Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q46.

Is there a Code of Conduct for all military personnel that includes, but is not limited to, guidance with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities? Is there evidence that breaches of the Code of Conduct are effectively addressed?

46a. Code of conduct

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

46b. Transparency

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

46c. Enforcement

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

46d. Training

Score

SCORE: NA/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

There is no code of conduct, but the Law on Discipline in the Albanian Armed Forces contains elements of conduct and ethical behaviour. The law states three levels of violations (minor, serious, severe), where bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, etc, are included, as well as for the disciplinary proceedings, sanctions and complaints system [1]. Regulations and instructions are issued by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on the implementation of the law [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Nonetheless, the lack of a proper Code of Conduct following international standards is an important omission [7].

The Law on Discipline and Regulations is published by the MoD on its website and are available to the military personnel and the public [1].

Breaches of discipline are investigated when reported, but the number of the reported cases is generally low [1, 2]. The MoD doesn’t publish reports on the disciplinary proceedings [3]

There is not enough information to score this indicator. Regulations and instructions are issued by the Minister of Defence on the implementation of the Law on Discipline of the Albanian Armed Forces. There is no evidence to suggest that this is part of the induction training (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).

There is no evidence that there is a code of conduct for military personnel. For example, the website of the armed forces does not provide such a document (1). The Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 only includes some articles that deal with the issue of corruption but it is not an overall code (2).

Art. 35 of the statute addresses conflicts of interests and says that professional soldiers shall be prohibited from involvement in enterprises with the Ministry of Defence until five years after their termination of military service. The same article, however, says that this measure may be derogated by a decision of the Minister of Defence, who must inform the President of the Republic. With regards to briberies, gifts and hospitalities, Art. 47 says that it is prohibited for a military member to solicit benefits, accept donations or rewards from anyone having a relationship with the military institution (2). No further definitions, for example of rewards, were given. It also does not provide any information on how to proceed in such a situation.

The code of conduct of the police, which was mentioned in the country’s last assessment (4), could still not be found online. There were reports in 2017 noting that the police now also have a code of ethics. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the General Directorate of National Security (La direction générale de la sureté nationale, DGSN) signed with the National Council for Human Rights. The protocol aims at consolidating human rights within the police and establishing the rule of law within the ranks of the police (3).

This sub-indicator has been scored as Not Applicable because there is no evidence that there is a code of conduct for military personnel. For example, the website of the armed forces does not provide such a document (1). The Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 only includes some articles that deal with the issue of corruption but it is not an overall code (2).

This sub-indicator has been scored as Not Applicable because there is no evidence that there is a code of conduct for military personnel. For example, the website of the armed forces does not provide such a document (1). The Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 only includes some articles that deal with the issue of corruption but it is not an overall code (2).

This question has been scored Not Applicable because there is no evidence that there is a code of conduct for military personnel. For example, the website of the armed forces does not provide such a document (1). The Statute of Military Personnel of 2006 only includes some articles that deal with the issue of corruption but it is not an overall code (2).

Media reports occasionally refer to a code of conduct for the armed forces. However, since no such document is publicly available, it appears to be a set of principles rather than a code of conduct (1).

Media reports occasionally refer to a code of conduct for the armed forces. However, since no such document is publicly available, it appears to be a set of principles rather than a code of conduct (1). Thus, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Media reports occasionally refer to a code of conduct for the armed forces. However, since no such document is publicly available, it appears to be a set of principles rather than a code of conduct (1). Thus, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Media reports occasionally refer to a code of conduct for the armed forces. However, since no such document is publicly available, it appears to be a set of principles rather than a code of conduct (1). Thus, this indicator is marked Not Applicable.

There is a common discipline code for all the Armed Forces. There, the ethical principles that govern military action are established and minor, serious, and very serious offenses are listed. Although they include some situations related to bribery and conflict of interest, these are not defined specifically or with procedural guidelines on these events. There, strictly the disciplinary issue is codified, with autonomy from the criminal issue. The latter belongs to the jurisdiction of ordinary justice and is governed by the National Criminal Code, where the crimes of corruption, bribery, and other crimes against public administration are classified. [1] [2] The “Code of Military Ethics” is currently being prepared for approval by the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces. [3]

The code of discipline of the Armed Forces is available to the public and is part of the initial training plan for entrants in military colleges and voluntary service, as students are subject to the code. Likewise, military and civilian personnel must inform the “Registry of Gifts to Public Officials” and the “Registry of Trips Financed by Third Parties,” both of a public nature, which operate within the scope of the Anti-Corruption Office, if they receive a gift through the Electronic Document Management System. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Violations of the discipline code of the Armed Forces, especially those considered serious and very serious, follow a written procedure, where an audit officer intervenes and the offender is summoned, and the decision is taken by the superior in command. When there is a serious disciplinary offense and crime, the code establishes that the authority that knows the fact must formalise the criminal complaint before the appropriate judicial instance, with prior knowledge by the Ministry of Defence. [1] [2] [3] The disciplinary processes are internal, so it is not possible to know the cases and their regularity. Those military officers with complaints in the ordinary courts are not very frequent, at least based on media reporting. [4]

The code of discipline of the Armed Forces is available to the public and is part of the initial training plan for entrants in military colleges and voluntary service [1].

The conduct of the military personnel is regulated by the RA Law “On Disciplinary Code of the RA Armed Forces”, the RA Law “On Approving the Code of Internal Service of the RA Armed Forces” the RA Law “On Code of Garrison and Guard Services of the RA Armed Forces”. Clause 2 of Article 2 of the Disciplinary code states that the military discipline is based on the principles of legality, respect for human rights and freedoms, publicity, non-discrimination ,and the inevitability of disciplinary liability and the principles of military, legal, and moral upbringing of servicemen [1] [2] [3]. However, the three documents do not address corruption issues at all.

The Disciplinary Code, the Code of Internal Service of the Armed Forces, and the Code of Garrison and Guard Services of the RA Armed Forces are publicly available. The military personnel are well aware of both documents. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) makes sure that the military personnel regularly have access to the documents [1] [2] [3].

Chapter 3 of the Disciplinary Code provides for disciplinary breaches. Article 13 provides that a disciplinary offence is a criminal offence (intentional or negligent) of an act or omission that infringes the military service order subject to disciplinary liability. Clause 2 of Article 13 states that disciplinary liability for offences is applied even though the violations have caused criminal liability by their nature. Article 23 describes the disciplinary penalties liable for breach of the Disciplinary Code, such as reprimand, severe reprimand, reduction of the military rank by one degree up to military service dismissal [1]. The Garrison Military Police (GMP) activities are aimed at preventing and detecting crimes within the military garrison, as well as strengthening discipline, law enforcement. The department serves all military units, military commissariats and hospitals. The GMP carries out preventive work and if they have any unwanted incidents, they quickly and objectively detect them. According to the Head of GMP impunity is excluded [2]. However, in 2018, 39 soldiers died in the armed forces, 7 of which (18% of the total number of victims) were killed in action, and 32 (82%) were killed for various reasons. According to the criminal cases, the other 32 died from technical reasons, including accidents, suicides, fellow shooting, a snow leopard and a plane crash [3].

Training on integrity of the RA Armed Forces may be divided into several directions:
In cooperation with and support of NATO Building Integrity Program [1] and the Defense Education Enhancement Program, a compulsory subject “Integrity and Good Governance” was introduced in the higher-education institutions of the RA MoD (Military University after V. Sargsyan, Military Aviation University after A. Khanperyants), which is first taught as an introduction to newly admitted cadets (as a part of induction training), and in the 4th year, it is taught at a more advanced level. The main purpose of this is to make education on integrity (or as it is called in the questionnaire – code of conduct) part of the officers’ training program, as the idea that strengthening the integrity of the armed forces presupposes the transformation of personal behavior and the development of personal responsibility.
The subject “Integrity and Good Governance” will be included in the qualification courses of officers at MoD Higher Education Institutions and will be taught in V. Sargsyan Military University’s Command and Staff Department (starting September 2020). The subject was included in the program of the academic departmental course at the National Defense Research University of the RA MoD. [2]

The Australian Military Personnel Policy Manual (MILPERSMAN) [1] and related Defence Instructions (DIs) are generally comprehensive, but does not include specific guidance on bribery (except to briefly say that “The main risk of accepting a gift… is that… it could be perceived as a bribe,” which is illegal [2]). MILPERSMAN contains specific guidance and rules regarding post-separation activities within Part 2 Chapter 7, under the heading “Conflict of interest and post-separation employment,” [1, ch. 7, p5], and points to Defence Instructions on Notification of Post Separation Employment for further guidance. These Defence Instructions contain a full page on “Measures to manage conflict of interest”, which are specific guidelines that provide for when certain actions and binding instructions will apply to separating Department of Defence personnel [3]. Guidelines on gifts and hospitality are covered by Defence Instructions on Gifts, Hospitality and Sponsorship [2]. These guidelines include an obligation to have a gifts register [2, 3] and comprehensive rules on when gifts are allows and when they are not [2]. Conflict of interest guidelines are found in Defence Instructions on Conflicts of interest and declaration of interest [4]. These are also consistently alluded to in MILPERSMAN in various contexts (for example, when participating in local government [1, ch. 5, p5].

The Military Personnel Policy Manual (MILPERSMAN) and related Defence Instructions (DIs) are made readily available to the public. MILPERSMAN and corruption risk-related DIs are easily accessible online [1-4]. DIs that are not available on the internet are available to Department of Defence (DoD) personnel on the DoD intranet.

The Defence Annual Report [1] and Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force Annual Report [2] (IG Annual Report) contain statistics that demonstrate that the Code of Conduct and military justice system are well-enforced. The Defence Annual Report reports some 242 fraud investigations were completed and 33 percent of investigations led to criminal, disciplinary or administrative action. There were also a handful of cases that went to civilian courts for trial and appeals reported [1]. The IG Annual Report 2016-17 indicates that 1177 cases were heard before a military trial, and 1001 administrative actions were handed down [2]. According to media reports, the IG Annual Report 2017-18 included a voluntary survey of ADF members, to which more than 10,000 responded. The survey revealed that less than half of respondents thought the discipline system was fairly and consistently applied, indicating that the Code of Conduct and military justice system may have a credibility problem; though this statistic went up to 74% in ADF personnel focus groups [3].

Relaying the key lessons of the Military Personnel Policy Manual (MILPERSMAN) and related Defence Instructions (DIs) to defence personnel is an important part of induction and operations training. Sources employed with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) told the Country Assessor that MILPERSMAN was an important part of their training, including during induction and as a continuing part of their professional development [1]. An interviewee familiar with ADF operations training said that reinforcing MILPERSMAN guidelines related to anti-corruption was an important part of that training [2].

At present, rules of ethical conduct of military personnel in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have not been adopted. However, there is information on the preparation of the Civil Service Code in recent years (1). This code also envisages ethical conduct in these institutions: Ministry of Defence, National Security, Emergency Situations, Special State Protection, Border, Migration, Mobilization and Military Service. It is unknown when the code will be adopted. At the same time, several military structures that are part of the defence and security sector have ethical conduct rules and they are publicly available. The Mobilization and Conscription Service and the Ministry of Defence Industry have published these rules on their official websites.
In the Ethics Code of the Ministry of Defence Industry, Article XII is about “Effective use of state property, as well as avoidance of privileges or discounts.” Two parts of this Code are devoted to the fight against corruption. The first one is called “Anti-Corruption” (XIII), and the second one is “Restrictions on the acquisition of gifts and other privileges” (XIV). It provides very brief information on prohibitions in these sections (2).
The Code of Ethics of Employees of the Prosecutor’s Office also applies to the military personnel of the Military Prosecutor’s Office. Article 4 of this Code states that illegal acquisition of tangible and intangible benefits, privileges or discounts is not permitted (3). Article VI of the Code of Ethics of Civil Servants working in the Mobilization and Conscription Service is referred to as “Corruption behaviour of civil servants” (4).
Rules of Ethical Conduct for State Border Service Employees: “Article 12. Prohibition of the Acquisition of Tangible and Intangible Benefits, Privileges or Discounts” (5).
In the rules of ethical conduct of the employees of the emergencies, there is a section “Employees’ anti-corruption behaviour”. This section provides that a worker can not accept a gift higher than the amount specified in the Anti-Corruption Low (6). A similar code of conduct is available for Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (7).
According to the Law On Combating Corruption, an official cannot accept one or more gifts from any physical or legal person for a period of more than fifty-five manats within one year in connection with the execution of his official duties. Gifts above that amount shall be deemed to belong to the public authority, local self-governing body or body to which the person’s official duties are exercised (6).

There is not enough evidence to score this indicator.

No information on how to comply with the Code of Conduct is provided. According to Natig Jafarli, the rules of behaviour in several military and security organizations are ignored. They do not have control mechanisms (1). Gilan Textile Park, a member of Gilan Holding owned by Kemaleddin Heydarov, was the winner of the tender from the Ministry of Emergency Situations. An appropriate procurement contract was signed with this company on July 2, 2018 (2). In practice, breaches of the Code of Conduct are rarely investigated, and consequently, it is limited.

No information on how to comply with the Code of Conduct is provided. Natig Jafarli says the rules of behavior in a number of military and security structures are ignored, they do not have control mechanisms (1).

According to interviewees, there is a code of conduct. However, it is not available and unknown to most military personnel. There is also evidence to indicate that it does not mention bribery, gifts or conflict of interest [1, 2].

The vast majority of the military personnel do not know the code of conduct, or it is not available for them [1, 2]. There are no clear reasons why the military code of conduct not available online.

Since the code of conduct not available for the public and or to most personel, it is not possible to assess its credibility or enforcement [1, 2].

There is no guidance at all concerning the code of conduct expected during the graduation ceremony and the verbal code of conduct is narrated to the graduated soldiers/officers [1, 2].

There is no separate code of conduct for defence services. However, the services’ Acts, such as Section 42 of the Army Act, make it illegal for ‘any gratification whatever other than a legal remuneration’ [1]. Similar provisions also exist in the Navy and Air Force Acts.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’, as there is no code of conduct that applies specifically to military personnel [1,2].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’, as there is no code of conduct that applies specifically to military personnel [1,2].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’, as there is no code of conduct that applies specifically to military personnel [1,2].

Personnel of the Belgian Defence have to abide by a deontological code, which includes references to bribery, gifts, hospitality and conflicts of interest [1]. The Circular on the revolving doors principle stipulates rules and sanctions on post-separation activities [2]. For personnel directly or indirectly involved in procurement, an extensive code of conduct is shared and the individual needs to sign a declaration to the effect that he or she has read and understood the code of conduct [3]. The document also includes a contact form template in case the individual is charged with transgression. The specificities and pitfalls of this code are explained in detail during a mandatory two-hour course [4].

The code of conduct is readily available to every member of personnel in the Belgian Defence, explicitly distributed to the candidates and tenderers for procurement, and in summary form to the public [1, 2]. Based on the law of Freedom of Information, citizens may request to see the full Code of Conduct [3].

The deontology office of the Procurement Division of Belgian Defence monitors compliance with the Code of Conduct [1]. If procedures need to be initiated (based on information received by the hierarchy, by the office of deontology or through whistleblowing), the cases are pursued by the DJMM specialised unit of the federal police and the public prosecutor, independently of the Belgian Defence [2].

There is Not Enough Information to score this indicator, as the guidance on the code of conduct, which is included in induction training for all military personnel could not be ascertained. However, regarding the specific code of conduct on public procurement, the guidance is mainly intended for military personnel having directly or indirectly a link to procurement [1]. This training is provided as soon as the person in question takes the post [2]. The same guidance is also a mandatory part of every senior officer course.

Regulations and codes of conduct are in place for both military and civilian staff. The Code of Conduct in the Armed Forces and the Code of Ethics [1, 2] of military personnel in the armed forces have both been adopted by the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AFBiH) and apply to professional military personnel [1, 2]. They have guidelines on standards of conduct, conflicts of interest and acceptance of gifts [1]. They also have other provisions which contain guidance on what to do when faced with ethical and professional dilemmas, in both on-duty and off-duty situations [3].

The Code of Conduct is publicly available and published on the Ministry of Defence’s web site [1].

The Law on Defence, which contains provisions on professional conduct and conflict of interests for armed forces personnel, stipulates that oversight shall be provided by the Office of the Inspector General [1]. The Law does not enumerate disciplinary sanctions [1]. One of the identified shortcomings of the Code of Ethics for Military Personnel is that it did not use to provide for any disciplinary sanctions for violations of its provisions [2]. Because of this and other shortcomings, in late 2018, the old Code of Ethics was replaced with a new Code of Ethics for Military Personnel, Cadets and Candidates in Training, which provides for disciplinary liability for its violations [2]. In 2018, inspectors in the MoD and the AFBiH were engaged 293 times to establish the facts in various irregularities, including violations of the Ethics Code. In 126 cases the preliminary investigations were conducted, in five cases investigations were carried out [3]. In 2019, the MoD GI had 424 requests for action, 48 of which related to unprofessional conduct and 18 cases to hate speech regulated by the Code of Ethics, according to the government reviewer.

The Basic Standards of Individual Training has a course on the Code of Conduct for all levels of training (Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Soldiers) [1].

According to the Government of Botswana, Botswana’s value system is based on the bedrock of Botho [1]. It is the overarching principle under which all BDF values are derived. It is the basis of the core values of honour and respect [1]. It characterises a well-mannered, courteous and disciplined Defence Force [2]. An individual who possesses this quality realises his or her full potential both as an individual and as part of the unit to which he or she belongs. BDF values are enforced by Defence Force Regulations, Code of Military Discipline and Code of Professional Conduct and by Military Customs and traditions” [2]. There is no Code of Conduct for all Military personnel.

The military personnel are handed the Code of Conduct during their time of appointment [1]. However, the Code of Conduct is not available to the public. The Botswana Defence Force Act provdies information on the type of misconduct that can result in disciplinary action [2].

Cases of breach of the Code of Conduct are investigated. However, there are not so many cases that are available in the public domain. Historically, cases have been investigated and in some instances, they involved court cases [1,2].

The BDF website indicates that “BDF values are enforced by […] Code of Military Discipline and Code of Professional Conduct” [1], however there is no evidence of specific training or guidance with regards to the Code of Conduct.

There is no Code of Conduct for the defence sector specifically, there is only the Federal Government Code of Conduct and each single force’s Code of Ethics. At the ministerial level, and according to the Integrity Plan of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) [1], the Ministry’s Ethics Committee was created in 2002 and it is responsible for correction and to stipulate a code of conduct to the MoD and the single forces. However, as stated in the Integrity Plan that they just follow Federal norms that vaguely tackle the issue of bribery and gifts, and also is not directly applicable to those who are not considered ‘public authorities’ [2], as already stated by the 2015 assessment [3]. The single forces’ Disciplinary Regulation does not mention the word corruption, but use other words related to legality [4, 5, 6]. These documents establish clear procedures for military personnel to act upon in cases where malpractices are committed [7], comprehensively explaining bribery, gifts, etc. The Army was issued in 2016 by the System of Fiscalization of Controlled Products [8], the Navy (as well as the other single forces) has its Plan of Integrity (Plano de Integridade), a very comprehensive document that encompasses the Code of Conduct, transparency, mechanisms of enforcement, training and accountability [9, 10], and the Military Penal Code also clearly states that Emblezzment, Corruption and Falsification are crimes, qualify each one of them and prescribes punishment for each one of them [11].

The Federal Government Code of Conduct is available online [1], and annual training is mandatory in all military units with administrative autonomy [2].

Cases reported are investigated by the Ministério Publico Militar (MPM – Military Public Prosecutor) and, even when the investigation is confidential, cases are pursued and in most of the cases end up being judged by the Military Justice. A recent article on Portal UOL describes this process very clearly and offers a clear overview of the enforcement of conduct among the military [1].

According to an interviewee from the Army, all military units which have administrative autonomy have to conduct an annual Administration Seminary, the content from this is published in the internal official bulletin. In this seminary, both the Federal Government Code of Conduct and the Military Ethics Code are discussed [1].

Decree N°2008-700 (2009), is the code of conduct that currently applies to all military personnel. In general, it provides a conduct code that military personnel must adhere to, both as a citizen and as a soldier. It provides the rights and duties of the military and prevents misconduct at all levels of the hierarchy. Article 21 of Decree N°2008-700 (2009) provides the duties of the military as a citizen and as a member of the armed forces. Indeed, any other issue not covered by this decree is covered by Law No. 038 (2016). Unfortunately, the content of these legal instruments remains unknown by most of the members of the armed forces (1), (2). The total adult literacy rate was 28.7% from 2008 to 2012 (3). This low rate probably explains why the personnel of the armed forces do not have much knowledge about the military code of conduct, though it may have improved as of 2018.

Both LawNo. 038 (2016) and Decree N°2008-700 (2009) are available online and in hard copy (1), (2). However, there is no evidence that it is readily available. There is no evidence that personnel can get access to it upon request either. As per my own experience as a former member of the armed forces of Burkina Faso, I have never seen the military code of conduct readily available for anyone that needs it, in the units I used to belong to. In practice and according to the law, once a law or decree gets published in the Official Journal of the country, the public is supposed to have access to it, including the military personnel (3).

On January 12, 2018, an article by France24 reported that some Burkina Faso gendarmes were filmed committing a racket at the Niger border, it has resulted in an investigation within the defence sector (1). Later on, they were identified and removed from their positions (2). The gendarmerie is responsible for investigating cases of corruption within both the police and the gendarmerie, but it does not always publish its reports (3), and the case of the Niger border would not have been investigated and reported on if it was not widely known by the public (4). In sum, breaches of the code of conduct occur, and are occasionally investigated.

Fortunately, guidance on the code of conduct is provided in every military training module. Subjects like military discipline, military ethics, gender, human rights, amongst others, are integrated into curricula (1).

Military Justice in Cameroon is handled by the Military Justice Directorate. It handles issues ranging from prosecutions to sentences of those charged with offences. It is authorized to deal with offences like the holding of weapons without an official permit and unauthorised use of service cars. Though the military has a Code of Conduct, it does not specifically make mention of bribery and corruption, gifts, or conflicts of interest [1] [2] [3] [4].

There is also a Code of Military Justice which is not accessible to the public but which according to one interviewee does not specifically mention bribery, gifts, conflicts of interest or post-separation activities [2] [3].

There is a Code of Conduct for military personnel but it does not specifically make mention of issues relating to corruption and it is not made available to the public [1] [2].

The US State Department report (2017) states, “The DGSN and gendarmerie investigated reports of abuse and forwarded cases to the courts. Lesser sanctions were handled internally. The DGSN, Ministry of Defense, and Ministry of Justice claimed members of security forces were sanctioned during the year for committing abuses, but few details were known about investigations or any subsequent accountability… Although the government took some steps to punish and prosecute officials who committed abuses in the security forces and in the public service, it did not often make public actual sanctions, and offenders often continued acting with impunity [1]. According to International Crisis Group (2017), “Police were ineffective, poorly trained, and corrupt … Impunity was a problem” [2]. This suggests that training in the Code of Conduct is insufficient and not regularly enforced.

Police are said to be ineffective, poorly trained, and corrupt. Impunity is a problem [1]. This suggests that training in the Code of Conduct is insufficient and not encouraged.

The Code of Service Discipline (CSD) is the basis of the Canadian Forces (CF)’s military justice system. It is designed to assist military commanders in maintaining discipline, efficiency, and morale within the CF. It is found in Part III of the National Defence Act (NDA). (1, 2). The CSD applies to all Regular Force Members at all times, and, under specific circumstances (i.e. when on duty), to members of the Reserve Force. [3] The Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces lay out the roles, responsibilities, and protocols governing all personnel within the CF, as well as the authorities of senior military, political, and civilian staff affiliated with the Department of National Defence. [4] DAOD 7021-1 (Conflict of Interest), DAOD 7021-2 (Post-Employment), DOAD 7021-3 (Acceptance of Gifts, Hospitality and Other Benefits), and DAOD 7021-4 (Solicitation, Sponsorships and Donations) provide direction and protocol to members and representatives of the CF on how to adhere to code of conduct while also acknowledging diplomatic customs of other states. [5] [6] [7] [8] CAF members also recieve a copy of “Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada”. [9] [10] Though still applicable, general guidelines for ethical decision-making appear to be openly provided as archived content [11]

The CSD and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces are both openly accessible to the public online. [1] [2] [3]. CAF members also recieve a copy of “Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada” [4].

The CSD is a key component of Canada’s Military Justice system. As such, it incorporates all elements of the Criminal Code of Canada and is enforced by the Military Police both domestically and abroad. There are detailed protocols regarding who can arrest and detain those in breach of the code and the potential consequences through either court martial or summary trial. [1] All proceedings from courts martial or summary trials are made available for public consumption. [2] Non-compliance with DOAD 7021-3 will also result in investigation by superiors. [3] However, as a former Supreme Court judge determined that the current military justice system to serve victims of misconduct, sexual and otherwise, is rife with areas where the potential for interference in police investigations and courts martial from the chain of command exists, it can be inferred that breaches of the code of conduct are insufficiently investigated [4][5] . Also, the extent to which investigations of breaches of the code of conduct are less clear are instances of post-employment, that is, “Once a public servant has left the public service, there are no simple procedures that a department can use to check whether that public servant is respecting the post-employment compliance measures to which they are subject. The onus for compliance is on the individual in question. Once an individual has left office, they are no longer a public servant; hence, managers no longer have any authority over that individual. Public servants who are no longer employed in the public service cannot be subject to disciplinary measures.” [6]

Guidances on the CSD and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces are included in induction training for all military personnel. [1] [2] [3]

While there are codes of conduct for all military personnel, they are dispersed in various regulations, laws and institutional ethics codes, and their guidance is not always adequate, clear and specific about corruption-related offences and risks. The conduct of the military personnel is governed by a diverse set of regulations established by the Code of Military Justice, the Discipline Regulations for the Armed Forces, the General Ordinance Administrative Regulations of the Chilean Army and, more recently, by ethic codes developed by each institution. The Staff Regulations of the Armed Forces establishes some incompatibilities for the personnel [1], including those shared with personnel of the public administration [2] and medical professionals [3]. However, there are no specific incompatibilities other than those specified in the Code of Military Justice. Article 76 of the Disciplinary Regulations for the Armed Forces [4] establishes as an offence against discipline the exercise of influence or efforts for one’s own benefit, to take advantage of one’s position or employment for one’s own benefit, to demonstrate negligence or act carelessly in compliance with provisions concerning military security, and any other infraction against the regulations or service orders that alter the regime prevailing in the armed forces. However, it does not provide guidance for specific offences, such as bribery or influence peddling. The Regulations on the Attributions of the Commanders of the Institutions of the National Defence does not specify any corruption-related risk or offences [5]. As part of the reforms after the fraud in the armed forces, the army published the Army’s Ethos, a guideline for the valuing and behavioural training of its members [6, 7]. It developed the concept of “military honour,” and prescribed to act with transparency and probity in any situation, emphasising honesty in the administration of resources. However, these are broad ethic judgments and not clear, specific guidelines.

The multiple sources that regulate the conduct of personnel in the armed forces and the defence sector are generally available to the public through institutional websites [1, 2, 3, 4]. There is also evidence that these documents are distributed and incorporated into the educational programs of regular personnel training.

There is mixed evidence on the effective enforcement of military codes of conduct and regulations. Where media have reported irregularities in the conduct of personnel of the armed forces, institutions commonly respond by stating that internal confidential oversight mechanisms were working over the cases. However, there are few proofs of the regularity of these procedures. On the other hand, commentators have cast an incredulous eye on military codes of conduct due to the arbitrary use of spaces of institutional autonomy for the private benefit [1, 2, 3, 4].

There is no indication in relevant legislation, including the Ethos of the Military to suggest the existance of any training.

The equivalent to a Code of Conduct in the PLA is the military oath and the Code of Conduct for Performing Official Duties With Integrity, which is included in the 2011 Regulations on the Performance of Official Duties With Integrity by Leading Cadres With Party Membership in the Armed Forces. [1] The oath is short but makes a clear reference to discipline, while the Code of Conduct is comprehensive, lacking only guidance on how to proceed when faced with corrupt activities.

In addition to this, the Party has its own oath and regulations for Party members. [2] The exact percentage of Party membership in the PLA is unknown. However, since the 1980s, the PLA has aimed at having at least one party member present down to the smallest unit. [3] In practice, this means that although the majority of soldiers are not party members, [4] for officers, party membership is a precondition for advancement.

Both the oath and the CC are distributed to military personnel and are easily accessible online. [1,2]

Τhere is no specific information regarding the enforcement of the Code of Conduct, but ultimately this reflects the overall anticorruption enforcement in the PLA, that is characterised by a) an absence of external scrutiny, b) a high degree of politicisation, and c) institutional reliance on CCP organs for implementation. [1,2]

Given that it is impossible to assess the extent of enforcement, this indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

There is not enough publicly available information on the use of the Code of Conduct in training, but there is a high frequency of political indoctrination in the PLA. [1,2] The PLA pays particular attention to the political indoctrination and training of its officers (overseen by the Political Work Department) and has created relevant specialised institutions for promoting anticorruption training. [3] Given the lack of information on this issue, this indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

The Ministry of Defence and the various Military Forces have a code of conduct. The Ministry of Defence has its ‘Code of Ethics’ under General Management Unit, which is built through the participation of officials. The Code defines the principles, values, ethical policies, and practices that must be avoided for the prevention of conflicts of interest. It defines four specific actions that are risks of corruption: receiving remuneration, handouts or any type of compensation in money; improper use of privileged or confidential information for personal benefit or for third parties; carrying out political or religious proselytising, taking advantage of the individual’s duty, position, or relationship with the Ministry; and any type of practice that threatens the integrity and transparency of the entity’s management. [1] The Colombian Air Force has a Code of Aerial Military Ethics, which identifies a series of infractions against the military ethical foundations, including actions that do not recognise human dignity, not showing spirit of the Corps, dedication to the institution, and failing to comply with orders, among others. However, it does not elaborate on aspects such as bribes, gifts, conflicts of interest, etc. [2] The National Navy has a Code of Integrity, in which they develop eight values that guide the actions of the members of the Navy: discipline, loyalty, honour, justice, diligence, commitment, honesty, and respect. The topics of bribes, gifts, and conflicts of interest are generally considered under honesty. The Army has a Manual of Ethical Generalities for the Military Vocation in which the central axis is to avoid actions of corruption within the Army and the strengthening of military principles and values. [3] The Army also has a monitoring index of the organisational ethical climate by Military Unit, based on the “Ethical Barometer.” [4] Finally, there is the Police Code of Ethics in which they develop a moral system that aims to structure and model appropriate behaviors and outline professional ethical and transparency exercises generally. [5] Despite the existence of codes of conduct, these are general guidelines that address the risks of corruption without further detail. It should be noted that, although these codes do not develop specific procedures for events where conduct associated with corruption occurs, there is a broad legal framework, such as the Code of Military Criminal Justice, the Penal Code, and the Military Disciplinary Code, which identify and detail the sanctions and crimes for acts of corruption. [6]

Each of these Codes of Conduct and disciplinary codes are easily available for public access on the websites the defence sector entities. [1]

This indicator is marked Not Enough Information as we have been unable to find any cases including court cases or related litigation that refer to the enforcement of said codes.

There is not enough information to score this indicator, as it cannot be established if guidance on the code of conduct is included in induction training for all military personnel. Some codes have vague references to training. The Ministry of Defence’s Code, for instance, states that Directors need to “foster knowledge and participation of every public servant in the Entity’s programmes.” [1] The Code of General Ethics states that personnel needs to “dedicate its whole time to the fulfilment of their duties” except whenever they are undergoing training. However, there are no specifics on this, meaning that while the codes expect some level of training to occur, it is unclear if guidance is provided.

There is a Code of Conduct for military personnel in the form of Law No. 2016-1109. Though the law includes aspects of integrity that affect military personnel, it does not fulfil the criteria for a score of 3 or 4. For example, there is no mention of bribery or gifts, and the references to conflicts of interest are unrelated to corruption risk.

Law No. 2016-1109 (Portant Code de la Fonction Militaire) of February 16, 2016, is the updated Code of Conduct that repealed the previous Act No. 095-695 (Portant Code de la Fonction Militaire) of September 7, 1995. The provisions in Law No. 2016-1109 that cover aspects of personnel integrity are contained in Book 1 (Statut Général des Militaires), Title 1 (Droits et Obligations), Chapter 1 (Exercice des droits civils et politiques) and Chapter 6 (Discipline) (1). The references to conflicts of interest in Law No. 2016-1109 are in Articles 13 and 14, and they are unrelated to corruption risk as per the criteria for a score of 4. For example, Article 13 regulates the participation of officers in certain for-profit activities, with MoD authorization, as long as they do not pose a conflict of interest. And Article 14 allows the spouse and/or children of the military officer to carry out a for-profit activity, as long as it does not represent a conflict of interest for the officer (1).

Though not specific to military personnel, Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées) of September 20, 2013, contains clear and comprehensive guidance for public officials concerning bribery, gifts and hospitality and conflicts of interest. In Title 1 (Dispositions Générales), Chapter 1 (Définitions), Article 1, the scope of Order No. 2013-660 includes military personnel:

“Art. 1 – For the purposes of this order, the following terms mean: (2)
– public administration, all bodies, institutions and public services created by the laws and regulations in force;
– a public official, any natural person who holds an elected, executive, administrative, military, paramilitary or judicial mandate, whether he has been appointed or elected, permanently or temporarily, whether he is paid or not, and whatever the hierarchical level is” (2).

Law No. 2016-1109 was partially amended by Order No. 2018-515 of 30 May 2018 (Portant sanctions administratives applicables aux militaires). This Order gave teeth to Law No. 2016-1109 and has allowed the executive to effectively root out the rebellious elements in the armed forces behind the soldier uprisings of 2017. However, this order does not serve as an extension of the code of conduct but is aimed at enabling the Executive to deal with the instigators of the soldier mutinies of 2017 more effectively (3).

Law No. 2016-1109 cannot be considered a comprehensive code of conduct for members of the military regarding corruption risk. The two single references to conflicts of interest in the Law are unrelated to broad-based corruption risk. Therefore, it cannot serve as anti-corruption guidance.

Law No. 2016-1109 (Portant Code de la Fonction Militaire), Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées) and Order No. 2018-515 (Portant sanctions administratives applicables aux militaires) are all readily available to military personnel. Full-text versions of all three bodies of legislation can be uploaded online through open sources (1), (2), (3). An example of the availability of information on the Code of Conduct and the penalties that can be incurred for lack of discipline is illustrated with the article in Pôle Afrique that explained how the government had passed Law No. 2016-1109 in December 2016 to contain the discontent among military ranks. The article described how Law No. 2016-1109 had replaced the previous act from 1995 in terms of the rights and obligations of members of the armed forces (4). Although there is no evidence that the Code of Conduct, in the form of Law No. 2016-1109 and the amendments in Order No. 2018-515, are “effectively distributed to all military personnel” (criteria for a score of 3), both pieces of legislation are readily available to members of the military.

The breaches of Law No. 2016-1109 are only investigated occasionally whenever they involve rebellion (mutiny) or lack of discipline among the officers. For more broad-based corruption offences contained in Order No. 2013-660 (Relative à la prévention et à la lutte contre la corruption et les infractions assimilées), it appears that enforcement is weaker, and an even lower level of investigation is applied.

Law No. 2016-1109 of February 16, 2016, was partially amended on November 5, 2018, via the unanimous adoption by the NA Commission on Security and Defence (CSD) of Order No. 2018-515 of 30 May 2018 (Portant sanctions administratives applicables aux militaires). This Order gave teeth to Law No. 2016-1109 and allowed the executive to more effectively root out the rebellious elements in the armed forces that were behind the soldier uprisings of 2017. Order No. 2018-515 served the purpose of fast-tracking the forced retirement or ousting of several military officers. Submitted for adoption in the NA by Minister of Defence Hamed Bakayoko, the Order revoked certain provisions in Law No. 2016-1109 to empower the executive to eliminate the officers accused of serious crimes. For example, Article 1 stipulates that the minister of defence can effectively punish the officers for lack of discipline (1), (2).

In terms of the enforcement of Order No. 2013-660 and the creation of the High Authority for Good Governance (HABG), the track record in the last 5 years is poor according to a June 2018 interview with Tiémoko Assale, Director of the satirical weekly L’Eléphant Déchaîné in Abidjan. In the interview, he stated that he is currently pursuing several cases of corruption, but made no references to military personnel. Assale stated:

“Since 2011, corruption and the loss of public funds have increased despite the creation of various structures such as the HABG, which are supposed to fight against these phenomena. Corruption has reached a frightening level. It is as if the ruling class had formed a sort of vicious and paralyzed circle in which everyone is bound, in the same families, parties or political alliances” (3).

Most of the general anti-corruption guidance for military personnel that is focused on bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities is provided through hands-on training (1), (2), (3).

There is no code of conduct specifically for the Defence domain, nor is there one specifically for military personnel. The Ministry of Defence inform that the combine of the Ministry of Defence follow the general Code of Conduct for the Public Sector (“God adfærd i det offentlige”), published by the Agency for Modernisation (Moderniseringsstyrelsen), the Danish Regions (Danske Regioner) and the Local Government Denmark (Kommunernes Landsforening) [1, 2]. The Code of Conduct communicates and adheres to the basic legslation and principles that apply to the public sector and it is 52 pages long. The Ministry of Defence Personnel Agency has published guidelines on how to manage incapacity [3]. However, this instruction is only a summary of the already existing legislation on the area as found in the Public Administration Act and the Penal Code, and so is not a code of conduct as such. The Code of Conduct for the Public Sector addresses bribery, gifts and hospitality and to some degree conflicts of interest and post-separation. Guidance on how to proceed in the face of these events is in very general terms and not specific to the organisational structure of the Ministry of Defence.

The Code of Conduct for the Public Sector is available to the public on the Agency for Public Finance and Management’s website [1]. There is no evidence that the guide is effectively distributed to personnel, and this was confirmed by a source [2], [3].

Recent media investigations suggest that breaches of the code of conduct are not always investigated. For instance, as for the the recent conviction of the former Chief of Army, the Chief of Defence had previously denied that there even was a case and thus neglected to investigate it [1, 2]. Only when the case became public was a proper investigation initiated, here by the Ministry of Defence Military Prosecution Service. Further, and as reported for example in Q16, media investigation in relation to the fraud case within the Ministry of Defence Accounting Agency shows that the leadership in the department of the Ministry of Defence failed to act and launch investigations into warnings they received [3]. Naturally, it is impossible to determine how many cases occur that are not investigated. At the same time, research suggest that, when cases with evidence of criminal behaviour occur within the DMPS, such cases are investigated and pursued [4]. Further, as reported in Q8B, there is also some public criticism of the alleged independence of the external legal investigations that are regularly used within the Ministry of Defence (see Q8B).

Guidance is in very general terms and not specific to the organisational structure of the Ministry of Defence. Civilian and military employees working with public administration need to complete basic online courses based on the general Code of Conduct for the Public Sector on the public sectors education site ‘Campus’. There are different basic courses addressing relevant themes in relation to the employees specific function and tasks, e.g. conflicts of interests, gifts etc. [1] There are also equivalent online courses available on the Defence’s Electronic School. Further , a source indicated that staff officers in Defence Command are most likely expected to have knowledge of the Code of conduct in the public sector [2].

There is a Military Code of Conduct however, the content and the Code of Conduct is not available and no guidance is given at all during training or in the units (1), (2), (3).

According to our sources, although there is a Code of Conduct, it is not available for the public, as well as not readily available for the majority of the units of the army. There is no training provided to the soldiers or officers with relevant guidance. The majority of the soldiers (not officers) are not aware of its existence (1), (2), (3).

The code of conduct is not readily available, there is no enforcement mechanism and therefore, it is not credible (1), (2), (3).

There is a Military Code of Conduct however, the content and the Code of Conduct is not available and no guidance is given at all during training or in the units (1), (2), (3).

Kaitseväe sisemäärustik (Internal regulations of the Defense Forces), an internal document, approved by the Commander of the Defence Forces, is the basis of all the military activities in the Defence Forces as well as in the Defence League. [1] It predominantly explains the meaning of command and how to execute it. The document does not explain unlawful activities nor ethical standards. However, the document points out that servicemen must refrain from creating corruptive situations and must avoid conflicts of interest. No definitions are provided. Moreover, the Defence Forces’ Disciplinary Code, Kaitseväe Distsiplinaarmäärustik, explains gifts as incentives to servicemen by superiors. [2] It explains who can give and receive valuable gifts. Thirdly, the Defence Forces follow the Code of Ethics, also approved by the Commander of Defence Forces. [3] It stipulates the main values upheld by the Defence Forces. It states the importance of honesty, but does not give definitions for concepts such as bribery, gifts, hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities.

Kaitseväe Sisemäärustik is publicly available and easy to find on the website of the Defence Forces. [1] As the most important document for military activities in Estonia, it is one of the first topics introduced and covered in training for conscripts. [2] The Code of Ethics is also publicly available, [3] but it is not a widely covered document during basic training, as pointed out by an interviewee.

In cases when a breach of the code of conduct occurs, a disciplinary proceedure is opened. [1] The infractions are reported by the direct or indirect superior. It is unclear by who and how exactly oversight is exercised, but there is evidence that servicemen are regularly sanctioned for breaches. For example, every year 100 to 150 servicemen are sent to serve their punishment – an indication that investigations and punishments are conducted regularly. [2]

As the most important document for military activities in Estonia, Kaitseväe Sisemäärustik is one of the first topics introduced and covered in training for conscripts. [1]. The Code of Ethics is also publicly available [2], but it is not a widely covered document during basic training.

The Yleinen palvelusohjesääntö [General Service Code] specifies a number of things, including for example in section 1, part 13 that “A soldier shall not let bribery or other reasons impact him/herself to breach, neglect or avoid his or her duties and responsibilities”. [1,2]

Additionally, according to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the following two norms have been given in the Defence Forces: PVHSMK – PE HENKILÖSTÖ-, MAANPUOLUSTUS- JA EDUSTUSTILAISUUKSISTA AIHEUTUVAT MENOT PUOLUSTUSVOIMISSA (HP418/27.9.2019) [Expenses deriving from personnel, national defence and representation events in the Defence Forces] and PEOIKOS 109 HYVÄKSYTTÄVIEN ETUJEN VASTAANOTTAMINEN JA KIELLETYT EDUT PUOLUSTUSVOIMIEN TOIMINNASSA (HK1038/9.12.2014) [The acceptance of admissible benefits and forbidden benefits in the operation of the Defence Forces]. The former as an obligatory order, the latter as an instruction equalising the operation. [3]

Neither of the codes is available publicly however, so it is not possible to assess their contents in terms of guidance.

The two aforementioned norms cannot be found online. [1] However, they may be available upon request. Acts, norms, and other guidance is distributed within the Defence Forces, for example, by uploading them to the document management system. It is not clear if distribution takes place beyond this.

There have been cases of e.g. suspected nepotism in the intake of the Airforces flight school that led to pre-trial investigation and prosecution and misuse of financial resources in a military exercise that lead into three pre-trial investigations and two prosecutions and consequtively to two convictions and convicted nepotism in recruitment processes in the Navy [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Decree on the Defence Forces, chpt 1, section 5: Legality of the actions of and within the Defence Forces, as well as the administration of military justice, is guided and supervised by the Assessor of the Defence Forces. [12] If the suspected criminal act is against another soldier or the Defence Forces, pre-trial investigations are carried out as stated in the Act on Military Discipline and Crime Prevention in the Defence Forces section 5 and actions taken on the basis of the pre-trial investigations in section 6. [13]

Furthermore, the Act on Pre-Trial Investigation is followed and the Police may support and collaborate in the investigation. [14, 15] If impartiality of the investigation or gravity of the crime so require, pre-trial investigation shall be moved to the competence of the Police. This can be done also otherwise because of the quality of the matter and the Police may in its own initiative to start a parallel pre-trial investigation for a justified reason. [16]

Breaches of the code of conduct are dealt with as stated in the Act on Military Discipline and Crime Prevention in the Defence Forces, which specifies, for example, the disciplinary procedure, lawful sanctions, authority of the superior in disciplinary matters, legal coercive measures, pre-trial investigation, the procedures for forwarding the matter to criminal court and so forth. [17]

There is not enough information to score this indicator.

According to a written response provided by the Headquarters of the Defence Forces, the following two norms have been given in the Defence Forces: PVHSMK – PE HENKILÖSTÖ-, MAANPUOLUSTUS- JA EDUSTUSTILAISUUKSISTA AIHEUTUVAT MENOT PUOLUSTUSVOIMISSA (HP418/27.9.2019) and PEOIKOS 109 HYVÄKSYTTÄVIEN ETUJEN VASTAANOTTAMINEN JA KIELLETYT EDUT PUOLUSTUSVOIMIEN TOIMINNASSA (HK1038/9.12.2014).

The former as an obligatory order, the latter as an instruction equalising the operation. [1] Training on ethical issues is incorporated holistically in military training, starting from the lessons given in conscript training [2]. Ethics training typically includes the importance of adhering to the law, thus the importance of bribery. However, it is not clear from the information currently accessible that training specifically focuses on the General Service Code or accompanying norms.

In 2021, The Ministry of the Armed Forces adopted a standalone Anti-Corruption and Ethics Code of Conduct for all civilian and military personnel working under it or in associated agencies [1]. The Anti-Corruption code is extensive and broken down into four parts:
– Part 1: details the main types of corruption offences under French law, based on a typology of corruption.
– Part 2: provides rules and recommendations on specific corruption-related issues such as conflicts of interests, gifts, hospitality, with guidelines on how to proceed to avoid exposing oneself to associated corruption risks.
– Part 3: provides a practical guide for personnel working in sensitive positions such as procurement, financial management and human resources, with a list of dos and donts and recommendations on mitigating corruption risks in practice.
– Part 4: provides information on existing procedures already in place to address corruption issues, such as whistleblowing procedures and ethical controls related to the revolving door.
The Ministry’s Anti-Corruption Code has been reviewed favourably by the Anti-Corruption Agency, which commended the Ministry for being the first ministry to implement such a code, which complies with requirements listed in the Sapin II Law of 9 December 2016 [2].
Alongside the Anti-Corruption Code, there is also an official code of conduct for the soldiers of the “armée de terre” (ground forces) with 11 key points, but none of them concerns corruption. [3]
Article R4122-14 of the Defence Code addresses conflicts of interests and post-separation activities, [4] but does not provide specific guidance on how to proceed in the face of corruption. Hospitality isn’t mentioned in the Defence Code.
Internal security forces (police and gendarmerie) do have an ethics code in which Article R439-4 on “Integrity” [5] addresses bribery, gifts, conflicts of interest, etc.
There is also a General Status of civil servants which includes provisions on private gain and conflicts of interest [6] however, it only applies to certain military personnel who exercise such functions, and the majorirty of personnel are not covered by this General Status [7].

The Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct is readily available online in an easily accessible and legible format on the website of the Ministry of the Armed Forces, along with other ethics-related documents [1].
The “armée de terre” (land forces) and the navy do similar codes of conduct, that are both available for anyone to read online – but none of the respective 11 [2] and 12 [3] key points concern corruption. No code of conduct was found for the Air Force.

Given how the Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct was only approved in January 2021, it is still too early to assess its enforcement [1].
In relation to the Defence Code, breaches of the Code are investigated by civil justice in regular courts. Where there is evidence of criminal behavior, cases are pursued like for any citizen. For instance, the ICS case, concerning a sub-contracting company to the Ministry of the Armed Forces (MOAF) involved in corrupting high-ranking commanding officers of the Ministry to win contracts, is currently being investigated by the National Financial Prosecutor (PNF). [2] However, it should be noted that this investigation didn’t start from an internal notice, but from an anonymous denunciation. Letters were sent to the press, the MOAF and to competitors of ICS, which ended up on the PNF judge’s desk.

Another recent example of breaches of the anti-corruption law is the investigation into the “Balard scandal”. Three people were indicted: one military officer working at the MOAF, a manager of the Bouygues construction company and a Franco-tunisian serving as an middleman in the favouritism corruption scheme. [3]

There is a Military Ethics Committee that examines the requests of military personnel to quit the institution and work in the private sector, making sure no influence peddling and revolving doors practices threaten the ethics of the army. [4] A Law of April 20, 2018, created new, stricter rules for military personnel wishing to engage in for-profit activities. [5]

As the Anti-Corruption Code is very recent, it is difficult to assess whether it has been integrated into training programmes. The Code itself is intended as guidance, and therefore does not provide details of how it is to disseminated throughout the defence apparatus, nor does it specifiy training requirements on its contents. Instead it simply “calls on commanders to disseminate the code amongst personnel to ensure its provisions are respected” [1]. There is evidence that this Code was disseminated widely to all heads of departments, regiments and basis throughout France (both digital and hard copies) [2].
Guidance on Defence Code provisions regarding corruption is supposed to be provided to all military personnel through training, but the Code only mentions conflicts of interests and post-separation activities. [3] Although there is evidence that ethics “referents” have provided training to civilian and military personnel [4] [5], no record was found of specific training about all the different facets of corruption being automatically provided to all military personnel of the French army upon induction.
However, military personnel interviewed [6] said that, before external operations (OPEX), they were given cultural training at the Ecole Militaire in Paris (EMSOME [7]) ahead of their deployment abroad, to raise awareness about cultural differences and practices on the field, amongst which were corruption issues (“backchich”, bribes, gifts, etc).

Military personnel are subject to the ‘Rules on Integrity (‘Regelungen zur Integrität’) [1], the Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration [2] and the Code of Conduct Against Corruption [3], all of which apply across the Federal Administration. These documents outline standards of conduct with regard to gifts, bribes and hospitality for civilian and military personnel.

Furthermore, Article 19 of the ‘Act on the Legal Status of Military Personnel’ (‘Soldatengesetz’) prohibits the acceptance of gifts and advantages within the context of public duty. This Article also addresses conflicts of interest arising through activities outside of official duties. Article 20 specifies provisions for post-separation employment [4].

A specific code of conduct for the Armed Forces was proposed in 2016, but the project was abandoned after multiple debates in which critics argued that such a code would result in uncertainty with regard to existing provisions (most notably the Federal Civil Service Act and the principles of ‘Innere Führung’, which are the guiding ethical principles of the Armed Forces [5]).

The military is subject to a Code of Conduct that applies to public officials in general. This general code is an annex to the ‘Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’ and provides guidelines on how to practically implement this Directive. This Code is available online to the general public and is also circulated as part of the induction training [1,2,3].

The military is subject to a Code of Conduct that applies to public officials in general. This general code is an annex to the ‘Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’ and provides guidelines on how to practically implement this Directive [1]. The annual report on corruption prevention in the Federal Administration provides information on corruption offences within the Ministry of Defence and the measures taken in response, but does not provide explicit information on breaches of the Code of Conduct, which should rather be understood as guidelines to help staff to avoid and prevent corruption. The annual report on corruption prevention issued by the Ministry of the Interior reflects the scope of the ‘Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’ and therefore also has to address corruption measures related to the Armed Forces. In the 2018 report on corruption prevention, the BMVg reported two cases related to the Armed Forces that demonstrated enforcement of the Code [2].

Corruption prevention is addressed in the induction training. This training covers the ‘Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’, which includes the Code of Conduct as an annex [1]. This Directive specifies that awareness-raising training should be conducted with staff upon entering office and in preparation for high-risk positions. This also applies to the Armed Forces [2].

There is a Code of ethics for military personnel. It is not made publicly available (1), (2).

The Ghanaian Army, Air Force, and Navy have a code of conduct and take classes on it, but it is not clear whether they receive a copy of the code (1). Neither the MOD nor the GAF (on their websites and their other channels of communications) have published the Code of Ethics.

Investigations on breaches of the code of conduct are reported on in the media. For instance, in October 2016, a soldier was sanctioned upon actions against the code of conduct (1). “The army has a firmly established ethical and moral code based on the laws and institutions of the State of Ghana, the traditions of the Ghanaian people and democratic principles” (2). The military police are committed to enforcing charges of any misconduct and inappropriate behaviour. The armed forces also have policies to help military personnel during combat or noncombatants, for instance, “weapons and force can only be used for the purpose of a military operation and not to harm human beings who are non-combatants or who are prisoners of war” (2).

However, since the code is not available to the public it is not possible to assess the quality and extent of these investigations and their enforcement.

The Ghanaian Army, Air Force, and Navy have a code of conduct and take classes on it, but it is not clear whether they receive a copy of the code (1).

There is a code of conduct, however its content is not comprehensive. For example, it addresses corruption issues but is too vague. Article 25 declares that “offering gifts from junior to senior officers is prohibited… both the superior who accepts it and the inferior who offers it should be punished” [1]. Article 25 states that “it is forbidden for officers and NCOs to practice any profession or engage in any paid work” [1]. Moreover, Article 63 declares all military personnel are prohibited from “practicing any profession outside of service, as well as engagement in non-military duties or paid work or free of charge”. However, the code of conduct does not cover post-separation activities, namely the type of employment personnel can have after they leave the military.

The code of conduct is effectively distributed to all military personnel. All cadets are obliged to study the code of conduct which is distributed by the MoD in the country’s military academies [1, 2]. As a result, officers are aware about what constitutes a breach of the code of conduct. It should be mentioned that the code of conduct is not available to the public.

Breaches of the code of conduct are regularly investigated, even if the oversight mechanism is confidential. Cases are pursued where there is evidence of criminal behaviour [1 2]. There are no civil society organisations or academics who focus on enforcement, so there are no publicly available sources that further illustrate this enforcement.

Guidance on the code of conduct is included in induction training for all military personnel at an early stage [1, 2] Consequently, young officers are familiar with what constitutes a breach of the code, including corruption of any form.

A Military Ethics Code does exist [1]. However, its wording is overly general and often too vague, without specificity. Sources point out that this very general nature is a problem because at the same time the sanctions prescribed for breaching the Code are extremely severe [2]. People convicted of an “ethics violation” are subject to severe penalties, including dismissal, loss of pension rights, etc. Another potential weakness of the code is that technically it is an annexe to a Ministerial Decree; hence, it is extremely easy to modify (a lot easier than if it had been a law). It should be noted that the question of military ethics has already been a source of theoretical debate at the National University of Public Service, rather than one of any pragmatic action [3, 4].

The Ethics Code [1] is not part of military training (except that cadets have a course about officer’s values in general, which includes the code as well) and is not always available to all military personnel. No guidance is provided to soldiers about how to use or interpret the code [2].

Breaches of the Ethics Code [1, 2] are regularly investigated, but not always prosecuted. In some cases, political influence can be pointed seen [3].

The Ethics Code [1] is not part of military training (except that cadets have a course about officer’s values in general, which includes the code as well) and is not always available to all military personnel. No guidance is provided to soldiers about how to use or interpret the code [2].

There is no single code of conduct that applies to all military personnel but as alluded to in Q.35, the Armed Forces have an Act which governs each branch. These are the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957, the Border Security Force Act,1968 and the Coast Guard Act,1978 [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Chapter XII of the Defence Service Regulations for the Air Force provides detailed guidelines on discipline. Herein, codes of conduct are defined and give guidance with respect to the offences: bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities; the punishment for such offences and the judicial procedure [7]. The Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules are also binding on all defence personnel [8].

Each branch has its own honour code such as the Air Force’s ‘Air Warrior Code’. Herein, core moral conduct values are explicitly expressed [9].

Each Act is specific to the Force. The scenarios that can arise, the crimes, remedies, punishments etc. are in accordance with this. In this context, all Acts state conflict of interests, acquiring goods (gifts), forms of hospitality, situations which constitute as bribery; the punishments of such offences and the judicial process. For example, in the Navy Act regarding gifts:

“57. Taking unauthorised goods on board ship.—Every officer subject to
naval law in command of any ship of the Indian Navy who receives on board or permits to be received on board such ship any goods or merchandise whatsoever other than for the sole use of the ship or persons belonging to the ship, except goods and merchandise on board any ship which may be ship-wrecked or in imminent danger either on the high seas or in some port, creek, or harbour, for the purpose of preserving them for their proper owners, or except such goods or merchandise as he may at any time be ordered to take or receive on board by order of the Central Government or his superior officer, shall be punished with dismissal from the naval service or such other punishment as is hereinafter mentioned.” [10]

The Acts which encompass codes of conduct are incorporated during cadet/officer training. All defence academies and colleges in India state the importance of a code of conduct. For example at the premier National Defence Academy, Khadakwasala it is stated:

“Academy Honour Code

“I believe that a cadet must be loyal, truthful, trustworthy, honest and forthright under all circumstances. I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor will I mislead or deceive any one. I undertake to faithfully live up to this code and to continuously encourage my comrades to do so” [1].

The contents of codes of conduct are publicly available online on the MoD website and respective websites of all branches of the military. Personnel are to strictly adhere to the Act that governs their branch in the Armed Forces [2][3][4].

As alluded to earlier, there is evidence to suggest that breaches of codes of conduct are being investigated through formal procedures. In 2017 after 27 years of investigation and trial, a former Army Colonel was convicted by a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court for amassing disproportionate assets [1]. In a recent case, the CBI filed a case against two Army officers in 2018 for taking bribes from a civilian supplier in the procurement of ration for troops in Nagaland India, between 2012 and 2016 [2]. In 2018, the CBI booked 12 Army officials for corruption in recruitment of religious teachers in 2013 [3]. The Vigilance Division in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) carries out oversight across all defence departments [4].

The Acts which encompass codes of conduct are communicated to personnel during cadet/officer training [1][2][3].

The TNI has a code of ethics, but no code of conduct. The ‘Sapta Marga’, or TNI code of ethics, consists of seven points [1]. The fifth point, which reads ‘We are TNI soldiers, we uphold discipline, we are obedient and dutiful to our leaders, we uphold the attitude and honour of soldiers’, is the closest to an anti-corruption standard. There is a mandate for Bureaucracy Reform, which is implemented through the issuance of the Chief of TNI’s Regulation regarding bribes, the Government Internal Control System (SPIP) and the whistleblowing system, as well as by handling conflicts of interest and building an integrity zone [2]. The Ministry of Defence issued a derivative of the law in the form of technical manuals, which was not issued in the TNI. The technical guidance activities for Bureaucratic Reform in the TNI also do not cover the details above [3].

This indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no code of conduct for all military personnel that covers corruption-related issues. The Chief of TNI regulations on bribes, Government Internal Control Systems (SPIP), whistleblowing systems and handling conflicts of interest are not available for public access [1,2]. Documents related to TNI Bureaucratic Reform are only available in the form of five-year Roadmap and Follow-Up Plans, the most recent of which was updated in 2015 [3]. The Roadmap and Follow-Up Plan for TNI Bureaucratic Reform, which includes bribery regulations, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities, is kept at the directorate level of each service [4,5,6]. In the 2015-2019 TNI Bureaucracy Reform Roadmap [7], adjustments to the targets for improving supervision form the basis for the code of conduct (bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities). However, the roadmap does not mention any personnel training regarding the code of conduct; the roadmap only mandates periodic public campaigns on handling gratuities and outreach to address conflicts of interest.

This indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no code of conduct for military personnel. However, it is worth noting that reports of rejection and acceptance of gratuities are submitted once a month to the Gratuity Control Unit (UPG), which is overseen by the Inspectorate General. Within the Ministry of Defence, a summary of gratuity reports from the IG submitted regularly to the Commission of Corruption Eradication (KPK) every three months [1]. But the action taken is unknown because KPK does not list the Ministry of Defence or the TNI in its gratification report [2]. An interviewee from the KPK explained that between their institution and the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Defence, there is a special two-way network [3]. The Ministry of Defence can forward a whistleblower report to the KPK and vice versa.

This indicator has been marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no code of conduct for military personnel. However, it is worth noting that in the span of 2015-2019 TNI Bureaucracy Reform Roadmap [1], adjustments to the targets for improving supervision form the basis for the code of ethics (bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities). However, the roadmap does not mention any personnel training regarding the code of ethics; the roadmap only mandates periodic public campaigns on handling gratuities and outreach to address conflicts of interest. Training on gratification is carried out in the form of awareness activities, which generally involve Inspectorate Generals being invited to give a presentation or speech at a training or workshop class [1]. Information on gratification awareness activities can be accessed through several TNI publications, whereas, in one of the accessible sections of the Monitoring and Evaluation of Bureaucratic Reform of the TNI [2], there is no information on code of ethics training for personnel. Therefore, the frequency of these awareness and training activities, i.e. dissemination of information, is unknown.

Iran is not believed to have a code of conduct for all military personnel [1, 2]. Standards of behaviour for military commanders are sometimes espoused. A few news articles referred to standards of behaviour for commanders towards subordinate forces [3].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as Iran is not believed to have a code of conduct for all military personnel [1].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as Iran is not believed to have a code of conduct for all military personnel [1].

This indicator is marked Not Applicable, as Iran is not believed to have a code of conduct for all military personnel [1].

A military-specific code of conduct for the year 2018 was published by the Integrity Commission, “The Code of Conduct for the Military and Internal Security Forces, No. 1 (1), as an extension of the Integrity Commission Law No. 30 of the year 2011. The Code consists of 26 provisions, some of which mirror Iraq’s constitutional laws such as 9B/C, which prohibits the formulations of state militias outside of the state’s legal framework and their involvement in politics. While it stresses principles of loyalty towards thy nation, the code’s legal provisions appear vague, which leaves them open to individual interpretation. Overall, it fails to specifically address guidance concerning bribery, gifts or conflict of interest. On the contrary, Iraq’s 1969 Penal Code (2) remains the country’s main source of the anti-bribery legislature.

Iraq’s Code of Conduct for military personnel (1) is available for public viewing on the Integrity Commissions website, but little evidence exists to imply its wide dissemination and promotion within Iraq’s security and defence institutions.

A retired military officer (1) told Transparency International that the unrestricted growth of paramilitaries has undermined the enforceability of the code’s provisions; “exacerbated” the source said, in the absence of guideline implementation, which he, among other analysts, argue has facilitated the growth of parallel security structure outside legislative oversight, in violation of provision ’19’ of the code.

There is no evidence that training is provided to military personnel on the code of conduct.

There is the Code of Ethics of the Ministry of Defence that describes a “system of values, principles and rules of the proper conduct of the employees of the Ministry of Defence” (1). However, it does not explicitly refer to corruption or related issues and does not explain bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest or post-separation activities – only “integrity” is mentioned. Furthermore, there is the official document of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), called “IDF spirit” (2). This is a short document which represents the IDF’s code of ethics and all soldiers are given a small copy of it to carry with them. It specifies IDF’s guiding principles, beliefs, and derives from it the appropriate way an IDF soldier and all ranking officer must behave. The document does not touch specifically on the matter of bribery, gifts etc yet it is obvious what is the approach regarding these issues. The army police “Mahash” (Police Internal Investigations Department) is in charge to address violations of this code of conduct (3).

Additionally, a number of General Command Directives provide further guidance on corruption-related issues. Command Directive 33.0115 on “Private Work and Participation of Soldiers in Private Businesses” determines that personnel serving in the IDF are required to receive approval from relevant authorities for taking up a position within a non-profit organization or performing private work, even if this is done voluntarily. Furthermore, the instruction places limitations on the ability of soldiers to hold stock and different assets (4). Command Directive 33.0112 on “Gifts, Benefits, Donations, Fundraising and Penalties” forbids a soldier from requesting or receiving gifts due to being a soldier, due to their position in military service, or due to an act performed in the framework of the military (5). Finally, Directive 06.103 “Avoidance of Conflict of Interest in the IDF” provides guidance on conflicts of interest and forbids a situation in which a concern of conflict of interest exists between a person’s personal or public affair or of a relative, and between his military position (6). However, no guidance is provided on the issue of post-seperation activities in any of the documents cited here.

The Code of Ethics is available to the public (on the homepage of the Ministry of Defense) and is also distributed to military personnel. Guidance on the code of conduct is included in induction training by the IDF (1). Command Directive 33.0115 on “Private Work and Participation of Soldiers in Private Businesses” (2), Command Directive 33.0112 on “Gifts, Benefits, Donations, Fundraising and Penalties” (3) and Directive 06.103 “Avoidance of Conflict of Interest in the IDF” (4) are all available online on the IDF website.

Breaches of the code of conduct are regularly investigated, even if the oversight mechanism is confidential. Cases are pursued where there is evidence of criminal behavior (1) (2). There are examples for corruption cases and stories about how the police is investigating cases (3).

Soldier learns about the Code of Ethics as well as the Spirit of the IDF (1), when beginning basic training in the Israeli Army is Ruach Tzahal or the Spirit of the IDF. This is a short document which represents the IDF’s code of ethics and all soldiers are given a small copy of it to carry with them (2).

In 2018, the Ministry of Defence updated its Code of Conduct for the personnel of the Ministry, which applies to both civil and military personnel and that takes into consideration provisions included in the Three-year Anticorruption Plan [1]. The Code of Conduct, that is readily clearly understandable, regulates the personnel attitude with regards to gifts, compensations and other utilities (art.3), participation to organisations or associations (art.4), conflict of interests (art.5), corruption prevention (art.7), transparency and traceability (art.8), abuse of power (art.9), cases of abstention from contracting (art.14). The Code also includes specific rules for high ranking personnel (art. 13), as well as for personnel employed in areas of high-risk of corruption (artt. 18, 19, 20). Art. 15 and Section IV of the Code of Conduct presents guidance on how to proceed in case of breach of the Code. The Code does not cover issues related to post-separation activities. Nonetheless, the Code (art.2) is meant to provide a link with the Three-year anticorruption plan, where pantouflage (revolving doors) is regulated (section III.6.7) [2].

The Code of Conduct and the illustrative report on the Code of Conduct are both published on the website of the Ministry of Defence. On the same webpage, it is also possible to access the previous version of the Code of Conduct [1].

Enforcement of the Code of Conduct is implemented with the support of the Office for Disciplinary Proceedings (Art. 15(2)). In its work, the Office follows rules included in the Three-year Anticorruption Plan [1] and annually reports any cases [2]. For military personnel, the Office for Disciplinary Proceedings is regulated by the “disciplinary procedures” issued by the Directorate General for military personnel [3]. According to art. 23 of the Code of Conduct, incidents are investigated “without delay” (senza indugio) as soon as they are reported. Given that national legislation applies, it can also result in criminal procedures, in the cases identified by law [4]. An annual report on the state of military discipline, that includes all cases that have been enforced in practice, is presented to the Parliament and presents the number of actions taken [5].

Art. 15 (3) of the Code of Conduct provides for a training on transparency and integrity to be given to the entire personnel of the Ministry. Training should include comprehensive annual updating sessions in order to guarantee a proper knowledge of provisions included both in the Code of Conduct and in the Three-year Anticorruption Plan [1].

The Self-Defence Force (SDF) Code of Conduct is a Cabinet Order that builds on the SDF Ethics Law. [1] The Code of Conduct provides the rules that SDF personnel should follow when confronted with offers of corruption situations. [2] The Inspector General’s Office (IGO) has created a book on compliance that describes how to proceed in the various situations. This book exists in two versions: one for supervisors, [3] and one for personnel in general. [4] Both versions have references to the Code of Conduct, as well as other documents. Guidelines for how to deal with the issues of bribery, gifts and hospitality are described on pages 31-32 in the book for personnel in general. How to deal with conflicts of interest that arise over procurement is described on pages 27-30, and with conflicts that arise with contract parties in general, on pages 31-32. Compliance issues in post-separation employment are dealt with on pages 33-34. A list of who to contact in the various situations, with contact details, is found on pages 56-58.

All documents are found on easily accessible websites (see Q46A). Lectures on compliance issues have been held at SDF bases. [1] According to the foreword of the supervisor version of the book on compliance, it is distributed to all units of the SDF in booklet form. [2] [3] A retired higher SDF officer said that this booklet is used year round as a manual in education about several topics such as handling of documents, protecting secret information, securing information, protecting private information, applications for travels abroad, information storage, compliance, administration of texts, freedom of information, administration of equipment, various forms of harassment, preventing collusive bidding, ethics (including anti-corruption) and whistleblowing. [4]

The evidence available indicates that breaches of the Code of Conduct are regularly investigated. The book on compliance for personnel in general gives a brief reference to the types of disciplinary reactions that breaches will be met with. [1] Breaking rules regarding bribery, gifts and hospitality may be met with warnings in mild cases, and salary deduction or suspended employment in more serious one. Punishment for mishandling of tenders may be a warning, salary reduction, suspension of duty, demotion or dismissal (p.30). A full list of possible punishments for breaches of several regulations in addition to the Code of Conduct is found from page 43 onwards. Supervisors can be held responsible for breaches among the personnel that they supervise. [2] Statistics on punishment are also found. For example, in 2019, 983 SDF personnel were given disciplinary punishment. In the category burglary, fraud, simple embezzlement, which covers serious cases of the types of breaches discussed, 65 persons were dismissed, 42 were given work suspension, and three were punished with reduced salary. [3] Breaches of the Code of Conduct are sometimes reported in the press as well. One example is of three SDF personnel who had received from Y70,000 to 250,000 from a private organisation, [4] and in another example, an ASDF music band had received between Y30,000 and 240,000 from organisers and supporting organisations of an event. [5] Both cases were deemed violations of the SDF Code of Conduct, and both groups received salary reductions.

The Inspector General’s Office has made a book on compliance that builds on, and has references to, the SDF Code of Conduct. The Compliance Guidance is found in one version for supervisors, [1] and one for personnel in general. [2] The version for personnel in general is distributed to all units of the SDF in booklet form. [3] A retired higher SDF officer said that this booklet is used throughout the year as a manual for educating about how to prevent collusive bidding, ethics (including anti-corruption), whistleblowing, and other topics. [4] In a thorough search of the homepages of the Ministry of Defence [5] as well as several regional defence bureaus, [6] only one explicit mention of compliance guidance being provided in induction training was found. [7]

In 2017, the Jordanian Armed Forces and the intelligence agency announced the launch of its Code of Conduct and the Ethics of Senior Officers [1]. However, the Code of Conduct is not available online or to the public. In the Code of Conduct, according to an officer, it gives guidance on bribery, corruption, conflict of interests and power abuse [2,3]. Media reporting around the Code of Conduct mentions that it includes regulations on bribery, gifts and hospitality, and conflicts of interest [4]. The Armed Forces Radio Station, Jaysh FM, produced a video about the Code of Conduct, and launched this on its YouTube channel. The video includes some information about the Code of Conduct [5], however, it is to a great extent a combination of Law No. 35 of the year 1966, Officers Service Law of the Armed Forces, issued in accordance with Article 126 of the Jordanian Constitution [6], and the Military Penal Code [7]. There is a Code of Conduct, but its content is largely unknown.

The Jordanian Armed Forces Code of Conduct and the Ethics of Senior Officers is recent and has only been in place since 2017 [1, 2]. The Code of Conduct is not available online or to the public. As it is recent, the armed forces and the intelligence agency made tremendous efforts and offered some training sessions for officers on the Code of Conduct. Besides that, the armed forces political division provides lectures to many units to raise awareness of the Code of Conduct [3,4].

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable because the Jordanian Armed Forces Code of Conduct and the Ethics of Senior Officers is recent and has only been in place for a year [1, 2]. As the Code of Conduct only recently became practice, assessing its enforcement is not feasible. There are ongoing efforts to enforce it, but no information as to whether there is any progress [3,4].

The Jordanian Armed Forces Code of Conduct and the Ethics of Senior Officers is recent and has only been in place since 2017 [1, 2]. The armed forces and the intelligence agency have made efforts to hold training sessions for officers on the code of conduct. Besides that, the armed forces political division provided/ provides lectures on many units to raise awareness of the personnel on the code of conduct [3,4].

The Armed Forces Code of Conduct and Ethics is enshrouded in the Public Officer Ethics Act. Specifically, the Armed Forces Code of Conduct addresses issues of receiving gifts, hospitality, potential conflict of interest, and canvassing for favours in the armed forces. [1] The Public Officer Ethics Act also addresses issues of conduct of private affairs, but no section of the Act addresses post-separation activities.There is a significant amount of information in the general Public Officer Ethics Act, as well as the Armed Forces Code of Conduct and Ethics on how officers should deal with these issues.

The Kenya Defence Forces Act points out the Armed Forces Code of Conduct and Ethics that military officers are expected to follow (section 34(4)(c)). [1] Details on what training for military personnel involves are not made public. The Code of Conduct for public officers which includes MOD personnel is published publicly by the National Council for Law Reporting with the authority of the Attorney General. [2] However, there is no evidence whether or not the Code of Conduct is distributed within the the Ministry of Defence.

The Kenya Armed Forces has been known to deal harshly with officers found to be in breach of its Code of Conduct. The cases reviewed for this review show the legal team for the MOD base their decisions on the code of conduct. [1] However, the manner of investigation into breaches of the Code of Conduct have been questioned, with reports of unfair treatment of officers by the KDF being rampant. Officers accused of various wrongs including desertion and corruption have, through their lawyers, reported of long periods of detention without trial, and unfair dismissal without proper investigation. [2]

The Armed Forces Code of Conduct and Ethics is a comprehensive publication within the Public Officer Ethics Act. [1] It is part of the training that all military personnel receive during induction into the forces.

The new Code of Ethics for the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) has been in place since 2019, replacing the Code of Conduct for the KSF No. 02/2017. The Code of Ethics is applicable to active members, reserve members, cadets of the KSF conscripts in service within and outside Kosovo [1]. The Code states that during their service period, KSF members are obliged to comply with the principles of legality, professionalism, principle of unified chain of command, non-discrimination, transparency and accountability, meritocracy, caring for subordinates, team spirit, political impartiality, and avoiding conflicts of interest [2]. With regards to bribery and corruption, the Code of Ethics emphasises integrity as a universal value, which involves putting public interest as a priority with the purpose of increasing the citizens’ trust in the institution. Integrity is pursued through democratic development and through following the rule of law, with the intent of honouring the legal principles and rules of conduct and in order to prevent ill-administration, politicisation, corruption scandals, nepotism and conflict of interest, which can lead to embezzlements of public money [3].

The Kosovo Security Force’s Code of Ethics is available and accessible to the public. It is published on the webpages of the Ministry of Defence [1] and Official Gazette of Kosovo [2]. Furthermore, it is distributed to the military personnel of the Security Forces so that they become acquainted with the content of the document [3]. However, there is no evidence that this Code is introduced during induction training for Security Force personnel. Nonetheless, the 2018 Annual Report of the Ministry of Defence indicates that the annual training plan was accomplished in 2018, during which time military personnel of all units received various training involving some on the legality and responsibilities of Security Force members, as well as trainings on the Code of Ethics and other aspects relevant to human rights and gender equality [4].

This indicator has been scored Not Applicable. Senior officials of the Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Security Forces have stated that violations of the Code of Ethics by personnel are regularly investigated [1]. However, there is no evidence yet that the Code of Ethics has been violated by military personnel of the Kosovo Security Forces.

The Kosovo Security Force’s Code of Ethics is distributed to the military personnel of the Security Forces so that they become acquainted with the content of the document [1]. However, there is no evidence that this Code is introduced during induction training for Security Force personnel. Nonetheless, the 2018 Annual Report of the Ministry of Defence indicates that the annual training plan was accomplished in 2018, during which time military personnel of all units received various training involving some on the legality and responsibilities of Security Force members, as well as trainings on the Code of Ethics and other aspects relevant to human rights and gender equality [2].

There is a Code of Conduct for all military personnel, but its content has never been made available to the public, state auditors said (1, 2 and 3). As such, its contents are largely unknown. With regards to related materials on the topic of bribery, hospitality and post-separation activities, Article 14 of the military law provides guidance (4). The Article does not explicitly address bribery, gifts, hospitality and conflict of interest, but it does include a broad clause which forbids all officers from receiving any money in exchange for any service, and getting involved in business. It also outlaws sharing any information about the military even after leaving it.

As for conflict of interests, the military is one of the institutions to which Kuwait’s conflict of interest act, which was passed in March 2018, applies (5). Not much can be said about its efficacy at the moment since it has not been enforced yet, according to officials (1, 2 and 3)

The code is not available to the public, but it is available to all military personnel. The above laws, which contain many important rules of relevance, are available to the public. There is a lack of information about guidance programs, however (1,2,3,4)

The code is generally not used since most corrupt practices are never stopped and those behind them are never punished, officials and activists said (1,2,3,4,5).

There is no evidence that training is provided to military personnel on the code of conduct.

The Ministry of Defence has approved the Code of Ethics, which defines the ethical principles of employees, their rights, duties, responsibilities and ethical standards. This Code of Ethics is published on the Ministry of Defence’s website. The implementation of the Code of Ethics and an objective and comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the principles and norms contained therein are supervised by the Ministry of Defence’s Ethics Commission, consisting of the Chairman of the Ethics Commission and six members of the commission representing various departments. The Ethics Commission deals with complaints and submissions regarding breaches of the Code of Ethics, provides advice to staff on issues of ethical conduct, and organises explanations of solutions to ethical and unethical behaviour, promotes ethical recruitment and politics of staff, and coordinates ethics training. The Code of Ethics is binding on both the Ministry of Defence and its subordinate institutions, including the National Armed Forces. [1] Other normative acts regulating the behaviour of a soldier from an ethical stand point include the 2012 National Armed Forces Chaplain’s Manual approved soldier values ​​(selflessness, courage, justice, dignity, trust, love) and standards (legality, reasonableness and professionalism), [2] Section 4, paragraph 1 of the Military Service Law, “Soldier’s oath”, swearing to “be loyal to the Republic of Latvia, its Constitution and the legitimate government”, [3] Article 9 of the Military Service Law [3] and the Regulations of the Military Service Service, Chapter 3, “General duties of soldiers”, [4] the Rules of Procedure for the Solider and National Guardsmen Military Discipline, [5] and On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials – Section 7, “Special Restrictions on Combining Offices of Public Officials”. [6] The Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials gives a detailed account of what kind of gifts / objects, if accepted by a state official, would be considered a form of bribery or embezzlement. [7]

All relevant documentation is available to the public and military ranks. Knowledge on anti-corruption issues for soldiers is an opportunity to take part in courses organised by the School of Public Administration on questions of identification and prevention of corruption risks. Acquiring this knowledge is an integral part of planning and training. [1]

Breaches of conduct are regulary investigated by the Committee and, according to the level of breach, the appropriate punishment is induced. There have not been any criminal cases reported. [1]

All relevant documentation is available to the public and military ranks. Knowledge on anti-corruption issues for soldiers is an opportunity to take part in courses organised by the School of Public Administration on questions of identification and prevention of corruption risks. Acquiring this knowledge is an integral part of planning and training. [1]

A booklet laying out the rules and principles of the LAF is given to military personnel. However, it is largely unknown because it is not publicized (1). The LAF launched, in January 2019, a Code of Conduct for Human Rights that ensures the LAF’s commitment to human rights and highlights the fundamental principles for the protection of civilians and ensuring peace (2). The 2019 code of conduct is available to all military personnel, stating in the introduction that it resembles SOPs for military personnel to abide by – having integrity and transparency in its vision. In the law enforcement section, article H states that “no bribe or gift should be accepted, nor any corrupt action”, article I includes “Any post usage for personal benefit is forbidden”, while article J forces the military personnel to “report to leaders any illegal action” (3).

There is a booklet given by the LAF to all military personnel but is not available to the public (1).

This sub-indicator has been marked Not Applicable, as the booklet given to military personnel is not publically available – hence its enforcement is difficult to assess (1). However, according to DoO, the LAF is keen on military discipline, the enforcement of its rules, and having an adequate level of morale (2).

As previously indicated, the booklet is not publicized. Hence, it is impossible to know if training is part of the document (1). However, according to the DoO, anti-corruption and best-practices are integrated into the internal laws and rules of the LAF (2).

There is a Code of Conduct for military personnel. This Code stipulates essential principles of military personnel ethics such as paying respect to all individuals and the Lithuanian state, and respecting justice, integrity, objectivity and others. The Code outlines how to avoid conflicts of interest, but does not provide guidance on bribery, gifts, hospitality, or post-separation activities. It includes provisions discussing honesty, conflicts of interest, respect of human rights, rights and responsibilities of military personnel, etc. The Code of Conduct lacks clarity and comprehensiveness on how military personnel should avoid conflicts of interest [1]. Also, there is a discipline statute for the Lithuanian Armed Forces, which regulates rules and processes on how to ensure the discipline of soldiers. The statute however does not regulate bribery, gifts, hospitality, conflicts of interest, pr post-separation activities [2].

The Code of Conduct is available to the public and effectively distributed to all military personnel. Guidance on the Code of Conduct is included in induction training. The Code of Conduct is published in the Register of Legal Acts and shared with the Lithuanian Armed Forces, the Soldiers’ Rights Protection Centre, and the Ministry of Defence website [1,2]. According to soldier guidance and as approved by the Chief of Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, the first thing that military newcomers do is learn how to follow and act in compliance with Code of Conduct [3].

There is a Code of Conduct for all military personnel. There is evidence to suggest that breaches of the Code of Conduct and Lithuanian Armed Forces Statue of Discipline are investigated. For instance, during the third quarter of 2016, General Inspector’s Office conducted thirteen official inspections related to potential breaches of the Code, and analysed about one hundred reports that were received through the confidential hotline or e-mail address. After official inspections and investigations, penalties were given to six soldiers [1]. The results of those investigations are not public. When evidence of military criminal behaviour occurs, information is forwarded to law enforcement institutions [2].

The Code of Conduct is available to the public and effectively distributed to all military personnel. Guidance on the Code of Conduct is included in induction training. The Code of Conduct is published in the Register of Legal Acts and shared with the Lithuanian Armed Forces, the Soldiers’ Rights Protection Centre, and the Ministry of Defence website [1,2]. According to soldier guidance and as approved by the Chief of Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, the first thing that military newcomers do is learn how to follow and act in compliance with Code of Conduct [3].

All public officials, including military personnel, are bound by the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation 1993 [1] and the Armed Forces Act 1972 [2] which outline bribery, gifts and hospitality, and conflicts of interests. Furthermore, all public officials are also bound by a signed commitment to any additional General Orders and Circulars. Malaysia also adopted the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Act which prohibits officers of public bodies from accepting gratification or bribery. [3] Officers interviewed also confirmed the existence of a military code of conduct. [4] [5] [6] The Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation 1993 restricts hospitality in the form of gifts, travel and entertainment and also provides specific actions to be taken when given gifts that are difficult to turn down. It also provides guidelines for actions to be taken by the commanding officer(s) when such incidents occur or are reported. There are, however, no guidelines or restrictions on post-separation activities.

The Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation 1993, [1] the Armed Forces Act 1972 [2] and the MACC Act [3] are available for public access on official government websites. The officers interviewed confirmed the existence of a military code of conduct, however, the document is not available through public sources and cannot be verified. Military personnel are introduced to the code of conduct during their induction training and anti-corruption seminars. [4] [5] [6]

The MACC has proactively investigated reports of corruption in numerous cases such as the falsification of claims by naval officers in two separate cases. [1] [2] [3] The Integrity Unit also monitors cases relating to misconduct and receives reports of concluded cases relating to misconduct and the disciplinary action taken. According to the 2018 annual Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) report, there were no cases of misconduct reported in 2017 and one case reported in 2018. [4] However, an ex-MINDEF official revealed that there can be political and external influences that stop investigations. [5]

All military personnel are sworn to respect the Public Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulation and the Armed Forces Act by signature. All civil servants including military personnel are mandated to undergo a minimum of 7 days of conduct and discipline training per year. [1] Matters pertaining to conduct and discipline for civilian MINDEF staff fall under the purview of the Human Resource (HR) Division and the Integrity Unit. Civilian officers who handle conduct and discipline are trained internally by the training unit of the HR Division through the process of mentoring, coaching and shadowning. The Public Service Department also conducts regular training on matters pertaining to the Code and Discipline. [2][3][4][5]

There is a Code of conduct for all Malian military and civilian personnel that addresses ethical issues and behaviour. It is separated into four parts:
– Duties of the Armed Forces and Security Towards The State
– Relations between the Armed and Security Forces and Civilians
– Relations between the Armed Forces and Security Forces
– Armed and Security Forces and Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
It was developed in 1997 with the UNDP and was disseminated in booklet form by the Malian government.¹ It is available online through third parties.³ It does not, however, refer to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, or post-separation activities. The Code does not refer to any formal oversight mechanism and Bryden comments that the code is largely ineffective.² Moreover, several articles note that there is a need to adopt a new code of ethics and compliance within the armed forces if the government is to have any hope of eradicating corruption and other abuses:⁵ ⁶ ⁷ “To do this, we will need a Code of military ethics created through the meeting of the Minister of Defence, the General Chief of Staff, different unit chiefs and the soldiers”.
However, standards of conduct related to bribery and corruption are established in legislation. The Penal Code specifically outlaws corruption and acts of bribery for all public servants, including military personnel. Article 121 states that “Anyone who, in either the performance or the obtaining of an act or a benefit or favour, uses violence or threats, promises, offers, gifts or presents, or acts tending to corruption will be subject to the measures included in article 130, ‘five to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of twice the value of approved promises or things received or requested, without that fine be less than 100,000 francs”.⁴

The Code of Conduct is not made readily available to the public. It is available online, albeit via an obscure third-party website.¹ There is clear evidence showing that members of the armed forces receive specific training modules dedicated to the existing Code of Conduct.² A defence attaché working at a foreign embassy in Bamako told the assessor: “I do not know if the individual soldier gets a card with the code of conduct issued, but I know that during basic training, they have to learn the code of conduct by heart”.³ The source added that copies of the Code of Conduct are displayed in prominent locations at military bases where soldiers will typically gather or pass through, such as the guardroom or the mess area.³

Grave violations of the Code of Ethics and the Geneva Convention by the state armed forces are widespread and are rarely investigated by the authorities. Human Rights Watch states that “since late 2016, Malian forces have committed extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrests against men accused of supporting Islamist armed groups”.¹
Human Rights Watch documented three mass graves believed to contain the remains of at least 14 men executed after being detained by Malian soldiers. “On several occasions, Malian forces severely beat, burned, and threatened dozens of men accused of supporting Islamist armed groups. Human Rights Watch also documented 27 cases of enforced disappearance, in which the Malian government provided families no information on missing relatives who had been detained”.¹
HRW notes that “domestic and international human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, have consistently raised their concerns with the Malian government through letters, reports, and meetings with high-level government officials. The media has also reported on some of these cases. Nevertheless, neither the military nor civilian justice systems have made a serious effort to investigate these alleged abuses and hold the responsible soldiers and officers to account”.¹
Similarly, Amnesty International reports that “according to a report of the UN Secretary-General in 2016, Malian security forces and UN peacekeepers used excessive force and were accused of more than 37 instances of killings, summary executions or enforced disappearances in 2016. As of June 2017, the UN had reported four extrajudicial executions, one case of enforced disappearance, and seven cases of ill-treatment”.² Amnesty urges the Malian authorities to “carry out prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations into all allegations of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance or any other crime under international law”.²
According to the US Department of State, in 2017, “officials frequently engaged in corrupt practices with impunity”.³ For instance, “officials, police, and gendarmes frequently extorted bribes. There were reports of uniformed police or individuals dressed as police directing stopped motorists to drive to dark and isolated locations where they robbed the victims”.³
A defence attaché working at a foreign embassy in Bamako confirmed that there is a military judicial system.⁴ The source said he had seen soldiers arrested and tried for breaking the code of conduct, with cases involving theft, robbery and murder. But he said he had not come across any cases of corruption being tried.⁴ In any case, he noted that results of such investigations are rarely made public, raising questions about whether offenders have been sanctioned or not.⁴ From the above evidence, it is unclear whether the Code of Conduct is credible and whether, when breaches occur, it is effectively used or enforced.

The Code of Conduct may not be readily available to all military personnel, but there is evidence that guidance is provided through training (1), (2).

There is a Code of Conduct for all SEDENA military personnel and another for SEMAR personnel, which indicate that public servants must refrain from accepting money, gifts, sexual favors, or any other compensation, in order to expedite a process, assign a contract, provide information, or inhibit and condition the decisions of the public servant in the process of interaction with citizens and/or with suppliers and contractors. [1] [2] However, none of them explains bribes, gifts, conflicts of interest, etc., and therefore the Code does not provide specific guidance on how to proceed in the face of these events.

The Code of Conduct for Public Servants of the Mexican Army and Air Force and the Code of Conduct for Public Servants of SEDENA are published on the page of SEDENA and the Ministry of the Interior. [1]

In the last years, SEDENA’s Committee on Ethics and the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest has made it a priority to promote compliance with the Code of Conduct. And, according to annual reports, it has undertaken actions such as the publication of the Code of Conduct on the official website; the training, awareness-raising, and dissemination of information in areas where a complaint arises; and has utilised questionaires to evaluate the perception of compliance. [2] [3] All personnel must be aware of the Code and its contents when they are hired, suggesting that it is effectively distributed. [4]

There are no figures available to assess whether the law is applied or not. The annual reports of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Prevention Committees (CEPCI) of SEDENA [1] and SEMAR [2] do not indicate whether there have been sanctions or warnings against military personnel for violating the Codes of Conduct.

In this regard, it is important to mention that it is difficult for infractions not to be committed, so it follows that sanctions are not applied or not investigated. For example, corruption was recently detected in SEDENA contracts in the construction of a fence at the New Mexico City Airport, and, although the institution has been identified as such, the people who participated in said acts and the Code of Conduct have not been investigated, considering it may even have involved military personnel. [3] [4]

As part of an effort by SEDENA to increase awareness and enhance a commitment to ethics and anti-corruption measures, the new Code of Conduct for the army and public personnel in the Secretariat of Defence [1] establishes that all personnel will be made aware of the Code and its contents when they are hired, it further establishes on section 5 that annual training programmes (in person and online) shall be provided for personnel in the army and airforce, so they can become familiar with these concepts. It is not possible to verify whether these trainings have taken place as established or what modality they have had.

There is a very brief Code of conduct for all military personnel. [1] According to the MoD reviewer, the Code of Military Ethics presents a set of principles on ethical conduct of persons in the AF service. It is based on the regulations of both international and national law. For each person upon joining Armed Forces there is an obligation to get acquainted with Code of Military Ethics. Regular training for persons in service in the Armed Forces of Montenegro on Code of Military Ethics is conducted at least once a year.

The Code does not explain bribery, gifts and hospitality, or post-separation activities, and it does not provide any guidance on how to proceed in the face of these events. It provides vague descriptions and guidance in cases of conflicts of interest. [1] Issues such as bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflict of interest, and post separation activities are regulated by Law on the Armed Forces.

According to the MoD reviewer, the violation of the Code of Military Ethics represents a disciplinary offense, as a serious violation of military discipline, which is being discussed in disciplinary proceedings against persons serving in the AF. Monitoring of Code appliance is done by the Ethics Committee of the AFMNE.

The Code of conduct is available to the public. [1] The Code is distributed to all military personnel and presented at initial training. [2][3]

Ethics in the army have been eroded through the years and remain one of the main problems, as breaches of conduct are rarely investigated. [1][2][3][4][5]

Information about breaches of the Code of conduct is not available in reports of the Ministry, [2] or on its website, [6] and it was not provided upon request. [7]
Throughout the public administration, the results of the implementation of the Code of Conduct are lacking. [8]

According to the MoD reviewer, breaches of the code of conduct are regularly investigated, even if the oversight mechanism is confidential. Cases are pursued where there is evidence of criminal behaviour in accordance with the Law on Armed Forces. This information could not be verified.

For each person upon joining Armed Forces there is an obligation to get acquainted with Code of Military Ethics. Regular training for persons in service in the Armed Forces of Montenegro on Code of Military Ethics is conducted at least once a year.

The general conduct of military personnel is detailed in two documents: the Regulations on General Discipline of the Royal Armed Forces and the Military Justice Code (1)(2).

However, neither of them covers conduct with respect to corruption, even though they provide a detailed account of the behaviour military personnel should observe before, during and after operations (1)(2).

In the absence of elements referring to the conduct of military personnel with respect to corruption in these documents, the assessor looked for similar elements in other documents and sources, such as the government’s website, NGO reports and the anti-corruption government platform (3)(4)(5).

However none of them mentioned conduct with respect to corruption.

This lack of evidence of a clear, proper and published code of conduct with respect to corruption indicates a lack of transparency.

Since Morocco has no code of conduct, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Since Morocco has no code of conduct, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

Since Morocco has no code of conduct, this sub-indicator is marked Not Applicable.

There is no separate Code of Conduct applicable to military personnel. Nonetheless, the Military Misconduct Law includes provisions on the misuse of power and misuse of authority, but the Military Misconduct Law is not publicly available [1]. The Defence Services Act (1959) outlines a code of conduct regarding conflicts of interest [2]. Overall, the aforementioned pieces of legislation are the closest documents to a code of conduct regarding corruption, but these only cover the misuse of power and conflicts of interest. They do not cover other types of corruption.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’, as there is no separate Code of Conduct applicable to military personnel. However, in an interview, a retired senior officer said that the rules of the Defence Services Act and the Military Misconduct Law, which address the misuse of power, are distributed to all military personnel and must be strictly adhered to by all personnel. The Defence Services Act is available to the public but the Military Misconduct Law is not available and is only distributed among military personnel [1].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no separate Code of Conduct. However, corrupt officials are punished in accordance with the regulations of the Military Misconduct Law and the Defence Services Act (1959). As the military usually tackles its affairs internally, prosecutions are rarely made public. Only some breaches are known to the public. According to General Zaw Min Tun, the military does not neglect corruption cases and tackles them internally [1].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no separate Code of Conduct. Although there are no training courses authorised by the command, meetings and discussions about anti-corruption have been held in respective regiments [1].

There are Codes of Conduct relevant to all military and civilian personnel which address bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities. Chapter 11a (‘Integrity’) of the General Military Personnel Code (Dutch: Algemeen Militair Ambtenarenreglement) includes provisions on bribery, gifts and (financial) conflicts of interest [1]. Additionally, the Secretary General directive SG A/984 ‘Implementation of Defence Integrity Policy’ elaborates on the Code of Conduct by addressing and explaining bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities in further detail [2]. Chapter 6 of ‘Implementation of Defence Integrity Policy’ is dedicated to guiding personnel on what they should do in the event of an integrity violation, including methods of reporting and contact persons or organisations that personnel can report to [2]. In 2017, SG-Designation A/984 ‘Implementation of the Defence Integrity Policy’ was enhanced in a number of areas, such as the hiring of former defence personnel (post-separation activities), and entered into force on December 20, 2017 [3].

The codes mentioned in Q46A – the General Military Personnel Code and ‘Implementation of Defence Integrity Policy’ – are publicly available [1,2].

In terms of enforcement, breaches of the Code of Conduct by military personnel are regularly investigated and cases are pursued where there is evidence of criminal behaviour. Since 2012, breaches of the Code of Conduct have been reported annually in the Defence Annual Report. The Annual Report of 2018 notes that there were 454 integrity reports made about (suspected) breaches of integrity that year [1]. These reports are then further broken down into categories of misconduct (for example, 10 reports were made in 2018 pertaining to abuse of position, powers and conflict of interest). Of all reports made, a total of 134 integrity investigations were conducted, with 65 of these found to be integrity violations (please note that the original report mistakenly reported that a total of 143 integrity investigations were conducted – this was later corrected to 134). The report also details the internal measures taken against those who violated the Code of Conduct. The Military Police (KMAR) advises and supports executives and employees in implementing integrity policy and, if necessary, investigates and reports on violations of integrity and criminal offences [2]. The KMAR registers these reports in the police systems.

That being said, comprehensive enforcement also entails taking action to enhance personnel adherence to the Code of Conduct and more action could be taken to do so, particularly in the areas highlighted by GRECO, such as integrity in the KMAR [3,4].

In all basic military training, the Code of Conduct for Defence is used, not simply as an abstract reference document, but more meaningfully as a guideline that serves to underpin the training as a whole [1].

Military personnel are subject to the Armed Force Disciplinary Act 1971 (AFDA). Section 54 of the act specifically relates to bribery, corruption, conflicts of interest, personal interests or relationships, misuse of position for personal gain, gifts, hospitality, and benefits that place staff under any obligation or perceived influence [1]. Any allegations of offences under the AFDA must be investigated in accordance with the act. Offences under the AFDA are either Service offences provided for in the AFDA or civil offences. Any act or omission which would, if done or committed in New Zealand, be an offence against any Act other than the AFDA is a civil offence [2]. Under the Defence Act 1990, Section 60, the CDF issues a Code of Conduct for the Civil Staff [3]. According to the Government, this code includes specific standards with regards to conflicts of interest and solicitation or acceptance of gifts, rewards, or gratuities [4].

A Code of Ethics also applies to all NZDF personnel (including civilians), and contains clauses on behaviour, efficiency and effectiveness, honesty and integrity, responsibility, people, information, and probity [5]. The Code of Ethics does not explicitly explain bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. Additionally, it does not provide specific guidance on how to proceed when faced with a breach of the code. Nonetheless, the Code of Ethics is logically written in a manner that would enable personnel to understand that bribery and corruption, for example, are illegal since behaving unlawfully (something specifically mentioned in the code) breaches the values, obligations, and duties of the NZDF. Instructions explaining (and providing guidance on) bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities are found in other publications such as DFO 3/2004, which has guidance on conflicts of interest, probity, and hospitality [6]. Further guidance in relation to gifts is provided in DFI 9.1, Part Two: Financial Policies which, among other details, sets out strict specifications for the receiving and gifting of Koha – an important part of Maori culture [7]. DFO 52: Procurement, vol. 2 also contains sections on procurement ethics, conflicts of interest, and probity [8]. DFO 3, Part 11, and DFO 4, Chapter 16 contain information on post-separation activities and processes [9, 10]. Together these form a comprehensive body of reference material for Civil Staff and Military personnel.

The NZDF Code of Conduct is available upon request to members of the public and issued to all Civil Staff as a matter of course [1, 2]. The Code of Ethics is readily available to NZDF personnel and personnel are introduced to it at the recruitment stage [3].

The Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 (AFDA) provides for the discipline of and the administration of justice within the Armed Forces. Any allegations of offences under the AFDA must be investigated in accordance with the act [1]. Offences under the AFDA are either service offences provided for in the AFDA, or civil offences. Any act or omission which would, if done or omitted in New Zealand, be an offence against any act other than the AFDA is a civil offence [2]. In the second half of 2020, the NZDF redoubled its efforts to enhance Operation Respect to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, and improve the culture of dignity and respect [3]. Recommendations promulgated by an independent review suggest that breaches of the NZDF Code of Ethics are not always pursued effectively, or with vigour (see page 19 of the report), although, admittedly these have related to claims of bullying and sexual harassment rather than corruption and bribery [4]. The Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking a review of the NZDF’s military justice system, and improvements are confidently expected [5]. Together with the Summary Report on Military Justice: Review of the summary trial system, there is evidence to suggest that minor infractions are “difficult to deal with” owing to the need to record a charge and launch an official investigation during the summary trial stage or drop the course of action [6]. However, this admission also reveals that preliminary investigations are launched, and potential breaches regularly considered. Oversight mechanisms are detailed in the Manual of Armed Force Law [7].

New Zealand Military Law, NZDF values and culture, including its Code of Ethics, are all included in formative training. Further training is provided dependent upon command authority, assignment and operational requirements [1, 2].

There is no actual code of conduct for all military personnel. Nigerien military personnel are provided with an instruction manual on international humanitarian law that was presented by the ICRC to the defence minister in March 2015. The ICRC Instruction Manual (see 46B) is an ethics code for the military establishment. Even if the manual does not directly address corruption and bribery, according to the Nigerien Defence Minister at the time, Mr. Karidjo Mahamadou, the manual is important to help soldiers to “behave in a way respectful of the rules and values which form the basis of our republican army.” (2) Moreover, it is not the legal equivalent of the Military Code of 2003. In general terms, it states that officers found guilty of corruption, theft or other general crimes can be dismissed, demoted or imprisoned. As a Code of Conduct, the guidance provided in the Military Code lacks clarity and specificity (Livre III, Des peines applicables par les jurisdictions militaries et infractions militaires).

The ICRC Instruction Manual (see 46A) is an ethics code for the military establishment. According to the ICRC Instruction Manual for Niger’s Ministry of Defence (25 March 2015): “Since 2003 the ICRC has been helping Niger’s forces in their efforts to promote humanitarian law, include its rules in their training and military doctrine, and incorporate it into the process of planning and carrying out operations. In July 2012, a joint order was issued by the Defence and Interior Ministries making it compulsory to teach this law as part of military training.” (1)

Breaches of the Military Code of 2003 are only occasionally investigated. The Military Code of 2003 does contain enforcement provisions in Articles 47 and 48:

Art. 47 – Le ministre chargé de la défense nationale procède ou fait procéder à tous les actes nécessaires à la recherche et à la poursuite des infractions relevant de la compétence de la juridiction militaire…

(“The Minister of Defence shall carry out or have carried out all actions necessary to the investigation and prosecution of military offences…”)
(Consultant translation French to English)

Art. 48 – Le chef d’État major des armées, le haut commandant de la Gendarmerie nationale, les chef d’Etat-major des armées de terre…peuvent en cas de crime ou délit flagrant, faire personnellement, tous les actes nécessaires à l’effet de constater les infractions relevant de la juridiction militaire commises à l’intérieur des établissements militaires.

(“In the event of serious crimes or cases of flagrante delicto, the Army Chief of Staff, the High Commander of the National Gendarmerie, the Territorial Army Chiefs of Staff … can personally carry out all acts necessary for the effect of noting military offences committed within military establishments.”)
(Consultant translation French to English)

According to an interviewee, cases of possible breaches of the Military Penal Code are investigated through established procedures (1). The Penal Code provides for a judiciary military police that reports to the Ministry of Defence (Article 46). They are charged with finding and following up all infringements of the law (Article 47) at all levels of armed forces (Article 48) (2). However, the assessor was not provided with any statistical information regarding the numbers of identified, investigated and prosecuted cases that involved the military in the last three years. According to an interviewee, direct cases of corruption are almost exceptional (1).

Furthermore, according to an interviewee, breaches of international humanitarian law could have occurred, especially during the first half of 2018 (3), but only a neutral investigation could establish facts and evidence, should the breaches have really taken place.
Finally, it should be noted that some cases involving military are made public through international reports and are investigated. For example, the UN investigations determined that Nigerien police forces serving in the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti sexually exploited an adult in February. Another investigation determined that Nigerien military forces serving in the UN operation in Cote d’Ivoire sexually exploited two adults in September 2015. Investigations continued into additional incidents involving Nigerien forces in Cote d’Ivoire and the Central African Republic. The government removed the concerned peacekeepers from UN peacekeeping missions and began investigations (4).

The ICRC Instruction Manual (see 46B) is an ethics code for the military establishment. According to the ICRC Instruction Manual for Niger’s Ministry of Defence (25 March 2015): “Since 2003 the ICRC has been helping Niger’s forces in their efforts to promote humanitarian law, include its rules in their training and military doctrine, and incorporate it into the process of planning and carrying out operations. In July 2012, a joint order was issued by the Defence and Interior Ministries making it compulsory to teach this law as part of military training.” (1)

The General Code of Conduct in the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution applies to all Public Officers, including the military. It prohibits accepting bribery and benefits of any kind, accepting any gifts or benefits from commercial firms, business enterprises or persons who have contracts with the government, except gifts from family as custom demands. Conflicts of interests are not mentioned (1).

The military also has its own specific Code of Conduct under Section 103 of the Armed Forces Act, which prohibits bribery and gifts but fails to apply to post-separation activities. The Code of Conduct Bureau also plays a role with the declaration of assets by public officials which includes military personnel. There is a residual jurisdiction under section 103 of the Armed Forces Act 2004 (2), (3).

The Code of Conduct is distributed to all service personnel. However, the general public is not familiar with its contents (1).

Following the inauguration of the Buhari administration, there was the prosecution of high-ranking officers for various infractions of the code of conduct. This initial activity has; however, not been sustained (1).

There is no evidence to show that guidance is provided through training (1).

In November 2017, the Minister of Defence adopted a Code of Ethics for the employees of the Ministry of Defence and the Army [1]. This Code applies to both civilian and military personnel and defines the ethical standards for their professional conduct. Articles 4-7 address issues of gender equality, professionalism, impartiality and conflicts of interest etc. Article 8 highlights the integrity of the Ministry of Defence and the Army while Article 10 addresses the issue of corruption. Accepting or asking for gifts and any other benefits of material nature are prohibited and criminalised, in accordance with the relevant national laws (Article 1) [1].

The Code of Ethics is publicly available and published on the Ministry of Defence website [1]. Together with other measures for building integrity, including integrity training, the Code is proactively distributed to military personnel [2].

According to an interview, breaches of the code are only occassionally investigated [1]. The Code is not so much designed to punish as to encourage a stronger sense of moral values and integrity amongst Ministry of Defence and Army employees [2]. More severe breaches of ethical behaviour are dealt with according to the Law on Service in the Army [3] and the Criminal code [4].

Guidance on the code of conduct is available to all military personnel, although it is not part of induction training. The training is done as part of the ‘building integrity’ modules undertaken by personnel in managing positions.

The “Ethical Guidelines for the Public Service” include fundamental guidelines for all Norwegian state personnel [1]. The document covers bribery, gifts, hospitality, conflicts of interests and post-separations rules. Guidelines for the defence sector may be found in the “Ethical Guidelines for Contact with Business and Industry in the Defence Sector”. They apply to all military and civilian personnel within the defence sector [2]. This document covers bribery, gifts, hospitality and conflicts of interest in contact with business and industry, which is considered to be the area with the greatest corruption risk. Both documents provide specific guidelines on how to handle corruption incidents. Confidentiality during the transition to other organisations is mentioned on the list of the fundamental ethical rules for the defence sector available on the MoD’s website [3]. A separate document, “Core Values of Norway’s Defence Sector”, broadly outlines ethical values, including openness, broadmindedness, respect, responsibility and courage [4]. The document does not explicitly refer to anti-corruption guidelines, but provides an overarching structure intended to raise awareness across the entire sector. Moreover, the Armed Forces and the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency have published their own statements on ethical conduct [5, 6].

All documents mentioned in the previous indicator are published on the websites of the Ministry of Defence or its respective agencies [1]. Given how widely published all these documents are and the numerous public statements from the Armed Forces and the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency on ethical conduct, it can reasonably be assumed these are effectively distributed to personnel [2,3].

The oversight mechanism includes administrative and legal steps. The application of the guidelines can be handled in an administrative manner – both the “Ethical Guidelines For the Public Service” and “Ethical Guidelines for Contact with Business and Industry in the Defence Sector” detail career-related consequences of breaches [1, 2]. The code of conduct is regularly enforced [3]. If the relevant and applicable law applies to a breach, it is pursued as a criminal offence. However, in 2018 the Judge Advocate General for the Armed Forces found it necessary to issue a letter to the Military Policy emphasising a need to distinguish between criminal and administrative investigations [4]. The Judge Advocate General pointed out certain legal principles on how the Military Policy should intervene in order to avoid situations when administrative investigations conducted by the respective Internal Auditor Units (of the Ministry of Defence and of the Chief of Defence) would hinder, disturb or spoil criminal investigation of the same incident. Moreover, a leakage of an internal audit report in 2016 revealed that the Norwegian Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence operated with slightly different definitions of misconduct. While the Ministry of Defence used a broad definition which also encompassed breaches of ethical guidelines and rules (in accordance with the Office of the Auditor General’s recommendation), the Armed Forces operated with a narrow legal definition derived from the Penal Code [5]. Note that there is one system for military and civilian personnel. The Norwegian Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence employ both military and civilian personnel.

During the induction process Armed Forces personnel have to take an e-course module called “Attitude, Ethics and Leadership”. Issues related to corruption and corruption risk are included in this training [1]. At the same time, the Armed Forces have developed a new training programme which seeks to better incorporate challenges related to the main risk areas, procurement and military operations. This initiative is a part of the Armed Forces’ anti-corruption programme [2].

There is a military code of conduct; however, it is not widely known to the different units and parts of the military (1), (2). The legislation mentioned in sub-indicator 44, such as anti-bribery (RD 120/2004), and anti-corruption legislation (RD 12/2011) combats conflicts of interest and gifts, no exceptions for military personnel are stated in this legislation suggesting it extends to military personnel (3). No code of conduct was found on the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence websites (4), (5).

Despite the fact there is a code of conduct, it is not readily available for all soldiers and across all units. It also does not include guidance around bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities (1), (2).

As the code of conduct is not available, enforced and followed up, it lacks credibility and not taken seriously by the commanders and officers (1), (2).

There is little to no guidance during training, and ad hoc guidance is dependent on commanders’ preferences. There is no further data on how guidance would be implemented or if it is part of other training packages, e.g., theory, physical trianings, etc. (1), (2).

There is a Code of Conduct. However, its guidance is inadequate and lacks clarity. The Code of Conduct is published by military intelligence, which is responsible for the monitoring and prosecution of military personnel. The Code of Conduct does not explicitly include bribery and conflicts of interests (1).

The code of conduct may not be readily available to all military personnel, despite being available publicly on the military intelligence’s website (1). Guidance is provided through training in all units and offices. The Code of Conduct is given to new soldiers at the time of inscription, but then rarely shared with higher rank officers (2).

Breaches of the Code of Conduct are investigated either by the respective units or by military intelligence members. However, these investigations are usually superficial and rarely result in legal consequences (1), (2), (3), (4).

In some cases, some guidance is provided during military rehabilitation courses, which is rare, happening every four years for officers (1).

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has a Code of Ethics which establishes behaviour benchmarks for members of the armed service. The AFP’s Office of Ethical Standard, Accountability and Adoption of the Code of Ethics was set up accordingly over graft cases involving military personnel [1]. In addition, Republic Act 6713 offers a code of conduct for public officials that is applicable to military and police personnel [2]. The code addresses gifts, conflicts of interest and post-separation activities. However, in recent years, the definition of some of these issues have been described as vague. While the Civil Service Commission authorised to carry put the provisions of RA 6713 said that law clearly prohibits government workers (including uniformed personnel) ifrom accepting gifts [2], some officials (including the President and a member of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission) have said that it is acceptable to ignore the anti-graft law and, in the case of police officers, to accept gifts given out of gratitude or generosity [3, 4].

Both the Code of Conduct (RA 6713) and its Implementing Rules are publicly available and published on most government websites [1, 2]. According to Section 4, Rule IV of the Rules Implementing RA 6713, “every head of department, office and agency shall establish information systems and networks that will affect the widest possible dissemination of the provisions of the code” [3]. However the AFP Code of Ethics is not made readily available to the public.

Recent years have seen several violations of the code of conduct in the defence sector. Based on investigations by either civil or military court, police and military officers suspected of corruption have either been acquitted or convicted [1, 2, 3, 4]. However, there are also those who have been promoted and/or appointed by the Executive while being investigated on graft charges [5]. The media has been vigilant in monitoring these cases.

In order to be promoted to a higher rank, military personnel are required to undertake basic then advanced military training as well as education at the command general staff college [1]. Embedded in this training and education is the guidance offered by the code of conduct. According to an interviewee, the monitoring and evaluation of this institutional training and education programme is extremely weak and it is likely that is has little influence over the begaviour of individual personnel [2].

There is a code of conduct was issued through Decision No. 145/MON of the Minister of National Defence of July 13, 2017, on the rules of conduct concerning contractors (Journal of Law of the Ministry of National Defence of July 14, 2017, item 157). It applies to both soldiers and civilian employees of the army. Its goal is to implement solutions in the field of preventing and combating corruption and implementing the policy of transparency of business activities. The decision contains rules of conduct that must be followed. This decision defines the concept of conflict of interest and regulates the way to prevent phenomena such as favouring individual contractors, or the occurrence of a real or even potential conflict of interest (§ 13 of the Decision). It also regulates rules of social contacts with contractors (§9), settlement of travel expenses (§4), accepting gifts (§8 decisions), and organization of presentations and demonstrations by contractors (§11).
It does not explain bribery, as it is set by the criminal code, nor post-separation activities. Its scope is limited to relations with contractors.

Decision No. 145/MON is publicly available in the Official Journal of the Minister of National Defence, as well as in the employee’s internal IT network of the Ministry of National Defence. Additionally, the provisions of the decision oblige the directors (heads, commanders, presidents) of the organizational units and the members of the unit to familiarize themselves with the content of the decision and enforce the provisions contained therein [1, 2, 3, 4]. The personnel of units dealing with procurements and contractors are aware of the code [5].

Breaches of the code of conduct are investigated; however, there is no information on the results and sanctions [1]. Given that it is impossible to assess enforcement, this indicator is scored Not Applicable.

Since June 2019 the code of conduct has been implemented to the induction materials. Every new employee is given some materials on corruption, including information on decision 145/MON. [1]. However there are no evidences of induction training of it.

No code of conduct applicable to military personnel exists. Ethics are mentioned in the Statute of the Armed Forces Military [1] and in a number of articles of the Military Discipline Regulation [2], but no joint chief of staff or branch guidance has been published in service publications.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as no code of conduct applicable to military personnel exists. Ethics are mentioned in the Statute of the Armed Forces Military [1] and in a number of articles of the Military Discipline Regulation [2], but no joint chief of staff or branch guidance has been published in service publications.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as no code of conduct applicable to military personnel exists. Ethics are mentioned in the Statute of the Armed Forces Military [1] and in a number of articles of the Military Discipline Regulation [2], but no joint chief of staff or branch guidance has been published in service publications.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as no code of conduct applicable to military personnel exists. Ethics are mentioned in the Statute of the Armed Forces Military [1] and in a number of articles of the Military Discipline Regulation [2], but no joint chief of staff or branch guidance has been published in service publications.

Although there are no traces of a military code of conduct within the armed forces of Qatar, our sources confirm that there is one available internally. This code of conduct is similar to ACTA but has been adapted to the defence and military sector. [1,2]

The code of conduct is not available publicly, and it can be hard to access it in the units. However, if one asks for the “ethical guidance unit,” he could be sent a copy. [1,2]

There could be cases of breaching the code of conduct, but they are rarely investigated, and mostly settled in an informal way within the different units. [1] Commanders do not take the code of conduct to be law. Grave breaches may lead to investigations (but our sources say this has never happened). [2]

Ad hoc guidance may be provided to military personnel by local experts or their commanding officers. There is a little guidance provided to the soldiers in general [1,2].

There is no code of conduct for all military personnel – only for senior military personnel.

Although there are the ‘Instructional guidelines for organising the anti-corruption work of senior personnel in the MoD’ [1], it is permissive rather than manadatory. Section II of these guidelines defines corruption (Clause 6), anti-corruption measures (Clause 7), bribery (Clause 8), corrupt payment (Clause 9), conflicts of interest (Clause 10) and personal interest (Clause 11) [1]. It briefly mentions gifts (Clause 32), but fails to address post-separation [1]. It cites anti-corruption legislation and punishments in accordance with it. It specifies what senior personnel should do in cases of reports of bribery or conflicts of interest, but there are no stipulated measures to control compliance with the guidelines.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ because there is no code of conduct for military personnel.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ because there is no code of conduct for military personnel.

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ because there is no code of conduct for military personnel.

According to our sources, Saudi Arabia does have a Code of Conduct for civilian and military personnel that prohibits bribery, the acceptance of gifts and hospitality; it focuses on ethical issues within the military service. The code of conduct, however, is not available in all units and lacks clarity, especially for soldiers in the fields (1), (2), (3).

According to our sources, the Code of Conduct is not always available, especially in rural areas and units outside headquarters and the main offices (1), (2). In August 2018, Nazaha published a survey stating that 69% of the country’s public sector employees did not have access to the Code of Conduct for public service within their government agencies. This survey was based on a random sample of approximately 4,700 employees across the country, with 63% of those surveyed stating that the government agency at which they were employed did not publish the relevant Code of Conduct on its website (3). It was not specified whether this included military personnel. It is unclear the extent to which the government makes efforts to ensure the Code of Conduct is available to all military personnel, nor is there any evidence of training provided in this regard.

According to our sources, the Code of Conduct is not credible, the majority of personnel do not care about it, and it has no enforcing mechanism, which allows personnel to ignore it (1), (2). There is no evidence in the public domain indicating that breaches of the Code of Conduct have been investigated by Saudi authorities or that punitive measures have been enforced based on this code. In November 2017, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the arrest of a large number of individuals on corruption charges, including the then head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, Miteb bin Abdullah. Charges against Miteb included embezzlement and awarding military contracts to his firms (3). However, there are few details surrounding the nature of the investigation into Miteb bin Abdullah or other government officials arrested as part of this sweep; they have largely been characterized in the international press and rights groups as arbitrary and void of due process (4).

It is unclear the extent to which the government makes efforts to ensure the Code of Conduct is available to all military personnel, nor is there any evidence of training provided in this regard [1,2,3].

The Code of Honor of the Serbian Armed Forces has separate codes for different categories of military personnel (officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers) [1]. Only the Officers Code contains vague guidelines on avoiding gifts and preventing a conflict of interest, without detailed explanations on what breaches of these guidelines entail.

The Code of Honor is published in the Official Military Gazette, where all the MoD and SAF legal acts and bylaws are published. It can also be found on the SAF website hence it is publicly available for everyone to read it [1].

There is no evidence available on past or ongoing investigations regarding the violations of the Code of Honor. A violation of the Code of Honor does not imply any kind of responsibility other than ethical; however, if it simultaneously entails a violation of other legal acts, it will be dealt with accordingly [1]. Activities prohibited by the Code of Honor are be sanctioned in accordance with the Criminal Code and Law on Serbian Armed Forces.

There is no evidence available to establish whether guidance on the code of conduct is available to all military personnel and/ or is included in induction training [1].

There is a clear Code of Conduct (CoC) for military personnel [1]. Moreover, all public servants are expected to adhere to an established CoC as laid out in legislation [2]. Additionally, Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), and Defence Science and Technology Agency (DSTA) personnel are also subject to internal regulations that specifically prohibit all types of misconduct including bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities [3, 4].

The military’s CoC is available to both serving personnel and the public [1]. It is also emphasised during initial training and reinforced at various junctures during conscription or regular service [2].

Evidence suggests that breaches of the CoC have been investigated and pursued in both military and civilian courts [1]. For instance, a former Singapore air force officer was charged with corruption and breaching secrecy laws for cheating on maintenance contracts for military aircraft [2].

Guidance on the military’s CoC and the armed forces core values [1, 2] is a core part of a recruit’s induction training [3]; these materials are readily available to service members or the public.

The Defence Act No. 42 of 2002 refers to the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) ‘Code of Conduct’ as legally enforced through the Military Discipline Code, found in section 104 (1) of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act 44 of 1957) [1]. The ‘Code of Conduct’ is also referred to as the ‘Soldier of Africa: Code of Conduct for Uniformed Members of the SANDF’, and is a part of basic training and induction. There is also a code of conduct applicable to commissioners and the employees of the Defence Force Service Commission (DFSC). Both the SANDF Code of Conduct and DFSC codes can be found as annexures in the Defence Force Service Commission 2017/18 Annual Activity Report [2].

The SANDF Code of Conduct offers points of guidance relevant to bribery/gifts etc:
“I will not abuse my authority, position or public funds for personal gain political motive or any other reason;
I will report criminal activity, corruption and misconduct to the appropriate authority”.

While the code of conduct is publically available [1,2] – the actual level of guidance provided to SANDF recruits is unclear, but all recruits are required to pledge to uphold the code of conduct. 

Breaches of the code of conduct appear to be internally dealt with in a non-transparent manner, making any assessment of investigations or prosecution efficacy impossible. However, legal investigations and prosecutions are reported in the Department of Defence’s annual report, noting a 25.97% prosecution rate of cases of corruption and fraud in the 2017/18 financial year [1, 2]. Given that it is not possible to assess enforcement, this indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

Guidance on the code of conduct is included, but it is unclear how thorough and comprehensive this is for SANDF members during induction training [1].

While the Improper Solicitation and Graft (ISG) Act provides overall anti-corruption guidelines for all officers including military personnel, the Ministry of National Defence (MND) and the Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) have their Code of Conduct in accordance with the principle of the ISG Act, which covers military personnel and procurement officers exclusively. [1]
The Code of Conduct for personnel at the MND covers military and civilian personnel within the defence sector. The Code prohibits bribery, as well as accepting free meals which exceed 30,000 Korean won. Any gift worth over 50,000 Korean won is not acceptable. Improper solicitations to other officers for a personal gain or illicit advantage is highly illegal. Sharing family events, such as weddings or funerals, with people related to work is prohibited. This Code also includes post-separation activities which restrict retired military personnel from accessing military and defence institutions for the purpose of improper solicitations for defence bidding. [2]
The Code of Conduct for Procurement Officers is designed for those in the procurement sector. While the Code for procurement officers follows the logic of the Code of Conduct for military personnel, it contains a specific clause regarding single-sourcing contracts. Article 5.5 of the Code prohibits procurement officers from having a contract with a defence firm in which a family member is involved. [3]
Those who notice the corrupt act of an officer can report it to the head of their department or the Anti Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC). Military and procurement personnel who violate the Code will be punished by the Directive of Military Personnel Punishment or the DAPA’s punishment standard. [1] [2] [4]

Two Codes mentioned above are available to the public via the website run by the Ministry of Government Legislation and distributed to all military and procurement personnel. [1] [2] The Ministry of National Defence and relevant institutions are expected to implement a training session, which addresses the Code in detail, at least once a year for two hours; the training can be conducted online or in person. Newly joined military personnel should take the training session within 3 months of the job start date. [1] The DAPA’s Code of Conduct also requires that the Minister of the DAPA plan training for procurement officers at least once a year to implement the guidance in practice. New officers or those promoted should take anti-corruption training at least five hours after the start of the job. [2]

While the strict Code of Conduct exists to tackle corruption within the defence sector, it is difficult to find evidence of effective investigations. A review of media sources shows that there are several identified cases in which the defence institutions failed to effectively investigate breaches of the code of conduct. In March 2019, a military advocate was found guilty of concealing his drunk-driving offence with self-investigation, revealing a loophole in the oversight mechanism. [1] The Board of Audit and Investigation of Korea (BAI) points out that breaches of the code are poorly investigated by the defence authorities. The BAI argues that some defence personnel who violate the code of conduct and law are not punished properly. Instead, minor punishment is given to them. [2] There has been criticism of the effectiveness of military punishment. As of December 2018, military personnel charged with sexual harassment were given full payment, despite violating the code of conduct. [3]

The Ministry of National Defence and relevant institutions are expected to implement a training session, which addresses the Code in detail, at least once a year for two hours; the training can be conducted online or in person. Newly joined military personnel should take the training session within 3 months of the job start date. [1] The DAPA’s Code of Conduct also requires that the Minister of the DAPA plan training for procurement officers at least once a year to implement the guidance in practice. New officers or those promoted should take anti-corruption training at least five hours after the start of the job. [1] [2]

A code of conduct for the military exists, titled “Sudan People’s Liberation Movement’s Rules and Regulations, 2009,” [1] that the assessor has seen a hard copy of but not read. The assessor was informed that the code is classified and not available to the public.

A code of conduct exists and is available to senior officials of the army, according to media reporting. [1] [2] It is not publicly available because it is a classified document.

Although a code of conduct for the military exists, [1] there is no publicly available information that shows that it is being enforced with regard to cases of bribery, gifts, hospitality and conflict of interest. No media reports exist to show authorities enforcing the code. Given that it is impossible to assess enforcement, this indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

Scant media reporting indicates that some form of training is conducted for military officers by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) rather than by the military itself. [1] It is unclear, however, whether this includes training on the code of conduct. Beyond this, there is no training on the code of conduct.

Article 1 of Royal Decree 96/2009, which approves the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, states that “the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, which constitute the code of conduct for the military, define the ethical principles and the rules of behavior” [1]. Article 2 states that they apply to all professional military of the armed forces and also to the Civil Guard [1]. Art. 35 of Royal Decree 96/2009 states that personnel “will not influence the speeding up or resolution of the processes or procedures without just cause and, in no case, when it involves an impairment of the interests of third parties” [1]. There is no additional reference regarding bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. It does not provide specific guidance on how to proceed in the face of these events.

Instruction 23/2020 of the Secretary of Defence, on the Ethical Code and Code of Conduct of Personnel Related to Purchasing, which affects both military and civilian staff in the purchasing areas of the Ministry of Defence (and only on purchasing), states in Section 2.1.f that such personnel “will abstain from accepting gifts and will reject any benefit in personal interest”. This instruction does comprehensively cover aspects related to bribery, gifts and any benefit, also to conflicts of interest, and provides specific guidance on how to proceed in the communication of events “that are not constitutive of fault and crime” [2].

Royal Decree 96/2009 is public and distributed widely. Instruction 23/2020 clearly indicates that the Code of Conduct is required to be disseminated within the Ministry of Defence (e.g. Section 5.1.a and 5.3.a) [1].

Instruction 23/2020 provides specific guidance on how to proceed in events, but only in those “that are not constitutive of fault and crime” [1]. This instruction only affects purchasing. The Code of Conduct was approved in June 2020; however, there is still no evidence of its impact. There is evidence of certain judicial cases of bribery (“cohecho”) which can be found online [2, 3].

Instruction 23/2020 states in Section 5.3.a that guidance on conduct and dissemination documents will be elaborated on and widely distributed [1]. The Code of Conduct was approved in June 2020; there is no evidence of training and dissemination. These instructions only affect purchasing.

No evidence could be found that a Code of Conduct specifically for military personnel existed during the Bashir regime or exists for military personnel under the current transitional government. The Armed Forces Act of 2007 does not address any issues that might arise related to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest or post-separation activities [1]. The Sudanese Criminal Act of 1991 [2] and Penal Code of 2003 [3] provide evidence that active and passive bribery, extortion, the taking of gifts in certain contexts, embezzlement and other corruption offences have been criminalised – but this is not specific to the military and it is not clear that the Act or Code apply to the military.

There is no available evidence that the SAF has a Code of Conduct and if there is such a document, it is not published or publicly accessible. This indicator is therefore marked Not Applicable.

This indicator is marked Not Applicable as there is no available evidence that the SAF has a Code of Conduct and if there is such a document, it is not published or publicly accessible.

There is likely no training available with respect to a relevant Code of Conduct because there is no available evidence that the SAF has a Code of Conduct and if there is such a document, it is not published or publicly accessible. This indicator is therefore marked Not Applicable.

The Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) has a webpage entitled ‘Our code of conduct’ [1] which states that the SAF disassociate themselves from ‘all forms of discrimination, harassment, and crime such as corruption, trafficking, and abuse’. It is therefore not comprehensive, and does not provide specfic guidance on how to proceed in the face of corruption-related events. The supporting document for this webpage, the ‘SAF Values and Code of Conduct – Annex 1.1 Our military profession’, adopted in 2016 [2], offers no detailed explanations of corruption-related issues such as bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, or post-separation activities. However, bribes and conflicts of interests are covered in detail in an internal handbook from 2015 [3], and the document ‘internal regulation and control’ from 2019 [4] provides guidance on how to proceed in the face of corruption-related events.

The code of conduct is made available to the public on the SAF website [1]. Along with other internal anti-corruption and anti-bribery policies, it is also distributed to all military and civil personnel during introductory training and promotions, and included in staff training courses and performance talks [2].

Staff of the SAF who are suspected of having broken the code of conduct must be reported to their nearest commanding officer, and to the Armed Forces Personnel Administration (FPAN) who conduct investigations pursue cases of potential criminal behaviour [1]. This is currently working well, and is regulated by a internal guideline with 8 detailed steps [2], and beyond that, the government’s formal ordinance with instructions to the Armed Forces [3] and an internal SAF regulation [4].

Guidance on the code of conduct as well as related internal policies for anti-corruption and anti-bribery is included in induction training for all military personnel [1].

The Code of Conduct for federal personnel, that also applies to the military, summarizes the rules for government employees [1]. It discusses gifts and invitations as well as illegal behaviour or transgression of rules. It refers to and summarizes the Federal Personnel Act (BPG) and the Bundespersonalverordnung (BPV) with regards to bribery, gifts and conflict of interests. The documents provide guidance on what are acceptable invitations and gifts. The Code of Conduct reminds employees of their obligation to report transgressions of those rules and also highlights options for whistleblowing. The code does not contain any rules on post-separation for its employees [1]. A 2018 booklet on compliance for employees of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) uses this code of conduct for federal personnel as the basis. The document refers to other guidances by the Federal Personnel Office, for example on corruption and whistleblowing. It reaffirms rules on avoiding conflict of interests, bribery, nepotism and corruption [2].

The Code of Conduct for federal personnel as well as the guidance on compliance are available online [1, 2]. The code of conduct is distributed to all federal employees [3]. The guidance on compliance is also considered to be binding [4].

There are a few publicly known breaches that were investigated at the highest level. There were reports on a case that occurred in 2019. Newspapers uncovered that a pilot and high ranking officer was allegedly hired by Saab to lobby for the Gripen fighter jet Switzerland was considering buying. The officer was released from his duties as spokesperson of the “Patrouille Suisse” but remained at the DDPS in his role as Head of Special Staff Communication (Chef Fachstab Kommunikation) [1]. Other recent examples are an expenses scandal, where the suspects were cleared, but the rules subsequently changed [2], or the sudden cancellation of a major armament project in its evaluation phase [3]. There are no known instances where cases are not pursued despite evidence of criminal behaviour.

Although this research did not find direct confirmation of inclusion of the general Code of Conduct Federal Administration into the induction training specifically, it seems very likely that it is included as it represents a legally binding document for all federal personnel and is issued by the Federal Council. It explicitly mentions that all employees have to be familiar with the rules relevant to their activity [1]. It is easily available and referenced on plenty of government websites, including, for example, Armasuisse’s [2]. A series of binding documents for employees like the Group “Defence” brochure on compliance [3], the directive on corruption prevention for employees of the DDPS [4] and the same directive for Armasuisse [5] are all explicitly based on the code of conduct. The Group “Defence” has a directive specifically on compliance and offers information on their intranet [3] as well as on the internet [6]. The anti-corruption directives for the DDPS [4] and Armasuisse [5], both mention continued training and obligation for awareness-raising on the issue. Armasuisse also states on its site dedicated to the fight against corruption that its employees are “regularly informed on their obligations in terms of their conduct” [2].

The Code of Conduct for Taiwan’s military concerning issues of ethics and integrity is well illustrated and regulated in the “Directive of Ethics and Integrity Guidelines for Military Personnel” which explains bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. It provides specific guidance on how to proceed in the face of these events [1]. Furthermore, selected case studies and SOP are explained in the “Directions of Ethics and Integrity Guidelines for Military Personnel” [2].

Both the “Directive of Ethics and Integrity Guidelines for Military Personnel” and the “Directions of Ethics and Integrity Guidelines for Military Personnel” are available to the entire armed forces and the public through the website of the Ministry of National Defence [1, 2]. These documents regularly form the basis of the ethics education programmes within Taiwan’s military [3].

Several cases illustrated in the Directions of Ethics & Integrity Guidelines for Military Personnel indicate that breaches of the code of conduct are under executive investigattion or juridical allegation.[1,2,3].

Guidance on the code of conduct for ethics, integrity, and anti-corruption is integrated in induction training for all military personnel [1].

According to an interview with a member of millitary personnel, there are codes of conducts that guide millitary personnel with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post separation activities. [3] These are confidential and reserved for millitary personnel. But the millitary also adheres to the codes of conducts of the country which are publicly available, such as codes of ethics and conducts for the Public Service, made by the Minister of State, President’s Office Public Service Management under the Authority of Section 34 of the Public Service Act, 2002 and Regulations 65[1] of the Public Service Regulations, 2003. In essence all civil servants, including defence sector personnel, have to sign the ethical pledge which mostly speaks against corruption. The more senior members are required to take a public oath before signing it. They are very strict and state what will befall any guilty party. [1] [2] However, it is not clear if these are general guidelines or if they are specifically a Code of Conduct.

According to an interview with a member of the millitary personnel, there are codes of conducts that guide millitary personnel with respect to bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest and post separation activities. [3] These are confidential and reserved for millitary personnel. But the millitary also adheres to the codes of conducts of the country, which are publicly available, such as codes of ethics and conducts for the Public Service, made by the Minister of State, President’s Office Public Service Management under the Authority of Section 34 of the Public Service Act, 2002 and Regulations 65[1] of the Public Service Regulations, 2003. These are publicly available and are given as part of taking oath for a new position. [1] [2]

Breaches of the codes of conducts are regularly investigated and many public servants (defence personnel are also civil servants in Tanzania) have been taken to court for allegations of breaches of the ethics and codes of conducts of public service. Recently, the government has been very strictly on the issues of intergrity of public servants and the emphasis on adhering to the codes of conducts is always put to the Public Servants including millitary personnel. This has made Public servants responsible and accountable for their day to day activities and responsibilities. [1] [2] [3]

According to an interview with a member of the millitary personnel, guidance on codes of conducts is available to all millitary personnel, but, being a part of induction training, he refused to answer because it is against the millitary ethics and the information is secret. [1] There are various trainings which are given by other institutions and millitary leaders to millitary personnel concerning codes of conducts as a matter of reminding them. Most of these trainings are made public. [2] [3]

In 2018, the Commander-in-Chief approved the Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters. He also approved the Masterplan and Operational Code of Conduct for Ethics Promotion within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters Fiscal Year 2017-2021. These plans apply to all military personnel and the documents cover issues of bribery, gifts and hospitality and conflicts of interest [1]. Moreover, in order to comply with the Open Data Integrity and Transparency Assessment (OIT) conducted by the NACC, the army has implemented anti-corruption measures that include the prohibition of receiving all kinds of bribes, both directly and indirectly, and the prevention of conflicts of interest [2].

The Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters 2018 and the Masterplan and Operational Code of Conduct for Ethics Promotion within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters Fiscal Year 2017-2021 are available online [1]. These measures are included in the military education and anti-corruption training provided within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters for all levels of military personnel [2].

The National Strategy on Corruption Prevention and Suppression within the Ministry of Defence 2017-2021, which includes the Masterplan and Operational Code of Conduct for Ethics Promotion within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters Fiscal Year 2017-2021, is found to be ineffective in terms of enforcement for the following reasons: a lack of anti-corruption expertise, a workforce shortage and a lack of ad hoc or integrative cooperation both within the ministry and with other agencies [1].

Furthermore, it could be concluded that, under the NCPO, breaches of the code of conduct were rarely investigated. For instance, the cases of Ratchapak Park or Prawit’s watch scandal were not properly investigated, regardless of evidence or public concern [2]. Furthermore, the case of a Thai military chief, Narongchai Intarakavee, shows that the code of conduct is ineffective. After he made a complaint about the corruption within the military, he was mistreated and faced a disciplinary inquiry for allegedly undermining unity within the army and damaging his unit’s reputation [3]. Many military officials also revealed that after they had made complaints, they were denounced, forced to quit the army or mistreated [4].

The Strategic Plan on Corruption Prevention and Suppression within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters 2018 and the Masterplan and Operational Code of Conduct for Ethics Promotion within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters Fiscal Year 2017-2021 are included in the military education and anti-corruption training provided within the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters for all levels of military personnel [1,2]. However, the effectiveness of the anti-training training is questionable due to a lack of anti-corruption expertise, a workforce shortage and a lack of ad hoc or integrative cooperation both within the ministry and with other agencies [3].

According to our sources, there is a Code of Conduct for the military which is derived from the general Code of Conduct of the State.(1) This Code of Conduct is not comprehensive and lacks clarity, however, it covers many aspects and events in general terms (2,3).

The Code of Conduct for the military is available in all units and readily available for all within their training period. The availability of the Code of Conduct depends on the geographical place of the units. For example it is readily available within central commands and Headquarters, but not in far away units on the borders (1,2).

According to our sources, breaches of the Code of Conduct are occasionally investigated, but investigation is superficial and usually does not lead to sanctions if the breach is not serious (1,2). Breaches to the Code of Conduct should be investigated and sanctioned as a disciplinary or criminal matter. All breaches of this code are addressed by a disciplinary conviction and when the disciplinary breach is classified as a crime it will be addressed by the code of Military Justice (3).

According to our sources, periodic ad hoc guidance may be provided to military personnel by commanding officers(1).

The Regulation on the Principles of Ethical Behavior of the Public Officials and Application Procedures and Essentials entered into effect as it was published in the Official Gazette dated 04/13/2005 and numbered 25785. In line with this regulation, all public institutions should prepare their own code of conduct and establish ethics commissions. The provisions of this regulation do not apply to the President, the members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (parliament), members of the Council of Ministers, Turkish Armed Forces, members of the judiciary or universities.

It should be noted that there is no code of conduct governing all military personnel within the TAF. However, the Army, Navy and Air Force Commands have some written regulations about the effective and ethical use of financial resources that do not address corruption and anti-bribery-related issues directly [1]. Interviewee 6 suggested that there are sections on ethics and codes of conduct in some written regulations and framework documents, distributed internally, about finance management and corruption integrity issues, but these sections are far from having an influence over the behaviors of ill-intentioned personnel [2].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no code of conduct. As emphasised above, codes of conduct about corruption and bribery in contracting and other financial activities are issued as written regulations within all service commands. However, these regulations are not available to the public or in open-source material [1].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no code of conduct. Interviewees 3 and 4, who have both had a military career lasting more than two decades, suggested that breaches of the code of conduct are only occasionally investigated within the service commands, the General Staff and the Ministry of Defence [1,2].

This indicator is marked ‘Not Applicable’ as there is no code of conduct. The qualities required for military personnel are described in the Turkish Armed Forces Internal Service Law under item no. 39 [1] and the Turkish Armed Forces Internal Service Regulation under item no. 86. These qualities include, for example, the appreciation and demonstration of the values and ethical standards of the military profession and Turkish Army, and the essence of comradeship. In the military academy, there are courses on ethics but not on corruption-related issues. With the ‘Law concerning the Foundation of the Council of Ethics for the Public Service’, dated 2004 and numbered 5176, [2] a specialised council (the Council of Ethics for the Public Service – CEPS/Kamu Görevlileri Etik Kurulu) was established to supervise the ethical conduct of public servants, the first of its kind in Turkey. The CEPS’s narrow span of authority (the law does not cover politicians, military-judicial-academic personnel or cases that have already been transferred to courts) is the factor that has drawn the most significant criticism. In Turkey, ethics training has been provided to all public officials working both at a central and local level since 2009. However, military personnel have been excluded from this training.

Ad-hoc guidance may be provided to military personnel by commanding officers. Interviewee 4 suggested that there are courses offered and conferences held at the Military Finance School/Kucukyali Istanbul about corruption and anti-bribery integrity measures. However, he emphasised that there is no specific follow-up training, courses or workshops specifically designed to cover these issues in the military cadets’ later professional careers at the Military Finance School [3].

Section 118 (1) of the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) Act states that there shall be a code of conduct to guide and discipline members of the defence forces, as set out in the Seventh Schedule of this Act. Section 117 Subsection (f) of the UPDF Act 2005 specifically warns about any form of corruption. It does not provide guidance on how to proceed in the face of events. The major short coming of this act is its inability to define what constitute corruption. Accordingly, the following ‘crimes’ are construed to mean corrupt practices and are punishable under Section 176 of the UPDF act states:
“that a person subject to military law, who– (a) connives at the exaction of an exorbitant price for property purchased or rented by a person supplying property or services to the Defence Forces; b) improperly demands or accepts compensation, consideration or personal advantage in respect of the performance of any military duty or in respect of any matter relating to the Defence Forces; receives directly or indirectly, whether personally or through any member of his or her family or a person under his or her benefit, any gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration either in money or otherwise, from any person, for assisting or favouring any person, in the transaction of any business relating to the Defence Forces or to any forces cooperating with the Defence Forces or to any mess, institute or canteen operated for the use and benefit of members of those forces; commits any act of a fraudulent nature not expressly specified in this Act, commits an offence, and is, on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding seven years.”
According to the UPDF chief of legal services and the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs (MoDVA), bribery is another form of corruption [2].

The Code of Conduct is distributed to the military [1] during their training. For any interested person, a copy can be accessed online [2, 3].

The UPDF have been arresting soldiers who breach the Code of Conduct. At least sixteen members of the security forces were reportedly held in custody allegedly for torturing thirty-eight suspected commercial sex workers at Elegu town council in Amuru District. The suspects included ten police officers attached to a field force unit, and six UPDF officers were arrested on 5 April 2020 and held at Gulu Central Police Station and UPDF 4th Division Barracks, respectively. Also in custody was Lance Corporal Awany Abwoli, who was the commander of the UPDF unit, and ASP Richard Balenzi, who was in charge of the police unit [1]. The army court-martial [2] is always ready to handle such cases. In another case, the State House Anti-Corruption Unit arrested a UPDF Captain, Emmanuel Abaho, on allegations of extorting money from a businesswoman in Mityana [3].

Under the Seventh Schedule of the UPDF Act, there are a number of items which are considered as central to the discipline and cohesion of the UPDF. It is stated that the code of conduct is a central component[1] in the training for military personnel at all levels. Whether the trainig is a refresher coure of 6 weeks or more, the code of conduct is part and percel of that training[2]. All the recruits who are taken for military training are given the copy of the UPDF Act with emphasis on the code of conduct.

Although the Law On Corruption Prevention provides rules of ethical behaviour Stepan Poltorak, the Minister of Defence, approved the Code of Conduct for AFU and MoD military and civil personnel in 2017 [1]. The content of the code is clear, and it addresses issues of bribery, gifts, conflict of interest, etc. [2, 3]. The code provides guidelines on how to act [2]. Additionally, there is also a comprehensive briefing note drafted by the NAPC on conflicts of interest which applies to the MoD as well. It is published on the website of the MoD [4]. Lastly, there is also a Code of Dignity and Honor of the Officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which plays a supportive role to the Code of Conduct [5].

The Code of Conduct is available to the public on the MoD’s website [1]. The minister of defence instructed the heads of the structural divisions of the MoD and the AFU to arrange training on the provisions of the code for officers and sergeants of the AFU, civil servants and other individuals [2]. The MoD report on anti-corruption measures for 2017 provides evidence that the MoD started the implementation of the code in regards to the activities for structural units of the MoD, the General Staff of the AFU, and other MoD entities [3]. Additionally, there is a methodological manual “Commentary on the Code of Integrity and Professional Ethics in the MoD” as well as a briefing note for personnel “Rules for the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption” [4] which were presented to the forces and made available to the public [3]. Currently, the MoD makes efforts to apply the provisions of the code in the activities of the MoD and AFU units, institutions, state-owned enterprises, etc. [3]. However, an active AFU serviceman who participated in ATO could not confirm in April 2018 any training on the code or the distribution of Code of Conduct leaflets [5]. All new MoD orders are always distributed, by default, among the MoD and General Staff departments as well as the order approving the Code of Conduct, but one of the General Staff’s active serviceman could not confirm any training on its provisions [6].

Although the MoD Code of Conduct was developed in cooperation with NGOs, it is mainly based on the provisions of the existing Ukrainian legislation, particularly, the Law on Corruption Prevention. As a result, any breach of the Code of Conduct leads to a breach of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences. This is also stipulated in the code itself [1]. There is evidence of corruption among MoD and AFU personnel [2, 3] and corrupt individuals being sentenced [4, 5, 6]. However, there is little evidence [8] for high-level corruption or undue behaviour cases being investigated and sanctioned; one example is the practice of illegal trade with the occupied territories of Eastern Ukraine [7].

The Code of Conduct is available to the public on the MoD’s website [1]. The minister of defence instructed the heads of the structural divisions of the MoD and the AFU to arrange training on the provisions of the code for officers and sergeants of the AFU, civil servants and other individuals [2]. The MoD report on anti-corruption measures for 2017 provides evidence that the MoD started the implementation of the code in regards to the activities for structural units of the MoD, the General Staff of the AFU, and other MoD entities [3]. Additionally, there is a methodological manual “Commentary on the Code of Integrity and Professional Ethics in the MoD” as well as a briefing note for personnel “Rules for the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption” [4] which were presented to the forces and made available to the public [3]. Currently, the MoD makes efforts to apply the provisions of the code in the activities of the MoD and AFU units, institutions, state-owned enterprises, etc. [3]. However, an active AFU serviceman who participated in ATO could not confirm in April 2018 any training on the code or the distribution of Code of Conduct leaflets [5]. All new MoD orders are always distributed, by default, among the MoD and General Staff departments as well as the order approving the Code of Conduct, but one of the General Staff’s active serviceman could not confirm any training on its provisions [6].

There is a clear and well-defined code of conduct within the UAE armed forces. This code of conduct is simple and available in the majority of units. Federal Laws No. 6 and 7 of 2004, which specifically apply to the Armed Forces, clearly define bribery and prohibit corruption (1). For instance, Article 47 of the law prohibits an officer from accepting gifts of any sort whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly. There are also prohibitions related to the submission of bids to armed forces’ tenders by members of the armed forces, the awarding of contracts to members of the armed forces and the purchasing of items from members of the armed forces (2). However, no code of conduct is attached to these federal laws, and no evidence of any military codes of conduct are available online. It is important to note here that in spite of the lack of a code of conduct, breaches of federal laws prompt sanctions in relation to bribery and gifts in specific (3), (4).

There is a military code of conduct; however, it is not available for all military personnel and not available for the public at all. It exists in the offices, but it is not available to soldiers deployed on the ground (1), (2).

The code of conduct is not enforced and can be thought of as a superficial code based on information of our sources. They are not enforced, and there is no instiution to follow up and sanction the breaches in the code of conduct (1), (2).

There is no guidance provided during the training period or ad hoc training for middle/ senior officers (1).

The Army Leadership Code [1] makes reference to integrity as one of the Army’s core values, however it does not address corruption or offer specific guidance in terms of addressing it. As noted in the previous GDI UK assessment, Service Personnel in the Army, Navy and RAF are subject to the Queen’s Regulations [2], which are a collection of standing orders and regulations governing personal conduct and behaviour. Each section of the forces is subject to its own set of regulations. There is some evidence that these regulations address bribery and corruption: Regulation J1003 of the Queen’s Regulations for the RAF outlines rules for dealing with gifts, hospitality, rewards and bribes for example [3]. The regulations are available for purchase from the government’s Stationery Office but are not particularly affordable, at £78. Some editions are out of print.

Service Personnel are also subject to code of practice documents such as the Army’s Values and Standards document [4], which outline good practice and touch broadly on integrity as a value. Values and Standards documents also apply to Navy and RAF staff. These documents do not explicitly address anti-corruption mechanisms or outline disciplinary procedures however.

The MoD Corporate Standards policy [5] explains bribery, gifts and hospitality, conflicts of interest, and post-separation activities. It provides specific guidance on how to proceed in the face of these events.

The Queen’s regulations for the Army, Air Force, and Navy, are available for public access online. The Army, Air Force, and Navy’s Values and Standards documents, as well as the Army’s Leadership Code are also publicly available [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

The Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Air Force are publicly available on the RAF website via the following link:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329506/QR_RAF__Amendment_35.pdf
The Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy are publicly available on the Royal Navy website via the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433880/prelims_QR_RoyalNavy.pdf

The Queens Regulations for the Army is available in the public domain.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440632/20150529-QR_Army_Amdt_31_Jul_2013.pdf

The ‘Ethos, Core Values and Standards’ for the Royal Air Force is publicly available on the RAF website via the following link:
https://www.raf.MoD.uk/recruitment/media/3897/20200703-raf_ap1_2019_rev_3_page_spreads.pdf

The ‘Ethos, Values and Standards’ for the Royal Navy is publicly available on the Royal Navy website via the following link:
https://www.royalnavy.MoD.uk/our-people

The ‘Values and Standards of the British Army’ is publicly available on the Army website via the following link:
https://www.army.MoD.uk/media/5219/20180910-values_standards_2018_final.pdf

The Army’s Values and Standards document states that ‘every breach of Values and Standards requires prompt and unambiguous action to be taken’ [1]. Similarly, Commanders have a duty to investigate or report matters of criminality (Sect 113 of the Armed Forces Act 2011) [2]. According to one of the interviewees, “whilst information is not readily available in the public domain, many examples exist where breaches of conduct have resulted in criminal proceedings, when identified” [3].

Evidence suggests that guidance on the Army’s Values and Standards document, which covers integrity as one of the core values, is provided upon induction [1]. Additionally, BI UK incorporates ‘Codes of Conduct’ in its curriculum. It specifically focuses on the separation of bribery/hospitality and the implications and measures required to reduce this risk. It also encourages for the inclusion of bribery/fraud/corruption to be included on risk registers [2].

The DoD Joint Ethics Regulation and ‘Standards of Conduct’ are applicable to all DoD civilian employees; any active duty regular or reserve military officer; any active duty enlisted member of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps; any reserve or National Guard member on active duty [1]. The DoD Standards of Conduct cover issues relating to: participation with non-federal entities; travel benefits; conflicts of interest; political activities; financial and employment disclosure; seeking other employment; and post-government service employment. Bribery is covered under conflicts of interest; hospitality is covered through reference to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch [2]; post-separation activity regulations are covered under post-government service employment. The Joint Ethics Regulation is a single source of guidance for DoD personnel, which includes the general Office of Government Ethics (OGE) ‘Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch’, with additional restrictions and guidance for military-specific activities and situations. For each section, prohibitions are outlined, as is guidance on how to proceed.

The Joint Ethics Regulation and Standards of Ethical Conduct are publicly available [1,2]. Each new employee, in addition to their training as outlined in 46D, must be provided with the summary of the Standards of Conduct, relevant supplemental agency regulations, instructions for contacting the agency’s ethics office and other relevant materials [3,4].

The ‘Standards of Conduct’ outline the penalties and sanctions for violating the rules prescribed [1]. There is no available information regarding the extent of enforcement. The DoD’s Encyclopedia of Ethical Failure outlines a selection of ethical violations and the sanctions applied. As a snapshot, it illustrates the variety of cases of violations and the various sanctions applied. It does not, however, provide an insight into the number of ethical violations recorded annually or specific details on the enforcement of sanctions [2]. The researcher has submitted an FOIA request to access further information on breaches of the Standards of Conduct, however, no information has been provided as of March 2021. The Office of Government Ethics issues an annual survey of prosecutions involving the conflict of interest statute, which includes those against defence personnel [3]. The 2019 report includes two cases involving defence personnel, one of whom was uncovered as part of the investigation relating to the ‘Fat Leonard’ case [4]. Research by Project on Government Oversight has highlighted the weak controls and poor enforcement of ‘revolving door’ mechanisms in the DoD [5], which are partly regulated by the ‘Standards of Conduct’.

As it stands, there is not enough information to provide a substantiated score on this issue.

Within 90 days of entering on duty for new DoD employees and within 180 days of entering active duty for enlisted members of the Armed Services, employees must receive an ‘Initial Ethics Orientation’ (IEO) [1]. Given the fact that training has to follow the requirements of the training component of the OGE Standards of Ethical Conduct, it is assumed that this training covers issues relating to financial conflicts of interest; impartiality; misuse of position; and gifts [2]. Initial ethics training for both civilian and military personnel is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 5, § 2638.304 [2].

The conduct of officers of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) is primarily regulated by two legal instruments, the Military Discipline Law (LDM) and the Organic Code of Military Justice (COJM). The Ethics Code for public servants purportedly exists as a separate instrument to these laws, but it is impossible to corroborate its validity and official character since it is not available on the official sites of the FANB or the Ministry of the People’s Power for Defence (MPPD) [1]. Moreover, the code lacks clear guidelines on receiving bribes and other conduct associated with corruption.

The LDM sets out values and principles, such as the truth, justice, and impartiality that form part of the ethic and morale of the military. It also includes various kinds of misdemeanour, articulating certain behaviours as serious misconduct: to “provide FANB property and resources to a third party for profit”, or to “solicit or accept money, goods, or services in compensation for acts of service”, among other behaviors associated with corruption [2]. The COJM it establishes offences against the military administration, including unlawful and personal use of public property, which could be punishable by up to eight years’ imprisonment [3].

The aforementioned legislation is presented in technical, legal language that may make it difficult for FANB members to understand. Moreover, none of these instruments sets out clearly and explicitly that this type of behaviour is directly related to corruption offences, nor makes any reference to different forms of bribery, nor details misdemeanours that can be committed through a conflict of interests. The Military Discipline Law specifically states that it applies to moblised FANB members [2], so it does not include regulation relating to activities following active service.

Both legal instruments provide for disciplinary and judicial proceedings for military personnel who commit offences and misdemeanors. However, the institutions and discharge of the processes are described in technical language that may require legal assistance to be understood. The procedures established for disciplinary misconduct cases in which bribes have been accepted, and for crimes of misappropriation of assets, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of military agencies, with no clear coordination with civil bodies. As such, the ability of civil organisations to file complaints is limited, making it difficult to monitor these processes – which can be handled with total discretion by military entities.

The FANB Ethics Code is available on the official websites of the FANB and the MPPD. Given the general levels of secrecy and lack of access to official information, it was not possible to find information confirming whether the code is valid and if it is officially circulated within the military. Both the Military Discipline Law and the COJM are available for both civilians and military personnel to access; however, both texts are written in technical and legal language that makes it difficult for military and civilian personnel who lack legal knowledge to understand them. Among the publicly accessible materials there were no summary booklets or graphic materials that presented the provisions of either of these laws in a simple and synthetic way.

Information on investigations on or penalties against FANB members for engaging in any of the conduct set out in the LDM and the COJM is rarely disclosed. Moreover, it has been alleged that disciplinary and judicial proceedings have been influenced by political interests in recent years, with irregularities in proceedings and impunity in the face of specific allegations of officers’ involvement in crimes punishable by law.

In recent years officers have been punished for crimes such as treason, rebellion, misdemeanours such as the disobedience of orders, and other behaviours associated with the current political crisis [1]. These processes have seen mass expulsions of members from the FANB and arrests of military officers. According to civil society organisations, these processes were irregular, since arrests were made without prior court order and resolutions of sanctions against officers were published before a military court order was issued – there was a lack of compliance with due process [2, 3]. In investigations into recent defections of FANB members, information has been collected in which members of the armed forces report constant intimidation from their superiors, with the possibility of punishment if they do not maintain loyalty to the Maduro regime [4].

In addition to proceedings initiated for the aforementioned offences, reports from national and international organisations have accused officials of involvement in organised crime activities; however, no judicial proceedings appear to have been initiated regarding military officers’ involvement in these practices. Despite evidence presented regarding these cases, information is only available on investigations announced by the Public Prosecutor’s Office [5]; no information was found to allow monitoring of these investigations, nor announcements of military personnel who have been punished for these crimes. Cases of military involvement in corruption in Venezuela and involvement in transnational crimes have been intermationally condemned, and the EU and US governments have imposed individual sanctions in certain cases [6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Evidence indicates high levels of educational content received by military personnel in what has been termed “Bolivarian thinking”, which focuses on doctrine governing military behaviour [1]. However, there is no evidence of behavioural training that seeks to prevent disciplinary misconduct, bribery-related offences, the acceptance of gifts, conflicts of interest, or other activities directly related to corruption. The main emphasis of this education is on loyalty to the revolutionary process and to political ideals [2].

There is no code of conduct readily available for military personnel. Conduct is outlined in command briefs or unit standing orders, which otherwise vary depending on who the commander is [1]. Issues of bribery are rarely included in the briefs, though they are sometimes mentioned at parades. Conduct is mostly guided by the Defence Act, but the act does not adequately address bribery, and there is nothing on gifts and hospitality [2].

This indicator is marked “Not Applicable,” as there is no code of conduct.

This indicator is marked “Not Applicable,” as there is no code of conduct.

This indicator is marked “Not Applicable,” as there is no code of conduct.

Country Sort by Country 46a. Code of conduct Sort By Subindicator 46b. Transparency Sort By Subindicator 46c. Enforcement Sort By Subindicator 46d. Training Sort By Subindicator
Albania 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 NEI
Algeria 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Angola 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Argentina 50 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Armenia 25 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Australia 75 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Azerbaijan 50 / 100 NEI 25 / 100 0 / 100
Bahrain 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Bangladesh 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Belgium 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Botswana 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Brazil 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100
Burkina Faso 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Cameroon 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Canada 75 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100 100 / 100
Chile 50 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
China 25 / 100 100 / 100 NEI NEI
Colombia 75 / 100 100 / 100 NEI NEI
Cote d'Ivoire 50 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Denmark 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Egypt 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Finland 25 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100 NEI
France 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Germany 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Ghana 25 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Greece 50 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Hungary 50 / 100 25 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
India 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Indonesia 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Iran 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Iraq 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Israel 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Italy 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Japan 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Jordan 25 / 100 50 / 100 NA 50 / 100
Kenya 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Kosovo 50 / 100 75 / 100 NA 50 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Lebanon 75 / 100 75 / 100 NA 0 / 100
Lithuania 50 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Malaysia 75 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Mali 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100
Mexico 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 50 / 100
Montenegro 25 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100 75 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Myanmar 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Netherlands 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
New Zealand 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Niger 25 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100 100 / 100
Nigeria 50 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
North Macedonia 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Norway 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Oman 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Palestine 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Philippines 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
Poland 25 / 100 100 / 100 NA 75 / 100
Portugal 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Qatar 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Russia 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Saudi Arabia 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 25 / 100 100 / 100 NEI NEI
Singapore 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Africa 50 / 100 100 / 100 NEI 100 / 100
South Korea 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
South Sudan 25 / 100 50 / 100 NEI 0 / 100
Spain 50 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Sudan 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Sweden 50 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Switzerland 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Taiwan 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Tanzania 50 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Thailand 75 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100 100 / 100
Tunisia 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Turkey 0 / 100 NA NA NA
Uganda 50 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Ukraine 100 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100 100 / 100
United Arab Emirates 75 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
United Kingdom 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100 75 / 100
United States 100 / 100 100 / 100 NEI 100 / 100
Venezuela 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Zimbabwe 0 / 100 NA NA NA

With thanks for support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2022