The accountability gap : criminal accountability for sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations military contingent members

United Nations peacekeepers are deployed to protect civilians and support communities affected by conflict, yet sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by peacekeeping personnel fundamentally contradicts this mandate. SEA can cause lasting harm to victims, families, and communities, while undermining local trust in peacekeepers and damaging the legitimacy and effectiveness of UN peacekeeping operations. These consequences make accountability for perpetrators essential. This thesis examines the extent to which substantiated SEA allegations involving UN military contingent members result in accountability and the conditions under which criminal accountability occurs. Using a mixed-method research design, the study combines a descriptive overview of the UN Conduct and Discipline SEA dataset from 2015 to 2026 with comparative case studies of Cameroon and South Africa. The analysis examines investigation outcomes and subsequent administrative, personnel, and criminal/legal consequences, while the case studies explore how national military justice systems and institutional procedures shape accountability. The findings show that substantiated allegations frequently result in accountability, but predominantly through personnel removal rather than criminal/legal action. Of 161 substantiated cases, 152 (94%) resulted in personnel removal and 82 (51%) in criminal/legal action. Criminal/legal accountability also varied substantially across TCCs: 94% of Cameroon’s substantiated cases resulted in criminal/legal action, compared with 6% of South Africa’s. These findings demonstrate that substantiation does not guarantee criminal accountability. Because criminal jurisdiction over military contingent members remains with TCCs, accountability ultimately depends on how national authorities exercise that jurisdiction. The study therefore identifies the decentralized jurisdictional structure of UN peacekeeping, together with variation in national implementation, as a central source of uneven criminal accountability.