Doing Queer in the Everyday of Academia: Reflections on Queering a Conference in International Law

The pioneering 1990s movement in critical theory has generated path-breaking scholarship seeking to queer law. Efforts to queer international law have produced important research uncovering the role of international law as a performative discourse and as a transnational governance framework reproducing gendered and sexual hegemonies. However, these efforts have done very little to destabilize the structures and workings of the very site where international law is theorized and taught: the university. Queering international law has mostly entailed looking at how the state, international organizations, international lawyers, scholars, and civil society produce or resist the heteronormative matrix, “that grid of cultural intelligibility through which bodies, genders, and desires are naturalized.” But what about the role of the university and its everyday routines––themselves byproducts of the aforementioned matrix––in reproducing and/or resisting (gendered) hierarchies and exclusions? We have raised this question as young scholars involved in organizing a week-long event on queer methods in international legal scholarship. The present essay is a first attempt at grappling with what the queering of an academic conference in international law meant for us, and for the university itself. It echoes a recent trend in scholarship on queer pedagogies, which, however, remain mostly silent on practices of scientific exchange. By reflecting on our efforts to queer a workshop in the field of international law, we also hope to inspire others to pursue their own queer processes of knowledge production.

Africa, 2030 Agenda and Agenda 2063

The hierarchical state-led model of governance that is used to address global policy issues has proved to be wanting on sustainable development. This chapter discusses the concept of transnational governance of sustainable development, focusing on the United Nations 2030 Agenda and Agenda 2063 in Africa. The premise is that implementation of the two agendas represents an enormous challenge to African governments in terms of resources, extent, and urgency. The chapter will make a reasonable case that transnational governance is required for active engagement of non-state actors and relevant institutions to mobilize resources to support the effective implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda and Agenda 2063 in Africa.

The de-institutionalisation of power beyond the state

The making of modern authority centred on efforts to formalise and de-personalise power, and transnational orders such as the European Union have often been viewed as an extension of that project. As this article argues, recent developments tell a different story. More than a decade of crisis politics has seen institutions subordinated to and reshaped by individuals and the networks they form. Locating these tendencies in a wider historical context, the article argues that greater attention to informality in transnational governance needs to be paired with greater recognition of the normative questions it raises. Just as a separation between rulers and the offices of rule was central to the making of modern legal and political structures, the weakening of that separation creates legitimacy problems for contemporary authorities both national and supranational. Rather than acclaimed as flexible problem-solving, the step back from institutions should be viewed as a challenge to accountable rule.

Inclusion in Global Environmental Governance: Sustained Access, Engagement and Influence in Decisive Spaces

With increased participation of non-state actors in global governance, the inclusion of vulnerable groups in making sustainability regulations remains a relevant challenge requiring more research. Based on an ethnographic study on creating the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing of biological resources and knowledge, we advance a new multi-dimensional view of inclusion that integrates sustained access, involvement, and influence in the intergovernmental negotiation meetings. We elaborate the concept of decisive spaces, that is, less accessible settings where diverse actors interact in a deliberative way to co-produce recommendations and solutions to an issue that highly influence the regulatory and governance decisions. We argue that the inclusion of vulnerable actors depends on their continuous access to and involvement in these decisive spaces for creating and implementing transnational regulations. Our findings advance the understanding of inclusion for addressing challenges facing transnational governance of environmental, equity, and social justice issues.

Transnational Representation in Global Labour Governance and the Politics of Input Legitimacy

Private governance raises important questions about democratic representation. Rule making is rarely based on electoral authorisation by those in whose name rules are made—typically a requirement for democratic legitimacy. This requires revisiting the role of representation in input legitimacy in transnational governance, which remains underdeveloped. Focussing on private labour governance, we contrast two approaches to the transnational representation of worker interests in global supply chains: non-governmental organisations providing representative claims versus trade unions providing representative structures. Studying the Bangladesh Accord for Fire and Building Safety, we examine their interaction along three dimensions of democratic representation: 1) creating presence, 2) authorisation, and 3) accountability to affected constituents. We develop a framework that explains when representative claims and structures become complementary but also how the politics of input legitimacy shape whose interests get represented. We conclude by deriving theoretical and normative implications for transnational representation and input legitimacy in global governance.