The UN Security Council increasingly authorizes weapons inspections to enforce nonproliferation. These are cases of indirect governance, where the Council (the governor) relies on separate bodies (intermediaries) to conduct inspections in states of concern (targets). Despite the risks, the Council often seems willing to forego control in return for gaining the benefits of a competent intermediary that can address its ambitious policy goals and capability deficits. These cases point to important differences between preexisting intermediaries (such as the IAEA and OPCW) and ad hoc intermediaries created for specific tasks (such as the inspection commissions that operated in Iraq). The latter are far more amendable to control, both ex ante and ex post. Over time, we see increasing goal divergence between the governor and intermediaries, driven mainly by the shifting interests of Security Council members, but we also see the competence of intermediaries increase as they gain on-the-ground experience, making control more difficult. The collective nature of the Security Council further complicates control efforts, creating a temptation for individual members to interfere unilaterally with intermediaries and targets. The analysis suggests that the role of sovereign, strategic targets deserves more attention in the study of indirect governance at the international level.
Measuring sustainability under regime shift uncertainty: a resilience pricing approach
