Lawful by Design

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Lischewski

In recent years, the procedural rules of global governance institutions have come under scrutiny from scholars worldwide and have been conceptualized as akin to domestic administrative law. However, one question has so far not been addressed: who shapes this procedure and why? In the present work, Isabel Lischewski develops a simple matrix connecting procedure and state interest. When this matrix is applied to a sample of forty diverse institutions, fascinating patterns emerge, which are further explored through in-depth case studies. It is shown that states prefer to balance sovereignty preservation through procedure with the costs it entails. Thus, normative considerations are not the predominant basis on which this procedure is designed. The research provides original insights into the landscape of global governance procedure and cautions against a notion of “apolitical” administration law.

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.


Author(s):  
Jonas Tallberg ◽  
Karin Bäckstrand ◽  
Jan Aart Scholte

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume, which engages with the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. This introductory chapter explains the rationale of the book, introduces its conceptual framework, reviews existing literature, and presents the key themes of the volume. It emphasizes in particular the volume’s sociological approach to legitimacy in global governance, its comparative scope, and its comprehensive treatment of the topic. Moreover, a specific effort is made to explain how each chapter moves beyond existing research in exploring the book’s three themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392199910
Author(s):  
Nina Frahm ◽  
Tess Doezema ◽  
Sebastian Pfotenhauer

Long presented as a universal policy-recipe for social prosperity and economic growth, the promise of innovation seems to be increasingly in question, giving way to a new vision of progress in which society is advanced as a central enabler of technoeconomic development. Frameworks such as “Responsible” or “Mission-oriented” Innovation, for example, have become commonplace parlance and practice in the governance of the innovation–society nexus. In this paper, we study the dynamics by which this “social fix” to technoscience has gained legitimacy in institutions of global governance by investigating recent projects at two international organizations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Commission, to mainstream “Responsible Innovation” frameworks and instruments across countries. Our analysis shows how the turn to societal participation in both organizations relies on a new deficit logic—a democratic deficit of innovation—that frames a lack of societal engagement in innovation governance as a major barrier to the uptake and dissemination of new technologies. These deficit politics enable global governance institutions to present “Responsible Innovation” frameworks as the solution and to claim authority over the coproduction of particular forms of democracy and innovation as intertwined pillars of a market-liberal international order.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Aart Scholte ◽  
Soetkin Verhaegen ◽  
Jonas Tallberg

Abstract This article examines what contemporary elites think about global governance and what these attitudes might bode for the future of global institutions. Evidence comes from a unique survey conducted in 2017–19 across six elite sectors (business, civil society, government bureaucracy, media, political parties, research) in six countries (Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, the United States) and a global group. Bearing in mind some notable variation between countries, elite types, issue-areas and institutions, three main interconnected findings emerge. First, in principle, contemporary leaders in politics and society hold considerable readiness to pursue global-scale governance. Today's elites are not generally in a nationalist-protectionist-sovereigntist mood. Second, in practice, these elites on average hold medium-level confidence towards fourteen current global governance institutions. This evidence suggests that, while there is at present no legitimacy crisis of global governance among elites (as might encourage its decline), neither is there a legitimacy boom (as could spur its expansion). Third, if we probe what elites prioritize when they evaluate global governance, the surveyed leaders generally most underline democracy in the procedures of these bodies and effectiveness in their performance. This finding suggests that, to raise elites' future confidence in global governance, the institutions would do well to become more transparent in their operations and more impactful problem-solvers in their outcomes.


2021 ◽  

Global governance has come under increasing pressure since the end of the Cold War. In some issue areas, these pressures have led to significant changes in the architecture of governance institutions. In others, institutions have resisted pressures for change. This volume explores what accounts for this divergence in architecture by identifying three modes of governance: hierarchies, networks, and markets. The authors apply these ideal types to different issue areas in order to assess how global governance has changed and why. In most issue areas, hierarchical modes of governance, established after World War II, have given way to alternative forms of organization focused on market or network-based architectures. Each chapter explores whether these changes are likely to lead to more or less effective global governance across a wide range of issue areas. This provides a novel and coherent theoretical framework for analysing change in global governance.


Author(s):  
Klaus Dingwerth

The chapter summarizes and reflects upon the core findings of our study. Compared to the 1970s and 1980s, how have the norms and values that underpin the justification, appraisal, and critique of international organizations shifted in the post-1990 world? The chapter argues that legitimacy standards of the national constellation are increasingly complemented by the legitimacy standards of the ‘post-national constellation’. While the legitimacy standards of the national constellation emphasize state sovereignty, functional cooperation, and non-coerciveness, the legitimacy standards of the post-national constellation conceptualize individuals as rights holders and are guided by a cosmopolitan ideal of inclusive global governance. More specifically, the case studies reveal a rise of people-based legitimation norms and a rise of procedural legitimacy standards. As the study shows, the politicization of expanded international authority is one important source of normative change. Other sources include the rise of new legitimation constituencies and self-reinforcing dynamics of normative change.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin van Rooij ◽  
Li Na ◽  
Wang Qiliang

Scholars and politicians often complain about how weak administrative law enforcement is in China. To better understand the challenges in law enforcement, as well as variation in actual practices and influences on such practices, the current paper analyzes Chinese pollution law enforcement data from the last two decades as well as in depth qualitative case studies of everyday enforcement practices. It finds that recently enforcement has become much more frequent and stricter. It finds that recent changes in national legislation, centralization reforms, increased citizen complaints, as well as enforcement campaigns all played a role in this. While this has helped strengthen enforcement, and maybe has played a part in recent pollution reductions, it has not fundamentally overcome structural enforcement impediments. The increased authority, independence, and pressure on environmental authorities for stricter enforcement, does not seem to be matched with sufficient investment in resource capacity and support for regular procedural enforcement practices. In addition, the ad-hoc pressure on enforcement has undermined regular legal procedure and stimulated greater socio-economic inequality. These findings about pollution enforcement force us to question simplistic static generalizations of administrative law enforcement and instead develop both large-scale studies that map change over time as well as in-depth case studies that provide a thorough picture of actual practices on the ground. Moreover, the paper concludes that a true picture of administrative enforcement must move beyond looking at the enforcement itself, to looking at how it arrives at the regulated companies and shapes their compliance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document