, or willingness to prosecute citizen peacekeepers for crimes abroad. When the evidence needed for a conviction is likely sparse or inaccessible, a prosecutor will not have a compelling reason to pursue the case. As the conduct leading to any potential prosecution takes place in conflict zones, the victim is likely in a situation where they are difficult to reach. Though the UN purports to perform their own investigations and cooperates with prosecuting states, it is unlikely that the evidence from those investigative materials will be sufficient to reach a conviction in that jurisdiction.
Conclusion
UN personnel that are deployed to support the most vulnerable populations possess pervasive impunity for sexual exploitation, abuse, and similar crimes. Despite recognition and efforts by the UN to combat the issue, jurisdictional issues remain the primary impediment to justice. The UN relies on a fundamentally flawed and practically ineffective model where the member states that have jurisdiction over alleged perpetrators are to hold them criminally accountable. Evidentiary challenges diminish what little incentive exists for a prosecutor to pursue a case against a peacekeeper who committed a crime abroad when the victim, evidence, and witnesses are all in another country. The UN’s reliance on the member states’ legal system to achieve justice and accountability for crimes committed by their agents and under their watch is fundamentally flawed. It leaves the impetus on the troop contributing country’s own justice systems to hold their citizens accountable for misconduct abroad. The greatest impetus falls on the UN to follow through on enforcing their own standards of conduct and offer remedies to victims, even absent criminal prosecutorial powers.