|
...Analysis critique tend focus on these two aspects of globalization: the economic winners and losers, and the removal of traditional governments accountable to a fixed population from much of politics. This is understandable since international agencies, expert committees, and hybrid interest-driven networks increasingly make decisions that affect large numbers of people. As formerly public responsibilities have been assumed by these new entities, however, there is evidence of an emerging normative context within which such activity takes place, characterized by a demand for accountability in decisionmaking. Responses to this demand have been piecemeal, sometimes inconsistent, and frequently inadequate. But seen as a whole, those responses have begun to coalesce into an entirely new area of law that may provide a set of rules for accountability in globalization: a global administrative law. (1)
The emerging set of rules referred to here as "global administrative law" encompasses procedures and normative standards for regulatory decisionmaking that falls outside domestic legal structures and yet is not properly covered by existing international law, which traditionally governs state-to-state relations rather than the exercise of regulatory authority with direct or indirect effects on individuals. The standards that are being imported into this new sphere of regulatory activity draw upon existing administrative law principles common in many jurisdictions, such as transparency, participation, and review. (2) As a response to the demand for accountability in globalization, then, this is distinct from demands that globalization be made more democratic; instead, these developments aim to make it more reasoned. Though much of the discussion here is descriptive of existing phenomena, it will be argued that the consolidation of these moves would improve both the quality of decisionmaking and the ability of those affected by decisions to protect their legitimate rights and interests.
The fragmented nature of activity in this area to date is easily seen. The forums in which regulatory decisions are being made range from formal treaty-based organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization (WTO) to networks of government officials such as the Basel Committee of national bank regulators. In addition to government representatives, the actors include experts such as the technical committees of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). And, increasingly, less formal networks of interested parties play a role in developing standards in areas as diverse as "fair trade" coffee and "dolphin-friendly" tuna. Participation in these disparate decisionmaking processes varies widely, but there is rarely a general right for affected parties to challenge a decision; frequently it is not possible even to seek reasons as to why a particular decision was made.
The disparate regimes may overlap--sometimes quite intentionally--as the market comes to be regulated by a market of regulation. In some areas, competing standards may be adopted on a "voluntary" basis, though the global marketplace quickly leads to standards becoming mandatory as a commercial reality if not a legal requirement. Mechanisms that have sought to regulate these activities tend to come from traditional governance institutions operating at the limits of or beyond their traditional boundaries. At the national level, courts and legislatures have increasingly asserted a capacity to review domestic implementation of global standards and national officials' participation in global administrative decisions. At the international level, accountability may depend on specific mechanisms established for a particular regime, such as the WTO's inspections panels and Appellate Body, (3) or reactive
ad hoc bodies, such as the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme (the Volcker Committee). For many regimes, there is no formal review procedure at all and no means of calling for one. (4)
Dissatisfaction with these piecemeal and inconsistent regimes is, ironically, one of the reasons why they may be thought of as part of a larger whole. As demands for transparency, participation, and review are made across sectors, similar conversations are taking place in discrete communities of practitioners, advocates, and academics. The term global administrative law does not presume that the normative response to these questions is uniform--or that it should be. But as an emerging area of practice, the concept of a global administrative law can help frame these questions of accountability and sketch out some appropriate responses.
This article discusses the practice of global administration before surveying the forms and structures of accountability that are developing. It then addresses some of the key questions of power disparities that affect both the mechanisms created and how they are implemented. The article touches on a range of bodies engaging in what is termed here global administration; significant time, however, is spent on the United Nations as the organization that is most familiar to nonspecialists but also the one whose accountability has been most prominently questioned in recent years. The argument made here is that the whole of these emerging practices may yet make up more than the sum of its parts: global administrative law will not displace calls for greater democratization in global decisionmaking processes, but it can address many of the concerns brought under that large and ill-defined tent while being significantly more likely to achieve traction with the decisionmakers themselves.
Global Administration
Global governance was...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Global Governance
North-South parity in global governance: the affirmative procedures of..., January 01, 2008
Transparency, accountability, and global governance.(Essay), January 01, 2008
The UN secretary-general and norm entrepreneurship: Boutros Boutros-Gh..., January 01, 2008
Climate change and global environmental governance.(REVIEW ESSAY)(Crit..., January 01, 2008
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
%20%20&position=1)