1 See Alexander Wendt, Driving with the Rearview Mirror: On the Rational Science of Institutional Design 55 International Organization 1019 (2001).Google Scholar

2 The performance of IOs and their bureaucracies has attracted a recently growing and renewed interest among political scientists. See e.g. Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations (Bob Reinalda & Bertjan Verbeek eds., 1998); Michael N. Barnett & Martha Finnemore, Rules for the world. International organizations in global politics (2004); Steffen Bauer, Does Bureaucracy Really Matter? The Authority of Intergovernmental Treaty Secretariats in Global Environmental Politics, 6 Global Environmental Politics 24 (2006); Liese, Andrea & Weinlich, Silke, Die Rolle von Verwaltungsstäben internationaler Organisationen. Lücken, Tücken und Konturen eines (neuen) Forschungsgebiets, in Politik und Verwaltung 491 (Jörg Bogumil, Werner Jann & Frank Nullmeier eds., 2006); Olsen, Johan P., Maybe it is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracies, 16 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1 (2006); John Mathiason, Invisible Governance. International Secretariats in World Politics (2007).Google Scholar

3 Jan Klabbers, An introduction to international institutional law v (2002).Google Scholar

4 See Armin von Bogdandy, Philipp Dann & Goldmann, Matthias, Developing the Publicness of Public International law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities, in this issue.Google Scholar

5 International institutional law is a well-established field within public international law. See e.g. Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern & Gerhard Loibl, Das Recht der internationalen Organisationen einschließlich der supranationalen Gemeinschaften (2000); Klabbers (note 3); International Institutional Law (Henry G. Schermers & Niels M. Blocker eds., 2003). In short and in common understanding, institutional law governs international organisations’ legal status, structure and functioning, id. at 4.Google Scholar

6 Verbeek, Bertjan, International Organizations. The Ugly Duckling of International Relations Theory?, in Autonomous Policy Making by International Organizations 11 (Bob Reinalda & Bertjan Verbeek eds., 1998); Martin, Lisa L. & Simmons, Beth, Theories and Empirical Studies of International Institutions, 52 International Organization 729 (1998). For a strong argument of doubt, see Mearsheimer, John J., The False Promise of International Institutions, 19 International Security 5 (1994). For an overview of contrasting positions in the earlier regime debate consult International regimes (Stephen D. Krasner ed., 1983) and Regime Theory and International Relations (Volker Rittberger ed., 1993).Google Scholar

7 Strange, Susan, Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis, in International Regimes 37 (Stephen D. Krasner ed., 1983). See Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, Realist Global Governance: Revisiting Cave! Hic Dragones and Beyond, in Contending Perspectives on Global Governance. Coherence, Contestation and World Order 17 (Alice D. Ba & Matthew J. Hoffmann eds., 2005).Google Scholar

8 Mearsheimer (note 6).Google Scholar

9 See Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory 1–20 (1989); Verbeek (note 6).Google Scholar

10 For an overview of strategies and examples of such research see e.g. Keohane, Robert O. & Martin, Lisa L., The Promise of Institutionalist Theory, 20 International Security 39–51 (1995); Simmons, Beth A. & Martin, Lisa L., International Organizations and Institutions, in Handbook of International Relations 192, 199–200 (Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse & Beth A. Simmons eds., 2002); Helmut Breitmeier, Oran R. Young & Michael Zürn, Analyzing International Environmental Regimes: From Case Study to Database (2006); Bauer, (note 2).Google Scholar

11 See Kratochwil, Friedrich V. & Ruggie, John Gerard, International Organization: A State of Art and an Art of the State, 40 International Organization 753, 759 (1986).Google Scholar

12 Clive Archer, International Organizations 68–87 (2001).Google Scholar

13 Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson & Tierney, Michael J., Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory, in Delegation and Agency in International Organizations 3, 7 (Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson & Michael J. Tierney eds., 2006).Google Scholar

14 Id. at 13.Google Scholar

15 Id. at 13–15; Abbott, Kenneth W. & Snidal, Duncan, Why States Act through Formal International Organizations, 42 Journal of Conflict Resolution 3, 9–16 (1998).Google Scholar

16 Hawkins, Lake, Nielson & Tierney, (note 13), at 15–16; Jack L. Goldsmith & Eric A. Posner, The Limits of International Law 32–35 (2005).Google Scholar

17 See Reimer, Ekkehart, Transnationales Steuerrecht, in Internationales Verwaltungsrecht, 181 (Christoph Möllers, Andreas Voßkuhle & Christian Walter eds., 2007).Google Scholar

18 Keohane & Martin (note 9), at 43–44.Google Scholar

19 Müller, Harald, The Evolution of Verification: Lessons from the Past for the Present, 14 Contemporary Security Policy 333 (1993); Fearon, James D., Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation, 52 International Organization 269 (1998).Google Scholar

20 Hawkins, Lake, Nielson & Tierney (note 13), at 18–19; George Norman and Joel P. Trachtman, The Customary International Law Game, 99 American journal of international law 541 (2005); Guzman, Andrew T., The Design of International Agreements, 16 European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 579 (2005); Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson & Snidal, Duncan, The Rational Design of International Institutions, 55 International Organization 761 (2001).Google Scholar

21 Hawkins, Lake, Nielson & Tierney, (note 13), at 17.Google Scholar

22 See Zangl, Bernhard & Zürn, Michael, Make Law, Not War: Internationale und transnationale Verrechtlichung als Baustein für Global Governance, in Verrechtlichung - Baustein für Global Governance?, 12 (Bernhard Zangl & Michael Zürn eds., 2004); Zangl, Bernhard, Das Entstehen internationaler Rechtstaatlichkeit?, in Transformationen des Staates? 123 (Stephan Leibfried & Michael Zürn eds., 2006); Alec Stone Sweet, Judicialization and the Construction of Governance, 32 Comparative Political Studies 147 (1999).Google Scholar

23 Abbott, Kenneth & Snidal, Duncan, Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, 54 International Organization 421, 439 (2000); Judith Goldstein, Miles Kahler, Robert O. Keohane & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Introduction: Legalization and World Politics, 54 International Organization 385 (2000).Google Scholar

24 Abbott & Snidal (note 15), at 18.Google Scholar

25 Dann, Philipp, The World Bank's Legal Regime, in this issue.Google Scholar

26 Abbott, & Snidal, (note 15), at 18.Google Scholar

27 See D'Aspremont, Jean, Abuse of the Legal Personality of International Organizations and the Responsibility of Member States, 4 International Organization Law Review 91 (2007).Google Scholar

28 Clemens Feinäugle, in this issue; Wet, Erika de, Holding International Bureaucracies Accountable: the complementary Role of Non-Judicial Oversight Mechanisms and Judicial Review, in this issue.Google Scholar

29 Maja Smrkolj, in this issue.Google Scholar

30 Art. II(1) WTO Agreement.Google Scholar

31 Art. 8(6) and (7) DSU.Google Scholar

32 Bogdandy, Armin von, Law and Politics in the WTO - Strategies to Cope with a Deficient Relationship, 5 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 609, 615–616 (2001); Weiler, Joseph H. H., The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats. Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement, 35 Journal of World Trade 191, 202–206 (2001). An even stronger case could be made on the agency of judges and courts; cf. Alter, Karen J., Agents or Trustees? International Courts in their Political Context, 14 European Journal of International Relations 33 (2008); Benvenisti, Eyal, Customary International Law as a judicial tool for promoting efficiency, in The impact of international law on international cooperation. Theoretical perspectives, 85 (Eyal Benvenisti and Moshe Hirsch eds., 2004). On political jurisprudence, see Alec Stone Sweet & Martin Shapiro, On Law, Politics, and Judicialization 19–54 (2002).Google Scholar

33 Yi-Chong Xu & Patrick Moray Weller, The Governance of World Trade. International Civil Servants and gatt/wto 264–265 (2004).Google Scholar

34 See Koremenos, Lipson & Snidal (note 20); Guzman (note 20).Google Scholar

35 See also Haftel, Yoram Z. & Thompson, Alexander, The Independence of International Organizations: Concept and Applications, 50 Journal of Conflict Resolution 253, 255–257 (2006) (maintaining that a difference in interest is a constitutive element of IOs’ independence).Google Scholar

36 Certainly there are various mechanisms for principals and other actors to improve the working of conditions and the control of international agents. That is the topic of the contribution by de Wet (note 28). For the limits of contractual or text-based delegation, see Jan Klabbers, On Rationalism in Politics: Interpretation of Treaties and the World Trade Organization, 74 Nordic Journal of International Law 405 (2005); Steinberg, Richard H., Judicial lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints, 98 American journal of Lnternational Law 247 (2004).Google Scholar

37 Hawkins, Lake, Nielson & Tierney, (note 13), at 8.Google Scholar

38 Id. at 5.Google Scholar

39 Robert W. Cox & Harold K. Jacobson, The anatomy of influence decision making in international organization 7 (1973).Google Scholar

40 Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 1046–1092 (2006).Google Scholar

41 Id., 14; cf. Olsen (note 2). See, however, the cautionary remarks in Ernst B. Haas, Beyond the nation-state. Functionalism and International Organization 96 (1964).Google Scholar

42 See, supra, note 39.Google Scholar

43 Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), 17–22.Google Scholar

44 Id. at 5. See Bauer (note 2). Bauer refers to Claire A. Cutler, Virginia Haufler & Tony Porter, The Contours and Significance of Private Authority in International Affairs, in Private Authority and International Affairs 333, 324 (Claire A. Cutler, Virginia Haufler & Tony Porter eds., 1999) (authority “involves a surrendering of individual judgment, an acceptance of its dictates base not on the merits of any particular pronouncement but on a belief in the rightness of the authority of itself”).Google Scholar

45 Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 29.Google Scholar

46 David Mitrany, A Working Peace System. An Argument for the Functional Development of International Organization 19–24 (1943).Google Scholar

47 See Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 21–22; Thomas Risse, Transnational Governance and Legitimacy, in Governance and Democracy: Comparing National, European and International Experiences 179, 188 (Arthur Benz & Yannis Papadopoulos eds., 2006); see also David Kennedy, The Dark Sides of Virtue. Reassessing International Humanitarianism 111–146 (2004).Google Scholar

48 David Mitrany, The functional theory of politics 113–122 (1975); Haas (note 41), at 6.Google Scholar

49 Mitrany (note 48), at 250–251.Google Scholar

50 Haas (note 41), at 88. The question of what is political indeed appears to be one of subjective assessment in the eyes of the beholder rather than one of content or issue area. See Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und 3 Corollarien 26–37 (1963). On this aspect of Schmitt's concept of the political, see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations 440–445 (2001).Google Scholar

51 Bernstorff, Jochen von, The Structural Limitations of Network Governance: ICANN as a Case in Point, in Transnational Fovernance and Constitutionalism 257 (Christian Joerges, I. Sand & G. Teubner eds., 2004).Google Scholar

52 See (note 2).Google Scholar

53 Haas (note 41), at 22.Google Scholar

54 See e.g. Johnston, Alastair Iain, Treating International Institutions as Social Environments, 45 International Studies Quarterly 487 (2001); Finnemore, Martha, Norms, Culture and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's Institutionalism, 50 International Organization 325 (1996).Google Scholar

55 Alexander Loveday, Reflections on International Administration (1956); Mohammed Bedjaoui, Fonction Publique Internationale et Influences Nationales (1958); Tien-Cheng Young, International Civil Service. Principles and Problems (1958); Georges Langrod, La Fonction Publique Internationale. Sa Genese, son Essence, son Evolution (1963); Roger Bloch & Jacqueline Lefevre, La Fonction Publique Internationale et Europeenne (1963); International Administration. Its Evolution and Contemporary Applications (Robert S. Jordan ed., 1971); Thomas G. Weiss, International Bureaucracy. An Analysis of the Operation of Functional and Global International Secretariats (1975); Yadh Ben-Achour and Sabino Cassese, Aspekte der Internationalen Verwaltung (1985); Yves Beigbeder, Threats to the International Civil Service. Past Pressures and New Trends (1988); Hans Mouritzen, The International Civil Service. A Study of Bureaucracy; International Organizations (1990); Jacques Lemoine, The International Civil Servant. An Endangered Species (1995); Alain Plantey and François Loriot, Fonction Publique Internationale. Organisations Mondiales et Europeennes (2005); John Mathiason, Invisible Governance. International Secretariats in World Politics (2007).Google Scholar

56 Egon F. Ranshofen-Wertheimer, The international secretariat. A great experiment in international administration 239–246 (1945).Google Scholar

57 Sweetser, Arthur, The World's Civil Service, 30 Iowa Law Review 478, 478 (1945).Google Scholar

58 See Liese, & Weinlich, (note 2), at 491, 500–510.Google Scholar

59 See e.g. Art. 8(2) FAO Constitution; Art. 6(4) WTO Agreement; Art. 4 Section V IBDR Articles of Agreement; Art. 11 Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar

60 See Karl Th. Paschke, UNO von innen - die Besonderheiten einer multinationalen Bürokratie, in Praxishandbuch UNO. Die Vereinten Nationen im Lichte globaler Herausforderungen 553, 565–566 (Sabine von Schorlemer ed., 2003); see also (note 55).Google Scholar

61 See Cox, Robert W., The Executive Head: An Essay on Leadership in International Organization, 23 International Organization 205 (1969).Google Scholar

62 See Haas (note 41), at 102.Google Scholar

63 Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 33.Google Scholar

64 See the critique by Haas (note 41), at 103.Google Scholar

65 Liese & Weinlich (note 2), at 514–518.Google Scholar

66 See Ernst B. Haas, When Knowledge is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organizations (1990).Google Scholar

67 See Ruggie, John Gerard, International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends, 29 International Organization 557, 569–70 (1975) (an early account). This insight stands unrelated to an actors’ mode of action, be it strategic or communicative.Google Scholar

68 Weber (note 40), at 226 (“Die bürokratische Verwaltung bedeutet: Herrschaft kraft Wissen: dies ist ihr spezifisch rationaler Grundcharakter.”).Google Scholar

69 See Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 73–120.Google Scholar

70 See Vaubel, Roland, Principal-Agent Problems in International Organizations, 1 Review of International Organizations 125 (2006).Google Scholar

71 Dann (note 25); Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 165.Google Scholar

72 See Haas, Peter M., Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination, 46 International Organization 1, 12 (1992).Google Scholar

73 Wet, Erika de, Governance through Promotion and Persuasion: The 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, in this issue.Google Scholar

74 Id. Google Scholar

75 Haas (note 66), at 3.Google Scholar

76 Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 24–25.Google Scholar

77 Haas, Ernst B., Is there a Hole in the Whole? Knowledge, Technology, Interdependence, and the Construction of International Regimes, 29 International Organization 827, 858–9 (1975).Google Scholar

78 Breitmeier, Young & Zürn (note 10); Helmut Breitmeier, Die Output-orientierte Legitimität des globalen Regierens. Empirische Befunde aus der quantitativen Erforschung internationaler Umweltregime, 13 Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 39 (2006).Google Scholar

79 See Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 31–34; Haas (note 66), at 11.Google Scholar

80 See Ness, Gayl D. & Brechin, Steven R., Bridging the Gap: International Organizations as Organizations, 42 International Organization 245 (1988).Google Scholar

81 Fritz Wilhelm Scharpf, Regieren in Europa. Effektiv und demokratisch? 17–20 (1999).Google Scholar

82 See de Wet (note 28); Keohane, Robert O., Global Governance and Democratic Accountability, in Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance 130 (David Held & Mathias Koening-Archibugi eds., 2002).Google Scholar

83 See Vaubel (note 70).Google Scholar

84 Hawkins, Darren G. & Jacoby, Wade, How Agents Matter, in Delegation and Agency in International Organizations 199, 210–212 (Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson & Michael J. Tierney eds., 2006).Google Scholar

85 Weber (note 40), at 226, 1081.Google Scholar

86 Id. at 1081 (“Bürokratische Verwaltung ist ihrer Tendenz nach stets Verwaltung mit Ausschluß der Öffentlichkeit”).Google Scholar

87 Farahat, Anuscheh, in this issue.Google Scholar

88 Id.; Barnett & Finnemore (note 2), at 6.Google Scholar

89 See Benvenisti, Eyal, “Coalitions of the Willing” and the Evolution of Informal International Law, in “Coalitions of the Willing” Avantgarde or Threat? (Christian Callies, Georg Nolte & Tobias Stoll eds., forthcoming), available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=875590.Google Scholar

90 Dann (note 25); Barnett, Michael & Duvall, Raymond, Power in Global Governance, in Power in Global Governance, 1, 3 (Michael Barnett & Raymond Duvall eds., 2005).Google Scholar

91 Barnett, & Duvall, (note 90), at 3.Google Scholar

92 See Semantische Kämpfe. Macht und Sprache in den Wissenschaften (Ekkehard Felder ed., 2006); Naim-Gesbert, Eric, Droit, Expertise et Société du Risque, 123 Revue du Droit Public 33, 37 (2007). Apart from a comparative advantage in knowledge, the use of rhetoric might impact the social construction to the benefit of particular actors. See Payne, Rodger A., Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction, 7 European Journal of International Relations 37–61 (2001); Krebs, Ronald R. & Jackson, Patrick T., Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric, 13 European Journal of International Relations 35–66 (2007). Such arguments have a long tradition. Quintilianus acknowledges his debt to Cicero and Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric and develops a technique of rhetorical rediscription that is aligned with the interest of the speaker; see Skinner, Quentin, Rhetoric and Conceptual Change, 3 Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought 60–72 (1999).Google Scholar

93 Adler, Emanuel & Bernstein, Steven, Knowledge in Power: The Epistemic Construction of Global Governance, in Power in Global Governance 294 (Michael Barnett & Raymond Duvall eds., 2005).Google Scholar

94 See Joseph E. Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (2002); Michael Zürn, Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems, 39 Government and Opposition 260 (2004).Google Scholar

95 See Johnstone, Ian, The Power of Interpretive Communities, in Power in Global Governance 185, 186 (Michael Barnett & Raymond Duvall eds., 2005). Johnstone builds on the concept of “interpretative community” developed by Stanley Fish. See Stanley Fish, Doing What Comes Naturally. Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literature and Legal Studies 141–160 (1989).Google Scholar

96 Hawkins, & Jacoby, (note 84), at 206–207.Google Scholar

97 Friedrich, Jürgen, in this issue.Google Scholar

98 Haas (note 41), at 90–2.Google Scholar

99 See Koskenniemi, Martti, International Law and Hegemony: A Reconfiguration, 17 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 197 (2004).Google Scholar

100 For the functioning and impact of NGOs see in particular Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond borders. Advocacy networks in international politics (1998).Google Scholar

101 Hawkins, & Jocoby, (note 84), at 208–210.Google Scholar

102 Schuler, Gefion, in this issue.Google Scholar

103 Scharpf (note 81), at 20–28.Google Scholar

104 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism 473 (1976).Google Scholar

105 Mayntz, Renate, Governance Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie?, in Governance-Forschung 11 (Gunnar Schuppert ed., 2006).Google Scholar

106 Olsen, (note 2), at 3.Google Scholar

107 Hawkins, Lake, Nielson & Tierney, (note 13), at 4–5 (“Overall, we find the causes and consequences of delegation to IOs to be remarkably similar to delegation in domestic politics. Despite assertions that international anarchy transforms the logic of politics and renders international institutions less consequential, we find considerable overlap between the reasons why principals delegate to domestic agents and why states delegate to IOs.”); Simmons & Martin (note 10), at 205 (concluding that “[a]careful look at literatures that develop theories of domestic and transnational politics, for example, should be drawn upon more systematically if we are to understand the sources and effects of international institutionalization.”); Jörg Borgumil, Werner Jann & Frank Nullmeier, Perspektiven der politikwissenschaftlichen Verwaltungsforschung, in Politik und Verwaltung 9, 18 (Jörg Borgumil, Werner Jann & Frank Nullmeier eds., 2006).Google Scholar

108 See Krisch, Nico, The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law, 17 EJIL 247, 266–67 (2006).Google Scholar

109 See Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Steward, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 15, 51 (2005).Google Scholar

110 Wendt (note 1), at 1046. See Reus-Smit, Christian, The Strange Death of Liberal International Theory, 12 EJIL 573, 580–585 (2001).Google Scholar

111 It builds on Oliver Williamson's definition of governance as “an exercise in assessing the efficacy of alternative modes (means) of organization.” Oliver E. Williamson, The Mechanisms of Governance 11 (1996). Williamson was a student of Ronald Coase who took initial and path breaking steps in exploring the relation between institutional design and efficiency of outcomes. See Coase, Ronald, The Nature of the Firm, 4 Economica 386 (1937).Google Scholar

112 See the conceptions of governance in James N. Rosenau, Governance, order, and change in world politics, in Governance without government: order and change in world politics 1, 4 (James N. Rosenau & Ernst-Otto Czempiel eds., 1992); Rosenau, James N., Toward an Ontology for Global Governance, in Approaches to Global Governance Theory 287 (Martin Hewson & Timothy J. Sinclair eds., 1999); Alice Ba, D. & Hoffmann, Matthew J., Contending Perspectives on Global Governance. Dialogue and Debate, in Contending Perspectives on Global Governance. Coherence Contestation and World Order 249 (Alice D. Ba & Matthew J. Hoffmann eds., 2005); Sweet (note 22); Sandholtz, Wayne & Sweet, Alec Stone, Law, Politics, and International Governance, in The Politics of International Law 238, 245 (Christian Reus-Smit ed., 2004); Schuppert, Gunnar, Governance im Spiegel der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen, in Governance Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien 371 (Gunnar Schuppert ed., 2006).Google Scholar

113 This appears to be the predominant drive of Anne-Marie Slaughter, A Liberal Theory of International Law, 94 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 240 (2000); Anne-Marie Slaughter, A new world order 11 (2004); Slaughter, Anne-Marie & Burke-White, William, The Future of International Law is Domestic (or, the European Way of Law), 47 Harvard International Law Journal 327, 335 (2006). See Reisman, Michael, Unilateral Action and the Transformations of the World Constitutive Process: The Special Problem of Humanitarian Intervention, 11 EJIL 3 (2000). For a critique, see Andrew Hurrell, International Law and the Changing Constitution of International Society, in The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law 327, 336–46 (Michael Byers ed., 2000); Benvenisti (note 89); Koskenniemi, Martti, Constitutionalism as Mindset: Reflections on Kantian Themes About International Law and Globalization, 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (2007).Google Scholar

114 Andrew Hurrell, On Global Order. Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society 55 (2007).Google Scholar

115 Klabbers, Jan, Two Concepts of International Organization, 2 International Organizations Law Review 277 (2005).Google Scholar

116 Klabbers, Jan, The Changing Image of International Organizations, in The Legitimacy of International Organizations 221 (Jean-Marc Coicaud & Veijo Heiskane eds., 2001).Google Scholar

117 Id. at 243–45; Klabbers (note 3), at 329–334. See Reus-Smit, Christian, The Politics of International Law, in The Politics of International Law 14, 24–31 (Christian Reus-Smit ed., 2004); Koskenniemi, Martti, Global Governance and Public International Law, 37 Kritische Justiz 241 (2004); Koskenniemi (note 113); Hurrell (note 113), 312–14.Google Scholar

118 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition 194–95 (1958).Google Scholar

119 See Harlow, Carol, Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values, 17 EJIL 187, 214 (2006).Google Scholar

120 Only the substantive yardstick of human rights might be applicable; see Bernstorff, Jochen von, in this issue; Jürgen Habermas, Hat die Konstitutionalisierung des Völkerrechts noch eine Chance?, in Der gespaltene Westen 113, 142 (Jürgen Habermas ed., 2004).Google Scholar

121 See Benvenisti, Eyal, The interplay between actors as a determination of the evolution of administrative law in international institutions, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 319 (2005).Google Scholar

122 Borgumil, Jann & Nullmeier, (note 107), at 18.Google Scholar

123 See von Bernstorff, in this issue; von Bogdandy (note 32), at 625–650.Google Scholar

124 See Bourdieu, Pierre, The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field, 38 Hastings Law Journal 814, 838 (1987) (“Law is the quintessential form of the symbolic power of naming that creates the things named … It confers upon the reality which arises from its classificatory operations the maximum permanence.”). See also Richard H. Steinberg and Jonathan M. Zaslof, Power and International Law, 100 American Journal of International Law 64 (2006).Google Scholar

125 Hurrell, (note 113), at 314.Google Scholar

126 See Maus, Ingeborg, Das Verhältnis der Politikwissenschaft zur Rechtswissenschaft: Bemerkungen zu den Folgen politologischer Autarkie, in Politik und Recht 76–120 (Miachel Becker & Ruth Zimmerling eds., 2006).Google Scholar

127 von Bernstorff, in this issue; Benvenisti (note 113).Google Scholar

128 Zürn (note 94) (pointing to concerns about legitimacy as a significant source of non-compliance). See also Michael Zürn, Introduction: Law and Compliance and Different Levels, in Law and Governance in Postnational Europe: Compliance Beyond the Nation-State 1 (Michael Zürn & Christian Joerges eds., 2005). To the same effect Thomas Frank makes the prominent argument for a compliance pull stemming from the legitimacy of international law. Thomas M. Franck, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations 193 (1990).Google Scholar

129 Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, delivered on 16 January 2008, Case C-402/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. See De Wet (note 28).Google Scholar

130 See Borgumil, Jann & Nullmeier, (note 107), at 18.Google Scholar