1 Henry G. Schermers & Niels M. Blokker, International Institutional Law 1 § 707 (1995).Google Scholar

2 Morgenstern, F., Legality in International Organizations, 48 British Yearbook of International Law 241 (1976-77). The standard-reference in the field, Schermer's and Blokker's International Institutional Law (note 1) likewise describes decision-making processes within various IOs without reference to a general procedural law.Google Scholar

3 Klabbers, J., The Changing Image of International Organizations, in The Legitimacy of International Organizations 221–255 (V. Heiskanen ed., 2001); Alvarez, J.E., International Organizations: Then and Now, 100 The American Journal of International law (AJIL) 324–347 (2006); Kennedy, D., The Move to Institutions, 8 Cardozo Law Review 841 et seq. (1987) (on early perceptions of IOs, in particular regarding the League of Nations).Google Scholar

4 Feinäugle, in this issue; de Wet, Holding International Institutions Accountable: the Complementary Role of Non-Judicial Oversight Mechanisms and Judicial Review, in this issue.Google Scholar

5 On the changing role of public actors in times of globalization, see Leibfried, S. & Zürn, M., Von der nationalen zur postnationalen Konstellation, in Transformationen des Staates? 19–64 (S. Leibfried ed., 2006). On accountability vis à vis various constituencies, see Krisch, N., The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International law 247–278 (2006).Google Scholar

6 Schermers & Blokker (note 1), at § 409.Google Scholar

7 I. Seidl-Hohenveldern & G. Loibl, Das Recht der Internationalen Organisationen 124 (7th ed., 2000).Google Scholar

8 For an influential German 19th century critique of “civitas maxima” conceptions in international law, see C. Kaltenborn von Stachau, Kritik des Völkerrechts 73 (1847).Google Scholar

9 On this general assumption, see Klabbers (note 3), at 221–255.Google Scholar

10 E.H. Carr, The twenty years’ crisis 1919 – 1939. an introduction to the study of international relations 186 (1940).Google Scholar

11 J.v. Bernstorff, Der Glaube an das universale Recht. Zur Völkerrechtstheorie Hans Kelsens und seiner Schüler 59–61, 107–110 (2001).Google Scholar

12 M.N. Barnett & M. Finnemore, Rules for the world. International organizations in global politics 20–30 (2004).Google Scholar

13 I.L. Claude, Swords into plowshares. The problems and progress of international organization 39 (1956).Google Scholar

14 On IO-autonomy in IR-theory, see Venzke, in this issue.Google Scholar

15 Claude (note 13), at 39–40.Google Scholar

16 Seidl-Hohenveldern & Loibl (note 7), at 124.Google Scholar

17 As a comprehensive analysis of this phenomenon C. Tietje, Internationalisiertes Verwaltungshandeln (2001).Google Scholar

18 On the terror lists of the UN Security Council, see Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

19 On Art. 2(7) UN-Charter, see Frowein, J.A., Are There Limits to the Amendment Procedures in Treaties Constituting International Organizations, in Liber amicorum for i. seidl-hohenveldern 201–218 (Gerhard Hafner et. al. eds., 1998).Google Scholar

20 On the critique of this principle by interwar-scholarship, see v. Bernstorff (note 11), at 88–91.Google Scholar

21 Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962, ICJ-Reports 1962, at 168.Google Scholar

22 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ-Reports 1996, at 80–81.Google Scholar

23 Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between Galatz and Braila, advisory opinion, 1926 Publ. PCIJ, Series B, No. 14, at 64. See J. Klabbers, An Introduction to International Institutional Law 80 (2002). For a critique of the “revisionist” nuclear weapons advisory opinion, see N.D. White, The law of international organisations 99–102 (2005).Google Scholar

24 On this problem within the FAO, see FAO: The Challenge of Renewal. An Independent External Review of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2007, FAO-document on file with author.Google Scholar

25 On delegation, see Venzke, in this issue.Google Scholar

26 Pereira, in this issue.Google Scholar

27 I have made this argument elsewhere. Bernstorff, J.v., Democratic Global Internet Regulation? Governance Networks, International Law and the Shadow of Hegemony, 9 European law journal 511–526 (2003).Google Scholar

28 Schöndorf-Haubold, in this issue.Google Scholar

29 On this aspect in the FAO-context, see Friedrich, in this issue.Google Scholar

30 So called “epistemic communities,” consisting of scientists, representatives of specific professions and national experts, provide institutions with shared meanings on various issues ranging from technical standards to bioethical considerations, which serve as a basis for decision-making within the institution. These contributions help to reduce societal complexity for the actors within the organization and have a considerable impact on the development of global standards. Such activities take place in technical committees or through informal contacts with staff members of the secretariat of the organization. Once the epistemic community has succeeded to transform their world-view into a global standard within one institution it tries to convince other organizations to adhere to these standards in related areas. And once recognized globally, such standards can effectively be used at home to pressure national legislators to reform national regulations portrayed as being out of step with global standards. It goes without saying that such lobbying activities proliferate where commercial interests are affected by global decision-making. See P.M. Haas, Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination, 46 International Organization 1–35 (1992).Google Scholar

31 Barnett & Finnemore (note 12), at chapter 1 (2004).Google Scholar

32 Smrkolj, in this issue.Google Scholar

33 Kaiser, in this issue.Google Scholar

34 Fuchs, in this issue.Google Scholar

35 Zacharias, in this issueGoogle Scholar

36 Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

37 Zürn, M., Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Globalisierung und Denationalisierung als Chance 245 (1998).Google Scholar

38 Luhmann, N., Legitimation durch Verfahren 11–26 (1969).Google Scholar

39 Guizot, M., Histoire des origines du gouvernement représentatif en Europe, Vol. 1, 78 (1851).Google Scholar

40 Luhmann (note 38), at 11–26.Google Scholar

41 Weber, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 125–130 (2006).Google Scholar

42 Stolleis, M., Public law in Germany, 1800 - 1914, 229–235 (2001).Google Scholar

43 For the national realm, see E. Schmidt-Aßmann, Das allgemeine Verwaltungsrecht als Ordnungsidee. Grundlagen und Aufgaben der verwaltungsrechtlichen Systembildung 305–310 (1998).Google Scholar

44 On the German and Italian domestic tradition, see Cananea, G. Della, Beyond the State: the Europeanization and Globalization of Procedural Administrative law, 9 European public law 563, 565–566 (2003).Google Scholar

45 Zitiert bei E. Schmidt-Aßmann, Verwaltungsverfahren und Verwaltungskultur, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht (NVwZ) 40, 43 (2007).Google Scholar

46 Luhmann (note 38), at 11–26.Google Scholar

47 On expertise in German administrative law, see A. Voßkuhle, Sachverständige Beratung des Staates, in III Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 45 et seq. (J. Isensee & P. Kirchhof eds., 2005).Google Scholar

48 For Pereira there is no difference between the domestic and the international level regarding the legitimacy problems involved in administrative decision-making. See Pereira, in this issue.Google Scholar

49 For a more complex analytical matrix of decision making in IOs, see Cox, R.W. & Jacobson, H.K., The Anatomy of Influence. Decision Making in International Organization (1973).Google Scholar

50 Schermers & Blokker (note 1), at § 711. On the complex relationship between the Council and the Assembly of the International Seabed Authority, see Wolfrum, in this issue.Google Scholar

51 In organizations with a universal membership cross-regional political groupings such as the Organisation of Islamic States (OIC), the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) and the European Union (EU) have a political filtering function regarding individual initiatives. In particular the European Union coordinates common EU-initiatives as well as EU-member states-initiatives within such institutions in a substantive fashion. Likewise over the last years an astonishing revival of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) could be observed, leading to an improved coordination of NAM-countries in universal institutions. Often such groupings run their own initiatives, which will formally be tabled by one member country representing the grouping in plenary.Google Scholar

52 Goldmann, in this issue.Google Scholar

53 Security Council, Provisional Rule 6; General Assembly, Rule 13; ECOSOC, Rule 10.Google Scholar

54 Dann, P., Grundfragen eines Entwicklungsverwaltungsrechts, in Internationales Verwaltungsrecht 21–25 (C. Möllers, A. Voßkuhle, C. Walter eds., 2007).Google Scholar

55 Schermers & Blokker (note 1), at § 714.Google Scholar

56 PCIJ, Series B, no. 12, at 29. On this problem, see Tomuschat, C., Obligations Arising for States Without or Against their Will, 241 Recueil des cours / Académie de Droit International de La Haye 199–374 (1993); Klabbers (note 23), at 228–229.Google Scholar

57 CITES is a good example. See Fuchs, in this issue.Google Scholar

58 On opting out, see Fitzmaurice, M., Expression of Consent to be bound by a Treaty as developed in certain Environmental Agreements, in Essays on the Law of Treaties, 59, 66 (J. Klabbers ed., 1997).Google Scholar

59 Schermers & Blokker (note 1), at § 771.Google Scholar

60 G. Dahm & R. Wolfrum, Völkerrecht 240 et seq. (2002).Google Scholar

61 Pereira, in this issue.Google Scholar

62 With a critique of the call for effective implementation and the corresponding mindset, see Koskenniemi, M., Constitutionalism as Mindset: Reflections on Kantian Themes About International Law and Globalization, 8 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (2007).Google Scholar

63 Schermers & Blokker (note 1), at § 409–421.Google Scholar

64 On the powers of the Security Council, see Nolte, G., The Limits of the Security Council's Powers and its Functions in the International Legal System: Some Reflections, in The Role of Law in International Politics - Essays in International Relations and International Law 315–326 (Michael Byers ed., 2000).Google Scholar

65 Wolfrum, R., in this issue.Google Scholar

66 Dann, (note 54), at 21–25.Google Scholar

67 On program-management in IOs, see Dijkzeul, D.T.G., Programs and the Problems of Participation, in Rethinking International Organizations Pathology and Promise 197–233 (D.T.G. Dijkzeul ed., 2003).Google Scholar

68 H. Kelsen, Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik 98 (1934).Google Scholar

69 Friedrich, , in this issue.Google Scholar

70 Dubin, L. & Nogellou, R., Public Participation in Global Administrative Organizations, 3rd Global Administrative Law Seminar (June 15–16, 2007) (on file with author).Google Scholar

71 Dann (note 54), at 21–25.Google Scholar

72 Smrkolj, in this issue. On the due process principle from a comparative perspective, see Cananea, G.d., Equivalent Standards under Domestic Administrative Law: a Comparative Perspective 116–125 (2007) (manuscript, on file with author).Google Scholar

73 Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

74 Goldmann, in this issue; Dubin & Nogellou (note 70).Google Scholar

75 BGBl Jahrgang 2006, Teil II, Nr. 31, 15 December, 2006.Google Scholar

76 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Report of the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters held in Almaty, Kazakhstan, 25–27 May 2005, Decision II/4 entitled Promoting the Application of the Principles of the Aarhus Convention in International Forums, ECE/MP.PP/2005/2/Add.5, 20 June 2005.Google Scholar

77 Almaty Guidelines (IV), UN-Dok. Nr. ECE/MP.PP/2005/2/Add.5Google Scholar

78 Almaty Guidelines (V/37), UN-Dok. Nr. ECE/MP.PP/2005/2/Add.5Google Scholar

79 Friedrich, in this issue.Google Scholar

80 F. Berman, et al., ILA-Berlin Conference (2004) on Accountability of International Organizations, 1 International Organizations Law Review 221, 229 (2004).Google Scholar

81 Id. at 230.Google Scholar

82 Id. at 231.Google Scholar

83 Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

84 Dubin & Nogellou (note 70).Google Scholar

85 Schöndorf-Haubold, in this issue.Google Scholar

86 Id‥ Google Scholar

87 Schmidt-Aßmann, Verwaltungsverfahren und Verwaltungskultur, NVwZ 40, 43 (2007).Google Scholar

88 On this approach G.d. Cananea, Equivalent Standards under Domestic Administrative Law: A Comparative Perspective 113–115 (2007) (manuscript, on file with author). On the evolution of administrative norms, see E. Benvenisti, The Interplay between Actors as a Determination of the Evolution of Administrative law in International Institutions, 68 Law and contemporary problems 319–340 (2005).Google Scholar

89 For due process from a comparative perspective, see Cananea (note 88).Google Scholar

90 F. Berman, et al. (note 80), at 221, 237.Google Scholar

91 Id. at 236.Google Scholar

92 Id. at 239.Google Scholar

93 Id. at 239.Google Scholar

94 Id. at 291.Google Scholar

95 Klabbers, J., Constitutionalism Lite, 1 International organizations law review 31, 58 (2004); Koskenniemi, M. (note 62).Google Scholar

96 Mégret, F. & Hoffmann, F., The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities, 25 Human rights quarterly 314–342 (2003).Google Scholar

97 von Bogdandy, in this issue; de Wet, Holding International Institutions Accountable: the Complementary Role of Non-Judicial Oversight Mechanisms and Judicial Review, in this issueGoogle Scholar

98 Fassbender, B., Targeted Sanctions imposed by the UN-Security Council and Due Process Rights, 3 International Organizations Law Review 437–485, 468–469 (2006). On this problem, see Reinisch, A., Developing Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Accountability of the Security Council for the Imposition of Economic Sanctions, 95 AJIL 851–872 (2001).Google Scholar

99 Most commentators accept that IOs are in principle bound by international customary law, see J.E. Alvarez, International Organizations: Then and Now, 100 AJIL 324–347 (2006).Google Scholar

100 See de Wet, Holding International Institutions Accountable: the Complementary Role of Non-Judicial Oversight Mechanisms and Judicial Review, in this issue; G. Cananea, Return to the Due Process of Law: The European Union and the Fight Against Terrorism, Comment on Court of First Instance judgment of December 16, 2006, Case T-228/02, Organisation de Modjahedins de l'Iran v Council, 32 E.L. Rev. 2007, 895–906 (on file with author). On the role of national courts see E. Benvenisti, Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts, 102 AJIL 241 (2008).Google Scholar

101 For a general critique of human rights discourse along these lines, see D. Kennedy, The Dark Sides of Virtue 3–35 (2004).Google Scholar

102 W.G. Friedmann, The Changing Structure of International Law 94 (1964).Google Scholar

103 Insisting on a space for politics, see Klabbers, J., Two Concepts of International Organization, 2 International Organizations Law Review 277, 292 (2005).Google Scholar