Global Values in International Organisations 423the political moment; perhaps Member States were not sufficiently con-
vinced that a dedicated ethics office was necessary at that time. The
Committee clarified that it would approve creation of the UN Ethics
Office; however, it set strict limits on level and rank of staff, number of
staff, location of services to be provided, and overall budget.
The flavor of the discussions and oral debate about creating a UN
Ethics Office cannot now be resurrected. The legislative documents in-
dicate that the concept was seriously considered by the General Assem-
bly, met with scrutiny and skepticism, yet was ultimately adopted. On 1
January 2006, the UN Ethics Office opened its doors.
The General Assembly created the UN Ethics Office with one hand,
and limited its mandate and potential impact with the other hand. The
Office received four direct and predominantly ministerial mandates:
training, advice, financial disclosure, and intake of retaliation com-
plaints. The Office could be consulted on policy issues, but only if re-
quested. Finally, the Office was granted “independent status” but its
reporting line and capacity to interact directly with Member States is
controlled directly by the Secretary-General. Nothing in the political and
legislative records would indicate that the General Assembly considered
the creation of the UN Ethics Office as instrumental in molding the na-
ture of the international civil service or in guiding ethical decision-
making and behavior of UN staff. Though the Secretary-General de-
scribed the ultimate mission of the UN Ethics Office to support and
maintain an ethical organizational culture, there is nothing in the legisla-
tive record that reinforces that role.
There is, however, one body that has the mandate to consider the
conditions of service of international civil servants. Theoretically, such a
body could also consider the ethical virtues that are linked to such ser-
vice.