Interpol plays a critical role in coordinating international efforts to combat crime, terrorism, and other transnational threats. However, in recent years, concerns have been raised about the potential for private funding of Interpol to unduly bias the organisation's neutrality. Private funding refers to financial contributions made by corporations, foundations, or individuals to support the work of Interpol. While private funding can be a valuable source of support for organisations, it also raises questions about the potential for conflicts of interest and undue influence.

 

Interpol's mission is to promote international police cooperation and to assist in the enforcement of national and international laws. To fulfil this mission effectively, Interpol must be, and be seen as, an impartial and neutral organisation that operates solely in the interests of justice and the rule of law.

 

However, if private entities are allowed to fund Interpol's activities, there is a risk that the organisation's decisions and actions could be influenced by the interests of these funders. For example, a corporation that contributes significant funding to Interpol may expect the organisation to prioritise investigations that align with the corporation's interests or to avoid investigating matters that could harm the corporation's reputation.

 

Another concern with private funding of Interpol is that it could compromise the organisation's transparency and accountability. Private funders may expect a level of influence or control over the organisation's activities in exchange for their financial support. This could result in a lack of transparency regarding Interpol's decision-making processes, as well as a lack of accountability for the organisation's actions.

 

Furthermore, private funding could lead to a situation where Interpol is seen as a tool of powerful interests rather than an impartial law enforcement organisation. This could undermine the trust and cooperation that Interpol relies on to carry out its mission effectively.

​

While Interpol has taken steps to strengthen its policies and procedures around private funding. For example, the establishment of a Code of Ethics that sets out the principles that should guide its relationship with private funders. The code emphasises the importance of transparency, accountability, and impartiality in Interpol's dealings with private entities.

​

Interpol has also established a dedicated unit to oversee its private sector engagement. This unit is responsible for ensuring that private funding is used in accordance with Interpol's Code of Ethics and, theoretically ensuring that the organisation's independence and neutrality are not compromised by its relationships with private entities.

​

While these measures are a step in the right direction, they do not go far enough to address the potential risks associated with private funding of Interpol. Objectively, the organisation's Code of Ethics is not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive to provide clear guidance on how to manage the risks of private funding effectively.  There is, for instance, no independent oversight of private funding or its use, and indeed, no external accountability mechanisms to investigate potentially biassed practices by Interpol that may occur as a result of that funding.

​

To address these concerns, IPEX believes several measures could be implemented to improve the financial and operational transparency of Interpol.  These broadly include:

 

1. Increased Transparency around Private Funding

​

One of the primary concerns regarding Interpol's operations is the potential for private funding to unduly influence the organisation's decisions and actions. To address this concern, Interpol should increase its transparency around private funding by:

​

a. Requiring all private donations to be disclosed publicly: Interpol should require that all private donations, regardless of their size, are disclosed publicly on the organisation's website. This will enable greater scrutiny of Interpol's funding sources and help to identify potential conflicts of interest.

​

b. Implementing clear guidelines for the acceptance of private funding: Interpol should establish clear guidelines for the acceptance of private funding to ensure that the organisation's independence and neutrality are not compromised. These guidelines should cover issues such as the types of activities that can be funded by private entities and the conditions that may be attached to such funding.

​

c. Establishing an independent oversight body to monitor the use of private funding: Interpol should establish an independent oversight body, with representatives from civil society, to monitor the use of private funding and ensure that it is being used in accordance with Interpol's guidelines and the principles of transparency, accountability, and impartiality.

​

2. Strengthening Oversight of the Issuance of Red Notices

​

Another area of concern regarding Interpol's operations is the lack of oversight surrounding the issuance of Red Notices. Red Notices are a type of international arrest warrant issued by Interpol at the request of a member country. However, there have been instances where Red Notices have been used for political purposes, raising concerns about the potential for abuse. To address this concern, Interpol should strengthen its oversight of the issuance of Red Notices by:

​

a. Implementing more rigorous criteria for the issuance of Red Notices: Interpol should establish more rigorous criteria for the issuance of Red Notices to ensure that they are only used for legitimate law enforcement purposes. This could include requiring member countries to provide detailed evidence supporting their request for a Red Notice and requiring that requests be reviewed by an independent panel of experts.

​

b. Enhancing transparency around the issuance of Red Notices: Interpol should increase its transparency around the issuance of Red Notices by publishing detailed information about the criteria used to assess requests for Red Notices, the number of Red Notices issued, and the reasons for their issuance.

​

c. Establishing an independent oversight body to review requests for Red Notices: Interpol should establish an independent oversight body, with representatives from civil society, to review requests for Red Notices and ensure that they are being issued for legitimate law enforcement purposes and not for political purposes.

​

3. Enhancing Public Accountability

​

Finally, to enhance public accountability and increase public trust in Interpol, the organisation should take steps to enhance its public accountability by:

​

a. Strengthening its engagement with civil society: Interpol should strengthen its engagement with civil society by establishing regular consultations with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other stakeholders to discuss issues related to transparency and accountability.

​

b. Increasing its public reporting: Interpol should increase its public reporting on its activities, including its budget and financial statements, to provide greater transparency around its operations.

​

c. Establishing a complaints mechanism: Interpol should establish a complaints mechanism to enable members of the public to report any concerns they have about the organisation's activities, including its use of private funding.

​

d. Compensating victims who have been unfairly listed on Interpol’s database.

​

The international community must remain vigilant to ensure that Interpol remains an impartial and effective organisation that serves the interests of justice and the rule.  Interpol, therefore, must welcome input from the broader stakeholders who are impacted by how Interpol operates, if the organisation is to maintain credibility and the cooperation of member nations.