Informal International Lawmaking (“IN-LAW”)  Prof. Joost Pauwelyn Graduate Institute, Geneva
Project Background <ul><li>HiiL:  Transnational Constitutionality:  Democracy and Accountability in the Context of Informa...
Project Phases <ul><li>I: Mapping the action (case studies) </li></ul><ul><li>II: Incidence & variance (accountability;  e...
IN-LAW Activities to Date <ul><li>HiiL Tender, September 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>IN-LAW Project starts November 2009 </li><...
What is IN-LAW? <ul><li>Cross-border cooperation between public authorities, with or without the participation of private ...
« Informal » dispenses with certain formalities traditionally linked to international law   <ul><li>Output  informality </...
Main Questions <ul><li>Move away from law and international organizations? </li></ul><ul><li>Why & When? (sociological; ta...
Definition of Accountability <ul><li>Broad definition :  responsiveness (v. disregard) to people (both substantively and p...
Lenses to Assess Accountability <ul><li>International v. Domestic </li></ul><ul><li>Internal (delegation) v. External (par...
Calibrating accountability of IN-LAW <ul><li>Need for accountability rises with impact of IN-LAW </li></ul><ul><li>Account...
Accountability of IN-LAW <ul><li>Tension informality & ex post, institutionalized accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Compens...
THE IN-LAW ACCOUNTABILITY TABLE ICH towards non-members & other affected actors FDA towards Brazilian people  (open notice...
Effectiveness <ul><li>Does cooperation materialize? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it stick? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it solve the p...
Preliminary conclusions <ul><li>Variable scale and types of accountability depending on effect </li></ul><ul><li>Importanc...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

LOTF2011 | Joost Pauwelyn

641 views
610 views

Published on

Law of the Future 2011
23 & 24 June 2011, Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

title: Informal International Lawmaking (“IN-LAW”)
By: Prof. Joost Pauwelyn

www.lawofthefuture.org

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
641
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LOTF2011 | Joost Pauwelyn

  1. 1. Informal International Lawmaking (“IN-LAW”) Prof. Joost Pauwelyn Graduate Institute, Geneva
  2. 2. Project Background <ul><li>HiiL: Transnational Constitutionality: Democracy and Accountability in the Context of Informal International Public Policy-Making </li></ul><ul><li>HiiL: Problem-focused – “informality” makes activity fall between the cracks of both international and domestic law controls? </li></ul><ul><li>“ New” International Law; “Informal” International Lawmaking </li></ul>
  3. 3. Project Phases <ul><li>I: Mapping the action (case studies) </li></ul><ul><li>II: Incidence & variance (accountability; effectiveness; domestic dimension) </li></ul><ul><li>III: Conclusions & suggestions for reform </li></ul>
  4. 4. IN-LAW Activities to Date <ul><li>HiiL Tender, September 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>IN-LAW Project starts November 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Kick-off meeting, Nov. 2009, Geneva </li></ul><ul><li>1st Workshop, June 2010, Geneva - concepts </li></ul><ul><li>2nd Workshop, Nov. 2010, Leuven - case studies </li></ul><ul><li>3rd Workshop, March 2011, NIAS – case studies & preliminary assessment </li></ul><ul><li>4th Workshop, June 2011, The Hague </li></ul><ul><li>- domestic elaboration & implementation </li></ul>
  5. 5. What is IN-LAW? <ul><li>Cross-border cooperation between public authorities, with or without the participation of private actors and/or international organizations, in a forum other than a traditional international organization ( process informality ), and/or as between actors other than traditional diplomatic actors (such as regulators or agencies) ( actor informality ) and/or which does not result in a formal treaty or other traditional source of international law ( output informality ). </li></ul>
  6. 6. « Informal » dispenses with certain formalities traditionally linked to international law <ul><li>Output informality </li></ul><ul><li>does not lead to a formal treaty or any other traditional source of international law, but rather to a guideline, standard, declaration or even more informal policy coordination or exchange </li></ul><ul><li>- Less domestic oversight? </li></ul><ul><li>- Is it even international law? </li></ul><ul><li>Process informality </li></ul><ul><li>occurs in a loosely organized network or forum rather than a traditional international organization (think of the G-20, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision or the Financial Action Task Force, versus the UN or the WTO) </li></ul><ul><li>- Subject of international law? </li></ul><ul><li>- Less or more accountable? </li></ul><ul><li>Actor informality </li></ul><ul><li>does not engage traditional diplomatic actors (such as heads of state, foreign ministers or embassies) but rather other ministries, domestic regulators, independent or semi-independent agencies (such as food safety authorities or central banks), sub-federal entities (such as provinces or municipalities) or the legislative or judicial branch. </li></ul><ul><li>- Subject of international law? </li></ul><ul><li>- Less or more accountable? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Main Questions <ul><li>Move away from law and international organizations? </li></ul><ul><li>Why & When? (sociological; tactical; normative) </li></ul><ul><li>Not whether IN-LAW “is” law but “regulated by” law (coercion only through law) </li></ul><ul><li>Subject to domestic law controls (problem of external stakeholders) </li></ul><ul><li>Subject to international law controls (problem of consent; outdated & running behind?) </li></ul><ul><li>Blurring of domestic v. international, public v. private divides </li></ul><ul><li>Neglected in legal research, law school curriculum </li></ul>
  8. 8. Definition of Accountability <ul><li>Broad definition : responsiveness (v. disregard) to people (both substantively and procedurally) ( Slaughter/Stewart ) </li></ul><ul><li>Narrow definition : ex post, institutionalized relation between actor and forum ( Bovens ) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Lenses to Assess Accountability <ul><li>International v. Domestic </li></ul><ul><li>Internal (delegation) v. External (participation) </li></ul><ul><li>Substantive (output) v. Procedural (input) </li></ul><ul><li>Democratic (as virtue) v. Neutral (as mechanism) </li></ul><ul><li>Preconditions (transparency) v. Mechanisms (narrow sense: electoral; hierarchical; supervisory; fiscal & legal) v. Other Accountability-Promoting Measures (broad sense: market; peer; reputation) </li></ul><ul><li>Ex ante v. Ongoing v. Ex post Control </li></ul><ul><li>Independence v. Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>No one-size fit all (spectrum: deficit – overload) </li></ul>
  10. 10. Calibrating accountability of IN-LAW <ul><li>Need for accountability rises with impact of IN-LAW </li></ul><ul><li>Accountability can be organized at different levels, be of different types & require different tools </li></ul><ul><li>Substantive principles against which to be held to account (universal?) </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation frameworks to assess accountability regimes </li></ul>
  11. 11. Accountability of IN-LAW <ul><li>Tension informality & ex post, institutionalized accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Compensated by other, novel mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Not more but better accountability (deficit v. overload/effectiveness/independence) </li></ul><ul><li>(timing, level, relationship, mechanism) </li></ul><ul><li>Internal accountability at international level (to extent de jure or de facto powers; agency) & especially at domestic level (electoral, hierarchical, supervisory, fiscal & legal) </li></ul><ul><li>External accountability especially at international level (less domestically) </li></ul>
  12. 12. THE IN-LAW ACCOUNTABILITY TABLE ICH towards non-members & other affected actors FDA towards Brazilian people (open notice & comment procedure in US) FDA towards Brazilian people ICH towards non-members & other affected actors (Brazil gets voice & input at ICH) Toward EXTERNAL Stakeholders ‘ law-takers’ affected by IN-LAW; participation model ICH towards ICH members & their constituencies FDA towards US people; FDA bound to US regulations also for international (ICH) activity FDA towards US people, other internal stakeholders ( de facto application of US law to ICH) ICH towards ICH members & their constituencies (voting, transparency etc. at ICH) Toward INTERNAL stakeholders ‘ law-makers’ part of IN-LAW; delegation model IN-LAW network as such Individual participants Individual participants IN-LAW network as such Accountability at the DOMESTIC Level Accountability at the INTERNATIONAL Level
  13. 13. Effectiveness <ul><li>Does cooperation materialize? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it stick? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it solve the problem? </li></ul><ul><li>Does it do so in a cost-effective way? </li></ul><ul><li>Accountability = effectiveness (substantive responsiveness; learning dimension) </li></ul>
  14. 14. Preliminary conclusions <ul><li>Variable scale and types of accountability depending on effect </li></ul><ul><li>Importance of domestic law & accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Complement with international accountability especially toward external stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Flexible common law set of principles (procedural & substantive) to achieve accountability of IN-LAW </li></ul><ul><li>Effective IN-LAW more accountable than formal international law? (informalize formal law rather than formalize informal law) </li></ul><ul><li>Adjust notion of “law”? (monist countries; interaction; academic discipline; law school curriculum) </li></ul><ul><li>Whether or not “law”, if IN-LAW affects fundamental rights, must be controlled “by law” </li></ul>

×