1 Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Stewart, Richard, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, Institute for International Law and Justice (New York University School of Law) Working Paper 2004/1, available at: http://www.iilj.org/papers/2004/2004.1.htm, later published in 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 2 (2005); Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Die Herausforderung der Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft durch die Internationalisierung der Verwaltungsbeziehungen, 45 Der Staat 315 (2006); Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, in this issue; Giacinto della Cananea, Dai vecchi ai nuovi principi generali del diritto, in I principi dall'azione amministrativa nello spazio giuridico globale 11 (Giacinto della Cananea ed., 2007).Google Scholar

2 Bacon, Francis, On the Advancement of Learning, cited according to Edward Hallet Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations 302–307 (1940), vii.Google Scholar

3 On such theories, see Riccardo Guastini, Distinguendo. Studi di teoria e metateoria del diritto 115 et seqq. (1997); Jakab, András, Prinzipien, 37 Rechtstheorie 49 (2006). In international law, see Koskenniemi, Martti, General Principles: Reflexions on Constructivist Thinking in International Law, in Sources of International Law 359, 361 et seq. (Martti Koskenniemi ed., 2000).Google Scholar

4 Koskenniemi (note 3), at 381 et seq.; Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee, margin number 3, 5 (2nd ed., 2004). Sometimes the term principle only indicates something like general features. See Riccardo Monaco, Scritti di diritto delle organizazzioni internazionali 279 et seqq., 459 et seq. (1981).Google Scholar

5 The book that founds the discipline in Germany carries the title Friedrich Franz von Mayer, Grundsätze des Verwaltungsrechts 46 et seq. (1862). For today, see Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd rev. ed., 2005); Alvin LeRoy Bennett & James K. Oliver, International Organizations – Issues and Principles (7th ed., 2002).Google Scholar

6 On this type, see Monaco, Riccardo, Sources of International Law, in IV Encyclopedia of Public international law (EPIL) 467, 473 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 2000).Google Scholar

7 For instance, in the case of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention the Preamble sets out the principle of ecologically sustainable development, which is consolidated by the precautionary principle and the inter-generational principle, the principle of cooperation, and the principle of subsidiarity. See Diana Zacharias, in this issue.Google Scholar

8 International Law Association, Accountability of International Organisations, Final Report, 2004, available at: http://www.ila-hq.org/html/layout_committee.htm.Google Scholar

9 Grochla, Erwin, Organisationstheorie, in Handwörterbuch der Organisation 1797 (Erwin Grochla ed., 2nd ed. 1980).Google Scholar

10 On the understandings of international law based on communication theory, see Kratochwil, Friedrich, How do Norms Matter?, in The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law, 35 (Michael Byers ed., 2000).Google Scholar

11 Koskenniemi (note 3), at 368 et seq. Google Scholar

12 Edward Hallet Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations 302–307 (1940). For a path breaking work, see David Mitrany, A Working Peace System, An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization (4th ed., 1946).Google Scholar

13 Ruffert, Matthias, Perspektiven des Internationalen Verwaltungsrechts, in Internationales Verwaltungsrecht 395, 404 (Christoph Möllers, Andreas Voßkuhle & Christian Walter eds., 2007).Google Scholar

14 See Feinäugle, Clemens, in this issue; Ravi Afonso Pereira, in this issue; Jochen von Bernstorff, in this issue; Erika de Wet, in this issue; Ingo Venzke, in this issue; Rüdiger Wolfrum, in this issue.Google Scholar

15 Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Empire (2001); D'Amato, Anthony, On the Legitimacy of International Institutions, in Legitimacy in International Law 83, 92 (Rüdiger Wolfrum & Volker Röben eds., 2008).Google Scholar

16 Schmidt-Aßmann (note 4), at 16 et seq. Google Scholar

17 Friedrich, in this issue; Christine Fuchs, in this issue. For principles in international environmental law, see Beyerlin, Ulrich, Principles, in The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Jutta Brunnée, Daniel Bodansky & Ellen Hey eds., 2007).Google Scholar

18 Láncos, in this issue.Google Scholar

19 See von Bogdandy, Dann & Goldmann, in this issue.Google Scholar

20 On the concept of publicness, see id. at Part A III.Google Scholar

21 Mosler, Hermann, General principles of Law, in II EPIL 511, 518 et seq. (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1995).Google Scholar

22 Alvarez, José, International Organizations: Then and Now, 100 American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 324 (2006); José Alvarez, International Organizations as Law-makers 184 et seq. (2005).Google Scholar

23 As example, see Ugo Draetta, Principi di diritto delle organizzazioni internazionali (2nd ed., 2006).Google Scholar

24 See Farahat, in this issue.Google Scholar

25 Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (2004).Google Scholar

26 See von Bernstorff, in this issue.Google Scholar

27 See Chittharanjan Felix Amerasinghe, I The Law of International Civil Service (2nd ed. 1994); Roberto Malkassian, El funcionario internacional 63 (1980) (assuming the emergence of common general principles for all international organizations).Google Scholar

28 On this, see Restructuring Iraq. Possible Models based upon experience gained under the Authority of the League of Nations and the United Nations, 9 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (Max Planck UNYB) (Armin von Bogdandy & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., 2005).Google Scholar

29 Smrkolj, in this issue.Google Scholar

30 Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

31 Kaiser, in this issue.Google Scholar

32 Similarly, see della Cananea (note 1); Ruffert (note 13), at 407, 414.Google Scholar

33 This topic was one of the main themes of the German public law association in 2007. See Giovanni Biaggini & Claus Dieter Classen, Die Entwicklung eines Internationalen Verwaltungsrechts als Aufgabe der Rechtswissenschaft, 67 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung Deutscher Staatsrechtslehrer (forthcoming 2008).Google Scholar

34 Schmidt-Aßmann (note 1), at 336.Google Scholar

35 Anne-Marie Slaughter & William Burke-White, The Future of International Law is Domestic (or, The European Way of Law), 47 Harvard International Law Journal 327 (2006). Similarly the report of the International Law Association (note 8).Google Scholar

36 Ernst Forsthoff, I Lehrbuch des Verwaltungsrecht 40 et seq. (10th ed. 1973).Google Scholar

37 Schmidt-Aßmann (note 1), at 393 et seq. Google Scholar

38 See, e.g., Case C-28/05, Dokter, 2006 E.C.R. I-5431, paras. 71–75. The administrations of the Member States are bound by the principles developed for the EU's own administration: a federal constellation through and through.Google Scholar

39 See Armin von Bogdandy, Constitutionalism in International Law: Comment on a Proposal from Germany, 47 Harvard International Law Journal 223, 232 et seq. (2006).Google Scholar

40 Kingsbury, Krisch & Stewart, (note 1), at 2, 13, 16, 24 et seq.; Sabino Cassese, Oltre lo Stato 38 et seq., 55 (2006). Later Krisch appears to have noticed the problem. See Nico Kirsch, The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 247 (2006).Google Scholar

41 For the close link between global administrative law and international constitutionalism, see Cassese (note 40), at 185 et seq. Google Scholar

42 And its assumption is not prevalent among international law scholars, see only the contributions by Eyal Benvenisti, Stefan Kadelbach, Helen Keller, Thilo Marauhn, Georg Nolte, Stefan Oeter, Andreas Paulus, Anne Peters, Erika de Wet & Zimmermann, Andreas, 67 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV) 585–824 (2007).Google Scholar

43 See e.g., WT/DS2/AB/R US – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body adopted on 29 April 1996; WT/DS58/AB/R United States – Import Prohibition of certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Recourse to Article 21.5 DSU. Google Scholar

44 Such as procedual guarantees binding upon national administrations emanating from Art. 6 ECHR. On this aspect, see Grabenwarter, Christoph & Pabel, Katharina, Art. 6, in EMRK/GG, Konkordanzkommentar 653 (Rainer Grote & Thilo Marauhn eds., 2006).Google Scholar

45 See Aarhus-Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 38 International Legal Materials 517 (1999). See also Christian Walter, Internationalisierung des deutschen und europäischen Verwaltungsverfahrens- und Verwaltungsprozessrechts – am Beispiel der Arhus-Konvention, 40 Europarecht 302 (2005); Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Ansätze eines allgemeinen Verwaltungsrechts im internationalen Umweltrecht, in Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht – Zur Tragfähigkeit eines Konzepts (Thomas Groß, Christoph Möllers, Christian Röhl & Hans-Heinrich Trute eds., 2008).Google Scholar

46 Ruffert (note 13), at 415.Google Scholar

47 See Michael Stolleis, Nationalität und Internationalität. Rechtsvergleichung im öffentlichen Recht des 19. Jahrhunderts 20 et seq. (1998).Google Scholar

48 Möllers, Christoph, Pouvoir Constituant – Constitution – Constitutionalisation, in Principles of European Constitutional Law 183 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2006).Google Scholar

49 Von Bogdandy & Wolfrum (note 28); Smrkolj (note 29).Google Scholar

50 Cassese (note 40), at 67 et seq. Google Scholar

51 On this problem in the context of the WTO, see Bartels, L., Art. XX of GATT and the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The Case of Trade Measures for the Protection of Human Rights, 36 Journal of World Trade 353–403 (2002).Google Scholar

52 For duties to cooperation, see von Bogdandy & Dann, in this issue.Google Scholar

53 Ulrich Fastenrath, Lücken im Völkerrecht 125 et seq. (1991); Koskenniemi (note 3), at 372.Google Scholar

54 Kathrin Osteneck, Die Umsetzung von UN-Wirtschaftssanktionen durch die Europäische Gemeinschaft 222 et seq. (2004).Google Scholar

55 This was in fact the dominant understanding in the 19th and early 20th century. See Part D.I.1.Google Scholar

56 There are tendencies in this direction in Dan Sarooshi, International Organizations and their Exercise of Sovereign Powers 33 et seq. (2005).Google Scholar

57 Henry Schermers & Niels Blokker, International Institutional Law § 1575 (3rd ed., 1995).Google Scholar

58 Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1980, ICJ Reports 1980, 73, 89–90.Google Scholar

59 For a reconstruction of the positions, see Vitanyi, Béla, Les positions doctrinales concernant le sens de la notion de principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées, 86 Revue générale de droit international public 48 et seq. (1982).Google Scholar

60 See Oscar Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice 50 et seq. (1991).Google Scholar

61 For a path breaking treatment, see Simma, Bruno & Alston, Philip, The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens and General Principles, 12 Australian Yearbook of International Law 82 (1992); Petersen, Niels, Customary Law Without Custom?, 23 American University International Law Review 275 (2008).Google Scholar

62 Orakhelashvili, Alexander, The Acts of the Security Council: Meaning and Standards of Review, 11 Max Planck UNYB 143, 177 (2007).Google Scholar

63 Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law 438 et seq. (1966); Oosthuizen, Gabriel H., Playing the Devil's Advocate: the United Nations Security Council is Unbound by Law, 12 Leiden journal of international law 549 (1999).Google Scholar

64 Heinrich Triepel, Völkerrecht und Landesrecht 83 et seq. (1899); Myres McDougal, Studies in world public order 987 (1960); Ibrahim Shihata, The World Bank Legal Papers 265 et seq. (2000).Google Scholar

65 Harlow, Carol, Global Administrative Law: the Quest for Principles and Values, 17 EJIL 168 (2006). See also the contributions in the Symposium Issue of the EJIL, 2006, Number 1.Google Scholar

66 Koskenniemi (note 3), at 359, 387; Hestermeyer, Holger, Access to Medication as a Human Right, 8 Max Planck UNYB 101, 158 (2004).Google Scholar

67 Case T-306/01, Yusuf, 2005 E.C.R II-3533, paras. 304 et seq. Google Scholar

68 Kadelbach, Stefan, Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and other Rules – The Identification of Fundamental Norms, in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order 21 (Christian Tomuschat & Jean Marc Thouvenin eds., 2006).Google Scholar

69 See International Law Association (note 8). For the UN, see Erika de Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council 191 et seq. (2004).Google Scholar

70 See Bogdandy, Armin von, Law and Politics in the WTO. Strategies to Cope with a Deficient Relationship, 5 Max Planck UNYB 609 (2001); Bogdandy, Armin von, Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say, 6 International Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming 2008).Google Scholar

71 Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, U.N. GAOR, 58th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006); Nico Kirsch, The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law, 17 EJIL 247 (2006).Google Scholar

72 Numerous legal starting points can be found in the report of the International Law Association (note 8).Google Scholar

73 Cananea (note 1), at 42.Google Scholar

74 Wet, Erika de & Nollenkaemper, André, Review of Security Council Decisions by National Courts, 45 German Yearbook of International Law 166 (2002); Walter, Christian, Grundrechtsschutz gegen Hoheitsakte internationaler Organisationen, 129 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 39 (2004); Sienho Yee, The Responsibility of States Members of an International Organization for Its Conduct, in International Responsibility Today 435 (Maurizio Ragazzi & Oscar Schachter eds., 2005).Google Scholar

75 See (note 67).Google Scholar

76 AG Poires Maduro, in Case C-402/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Union, 16 January 2008.Google Scholar

77 For that field of research, see Armin von Bogdandy, Constitutional Principles, in von Bogdandy & Bast (note 48), at 3.Google Scholar

78 See Manuel Diez de Velasco Vallejo, Las organizaciones internacionales 137 et seq. (12th ed. 2006); Schermers & Blokker (note 57), at § 58.Google Scholar

79 Kennedy, David, The Move To Institutions, 8 Cardozo Law Review 841, 962–964 (1987).Google Scholar

80 See Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

81 See (note 67).Google Scholar

82 AG Poires Maduro, in Case C-402/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Union, 16 January 2008, paras. 24, 38 et seq. Google Scholar

83 See August Reinisch, International Organizations Before National Courts (2000); Kirsten Schmalenbach, Die Haftung internationaler Organisationen 69 et seq. (2004).Google Scholar

84 Schermers & Blokker (note 57), at § 44. On autonomy, see Venzke in this issue.Google Scholar

85 See Fuchs, in this issue.Google Scholar

86 In detail Armin von Bogdandy, Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say, 6 International Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming 2008).Google Scholar

87 von Bernstorff, in this issue.Google Scholar

88 Feichtner, Isabel, Subsidiarity, in EPIL (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., forthcoming 2010).Google Scholar

89 Bogdandy & Dann (note 52).Google Scholar

90 Ginther, Konrad, Mitgliedschaft in Internationalen Organisationen, Grundfragen, 17 Berichte der deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (Reports of the German Society of International Law) 13, 21 (1975).Google Scholar

91 ICJ (note 58), at 93.Google Scholar

92 Wolfgang Friedmann, The Changing Structure (1964).Google Scholar

93 Bernhard Schlink, Die Amtshilfe 145 et seq. (1982).Google Scholar

94 Meier, Gert, Europäische Amtshilfe – Ein Stützpfeiler des Europäischen Binnenmarktes, 24 EuR 237, 245 et seq. (1989).Google Scholar

95 Bogdandy, Armin von, Links between National and Supra-national Institutions, in Linking EU and National Governance, 24 (Beate Kohler-Koch ed., 2003).Google Scholar

96 See von Bernstorff, in this issue; Cassese (note 40), at 108 et seq. Google Scholar

97 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, 174, 185; Eckart Klein, Reparation for Injuries Suffered in Service of the UN (Advisory Opinion), in IV EPIL 174–176 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 2000); de Velasco Vallejo (note 78), at 137.Google Scholar

98 Láncos, in this issue; Fuchs, in this issue; Farahat, in this issue.Google Scholar

99 For the legal basis for the guidelines of the OECD, see Schuler, in this issue; Farahat (note 24).Google Scholar

100 See Jan Klabbers, An Introduction to International Institutional Law 60 et seq. (2002).Google Scholar

101 See Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast, The European Union's Vertical Order of Competences: The Current Law and Proposals for its Reform, 39 Common Market Law Review 227 (2002).Google Scholar

102 Carstens, Karl, Die kleine Revision des Vertrags über die Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl, 21 ZaöRV 1, 14, 37 (1961).Google Scholar

103 Joined Cases 90 and 91/63, Commission v. Belgium and Luxembourg, 1964 E.C.R. 1329, 1345.Google Scholar

104 Case 68/86, United Kingdom v. Council, 1988 E.C.R. 855, para. 24.Google Scholar

105 Luhmann, Niklas, Verfassung als evolutionäre Errungenschaft, 9 Rechtshistorisches Journal 176 et seq. (1990).Google Scholar

106 The question whether State actions must also have a basis in the national constitutions in the same way is very controversial. See Christoph Möllers, Staat als Argument 256 et seq. (2000).Google Scholar

107 Kadelbach (note 68).Google Scholar

108 Advisory Opinion 12 August 1922, PCIJ 1922, Series B, No. 2, 23–25, 39; Corfu Channel Case/Preliminary Objection (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland v. Albania), ICJ Reports 1948, 15 et seqq.; Corfu Channel Case/Merits (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland v. Albania), ICJ Reports 1949, 4 et seqq., 25; Barnett, M. & Finnemore, M., The Power of Liberal International Organizations, in Power in Global Governance 161, 182 (M. Barnett & R. Duvall eds., 2006); de Velasco Vallejo (note 78), at 138; Nolte, Georg, Lawmaking through the Security Council, in Developments of International Law in Treaty Making 237, 239 et seq. (Rüdiger Wolfrum & Volker Röben eds., 2005). For a critique see Andreas Zimmermann, “Acting under Chapter VII (…)” – Resolution 1422 and Possible Limits of the Powers of the Security Council, in Verhandeln für den Frieden, Liber Amicorum Tono Eitel 253 (Jochen A. Frowein, Klaus Scharioth, Ingo Winkelmann & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., 2003); Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Der Kampf gegen die Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen: Eine neue Rolle für den Sicherheitsrat, in Weltinnenrecht, Liber amicorum Jost Delbrück 865 (Klaus Dicke, Stephan Hobe, Karl-Ulrich Meyn, Anne Peters, Eibe Riedel, Hans-Joachim Schütz & Christian Tietje eds., 2005).Google Scholar

109 On ultra vires acts and their disputed effects, see Bernhardt, Rudolph, International Organisations, Internal Law and Rules, in II EPIL 1316–1317 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 1995); Klein, Eckart, Die Internationalen und Supranationalen Organisationen, in Völkerrecht 352–354 (Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum ed., 2004); Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern/Gerhard Loibl, Das Recht der Internationalen Organisationen Einschließlich der Supranationalen Gemeinschaften 221 (2000); Heribert Franz Köck & Peter Fischer, Das Recht der Internationalen Organisationen 561 (1997); Lauterpacht, Hersch, The Legal Effects of Illegal Acts of International Organizations, Cambridge Essays in International Law 88 (1965); Osieke, Ebere, The Legal Validity of Ultra Vires Decisions of International Organizations, 77 AJIL 239–256 (1983).Google Scholar

110 On this point, see von Bernstorff in this issue.Google Scholar

111 International Law Association (note 8), at 12 et seqq. Google Scholar

112 See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG, Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvE 2/07, paras. 42 et seq. with further references.Google Scholar

113 Payandeh, Mehrdad, Rechtskontrolle des UN-Sicherheitsrates durch staatliche und überstaatliche Gerichte, 66 ZaöRV 41 (2006).Google Scholar

114 See Bogdandy, Dann & Goldmann, , in this issue.Google Scholar

115 Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

116 ICJ Opinion, Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, ICJ Reports 1954, 57.Google Scholar

117 Reinisch, August, Securing the Accountability of International Organizations, in International Organizations 535, 538 et seq. (Jan Klabbers ed., 2005).Google Scholar