scholarly journals The Democratic Construction of Inherently Sovereign Functions

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 312-316
Author(s):  
Jean L. Cohen

In this essay, I approach the question of privatization from a normative political theory perspective. Following Mégret's lead, I focus on the inter- or transnational domain, with the aim of making explicit the norms that undergird Mégret's analysis despite the functional approach he apparently adopts. I argue that the normative basis of the ideas of sovereignty and publicness he relies on is parasitic on the principles of democratic legitimacy developed on the level of the constitutional democratic state. Put differently, my concern is less with the potential demise of public international law that privatization seems to portend, and more with privatization's threat to democratic self-government under both domestic and international public law.

Author(s):  
Steven Wheatley

Researchers on “democracy” in international law have to make an important methodological choice: They can examine the “democracy norm” from the perspective only of international law (state practice, treaty norms, international law texts, etc.) or they can locate their research within a wider body of social science literature, in particular considering the normative conception of democracy in political theory (electoral, deliberative, consociational, etc.) and the practice of democracy and democracy promotion identified in political science. The latter is recommended since the idea of democracy in international law did not emerge ex nihilo. To be meaningful, it seems reasonable to conclude that the international law conception of democracy must maintain its family relationship with the idea of democracy that has emerged in political thought and practice over time—after all no agreed definition of democracy exists in international law. For researchers engaged in a critique of doctrine and practice from the perspective of democratic legitimacy, more in-depth reading will be required and reading of the original materials is essential. This article introduces researchers to the key writings in the English language on democracy in international law and relevant readings that inform the debates in international law in cognate disciplines. While certain democratic elements can be found in international doctrine and practice over time, “democracy” as an identifiable principle of the international law order can be dated back to the 1990s and the ending of the Cold War. While the status and content of the “democracy norm” in international law remains contested, the influence of democratic ideals can be seen in a number of areas relating to legitimate political authority at the level of the state and, increasingly, the (democratic) legitimacy of international organizations and institutions. The principle of democracy is seen to have an influence in the functioning of international law and the practice of international relations and international governance: establishing a criterion for legitimate and lawful government, giving form to the right of peoples to political self-determination, providing a context for the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and establishing the basis for peaceable and nonpeaceable interstate relations. Moreover, following the globalization and fragmentation of governance functions, concern has grown increasingly with respect to the “democratic deficit” experienced by citizens at the level of the state, leading to proposals for the democratization of global governance and a literature that examines the extent to which a democratic state should accept the authority of nondemocratic international law norms.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 2013-2039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin von Bogdandy ◽  
Philipp Dann

The administration of the traditional nation-state used to operate as a rather closed system to the outside world. Today, cooperation between the public authorities of different States and between States and international bodies is a common phenomenon. Yet the characteristics and mechanics of such cooperation can hardly be understood using the concepts domestic public law or public international law currently on offer. Conventional concepts, such as federalism, confederalism or State-centered “realism” hardly fathom the complexity of interactions or reflect the changed role of the State, while more recent concepts, such as multi-level systems or networks, seem to encompass only parts of the phenomena at hand. Given this void, we propose to explore the notion of “composite administration” (Verbundverwaltung) and argue that it offers a concept which can combine more coherently the seemingly diverging legal elements of cooperation and hierarchy that distinguish administrative action in what often is called a multi-level administrative system. Even though the concept of composite administration was originally designed and further developed with respect to the largely federal European administrative space, we suggest testing the concept in the wider context of international cooperation. We believe that it offers valuable insights and raises critical questions, even though we do not intend to insinuate any proto-federal prospects of the institutions discussed in this paper.


Author(s):  
Shu-Perng Hwang

This article critically approaches the recent decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding the ban on strikes for civil servants. It shows that the judgment cannot be seen as a decision committed to international public law, as some scholars suggest. By once more adopting a material understanding of Art. 33 para. 5 Basic Law and thereby not only confirming the constitutionality, but in particular the constitutional status of the ban on strikes for civil servants, the court holds on to the absolute primacy of the Basic Law that is not to be undermined by the ECHR or the jurisprudence of the ECtHR as a means of interpretation. The reference to the need to contextualize the jurisprudence of the ECtHR as well as the emphasis on the national particularity of the Federal Republic of Germany clearly indicate that, by developing a state-centred principle of commitment to public international law, the court does not seek to align and harmonize the requirements of the ECHR and the Basic Law by developing a state-centred principle of commitment to public international law but rather to achieve a delimitation of competences between the spheres of the ECtHR and the Federal Constitutional Court.


1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rene Seerden

It is submitted in this article that transfrontier agreements (of a publiclaw character) between decentralized authorities can be considered as a kind of international administrative agreements. After investigation of the power to conclude international (administrative) agreements and their (assumed) binding legal force in public international law, the article concludes that transfrontier agreements between decentralized authorities are in principle of a national and not of an international public law character. This article is also focussed on (overall) legal bases for transfrontier cooperation between decentralized authorities. In this respect the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation Between Territorial Communities or Authorities is important and will be discussed. The purpose of this convention, in force in several European states, is to provide a legal basis for transfrontier cooperation (of a public law character) between decentralized authorities. However in this matter states still consider additional norms necessary. In this respect two additional treaties have been concluded and will be discussed. The article concludes that these treaties not really are overall legal bases for the conclusion of transfrontier agreements between decentralized authorities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document