This chapter explores the legality of the IMF’s shift in mandate, and considers the overarching question of whether the institution was legally entitled to expand its mandate over time through de facto legal doctrines rather than express or implied consent of the members. The analysis begins with a consideration of the legal basis of the Fund’s initiative by examining the international legal theory on the legal personality of international organisations. That is, whether the mandate of an international organization is strictly dependant on the wording of its constitutive instrument(s), or whether the mandate can evolve so as to accommodate new de facto attributions and competences. The Fund’s mandate shift is then tested by taking into account the power of soft law. A key aspect in the legal literature is whether the constituent doctrine of ‘separate will’ or ‘volonté distincte’, which allows an organisation to act independently – that is without the express or implied consent of members – would apply to the mandate expansion as the move ensured the Fund maintained relevancy in an ever-changing world. Finally, the chapter concludes that the Fund’s mandate expansion was in line with the standards of international law applicable to international organisations.

The EU functions as a receptor and promoter of customary international law (CIL). However, from a theoretical (and international law) perspective, the questions why and when the EU is bound by CIL still have not been answered in definite terms. This chapter argues that the EU should be afforded a similar treatment as is afforded to (newly independent) states. This is based on a close examination of its practice in the field of international humanitarian law (IHL), where the primary organization tasked with ensuring peace and security – the United Nations – has so far avoided explicitly affirming that it is bound by customary IHL. After showing that it is indeed the EU which might bear direct responsibility in the context of military operations authorized under the Common Security and Defence Policy, the chapter examines the EU’s behaviour when it comes to new regulatory efforts, its executive and operational conduct, and the CJEU’s case law. On the basis thereof, it is concluded that the EU’s practice confirms the theoretical conclusions reached, and that therefore any theoretical uncertainties on whether and why international organizations are bound by CIL might in future be answered by paying closer attention to their practice.