This chapter establishes a framework for the analyis and assessment of the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. I establish a definition of IO accountability mechanisms, as well as a detailed taxonomy of them. I also propose a normative framework for assessing the sufficiency of IO accountability mechanisms, based on the right to remedy and procedural justice research. From these two strands of theory, I establish concrete normative yardsticks for assessing four aspects of IO accountability mechanisms: Access, Voice, Neutrality, and Outcome.

In this chapter the framework developed in Chapter 3 is applied to the UNHCR practice of administering refugee camps. I discuss how the UNHCR thus exercises power over individuals, both directly through its personel and through its so-called implementing partners. The sources of the UNHCR’s human rights obligations are also identified. Thereafter, I turn to assessing the applicable accountability mechanisms: the UNHCR Inspector General’s Office, the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services, and domestic courts. Neither of these mechanisms provide sufficient accountability.

The first part of this chapter describes the background to and the main elements in the negotiation of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The second part of the chapter analyses the negotiations, examining the conduct of the negotiations and the drafting outcome from the perspectives of key actors (principally US, UK, Soviet, French and ICRC delegations) with accompanying observations on positions taken by other delegations. The chapter then examines the implications of the negotiating history for the five hypotheses, finding that the drafting reflects a balance between competing symbolic costs and benefits arrived at largely through processes of principled contestation and moral and technical persuasion, conducted against the material backdrop of the nascent Cold War and decolonisation, as well as a broader humanitarian international normative Zeitgeist.

The 2-degrees target of the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 7 on energy are intrinsically intertwined and highlight the urgency of an effective and integrated approach on climate change and energy. However, there are over a hundred international and transnational institutions with different characteristics and priorities that aim to address climate and energy-related targets. While prior research has contributed useful insights into the complexity of climate and energy governance, respectively, an integrated and coherent analysis of the climate-energy nexus is lacking. This chapter therefore maps, visualizes, and analyzes this nexus, i.e. institutions that seek to govern climate change and energy simultaneously. In addition, the chapter zooms in on three specific subsets of institutions: renewable energy, fossil fuel subsidy reform, and carbon pricing. The mapping and analysis are based on a new dataset and provide first insights into the gaps, overlaps, and varying degrees of complexity of the climate-energy nexus and across its subfields. Moreover, the chapter serves as the empirical basis for further analyses of coherence, management, legitimacy, and effectiveness, and as the first step in creating a knowledge base to guide actors who seek to navigate the institutionally complex landscape of the climate-energy nexus.

Fossil fuel subsidy reform can contribute to both climate change and sustainable development goals. However, subsidies to fossil fuel consumption and production continue to persist in developed and developing countries. International cooperation can play an important role in promoting or hindering reform. This chapter examines the coherence of international governance of fossil fuel subsidy reform. The chapter discusses the emergence of a core norm of fossil fuel subsidy reform, the distribution of membership across international institutions, and the various governance functions fulfilled by the international institutions active in this area. To further assess coherence, the chapter focuses on a subset of three international coalitions active in the area of fossil fuel subsidy reform: the Group of 20 (G20), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform. The chapter identifies an emerging division of labour, with different institutions taking charge of various governance functions. Where activities do overlap, they generally appear to reinforce one another. With respect to the G20, APEC, and the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, the high level of consistency appears to be the result of planned coordination, overlapping memberships, as well as a brokering role taken on by some countries. test

This chapter establishes the theoretical orientation of the study. Traditional IR approaches to regime development – which have typically drawn on a single research tradition – are mapped, and then contrasted with the pluralist approach taken in Negotiating Civil War, highlighting the rationale, principal benefits and challenges of drawing variously on Realist, Rationalist, Liberal and Constructivist insights. The hypotheses to be tested in each of the subsequent case studies chapters are then set out and their underlying explanatory factors identified. The chapter then sets out the potential interaction amongst these hypothesised factors in a ‘straw person’ diagram. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the key methodological considerations informing the study.