The International Law of Global Governance

Session 3: The Law on the Decision-Making Process within Global Governance Bodies

Eyal Benvenisti The Hague

10 July, 2013

The main questions: exploring the legal constraints on decision-making

1. The decision-maker2. The decision-making process3. The decision

1. The decision-maker

1.1 Internal authority: internal ultra vires of organs1.2 Independence of decision-maker1.3 Impartiality

1.1 Internal authority

• The founding treaty as an internal constitution: internal ultra vires of organs?• Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee (1960)

vs. • Certain Expenses (1962)

Q: simple treaty interpretation? or

constitutional attention to minority interests?

• Ostensible authority toward 3rd parties?

1.2 IndependenceDefinition: agent’s discretion is not unduly influenced by the principal’s interest

Examples: – The ICJ and the UNSC– the Bustani case

What makes a decision-maker independent? Formal and informal guarantees:• No reappointment• Nomination procedures• Ensuring compliance with decisions

1.3 Impartiality• No personal interest in the outcome

Example: WHO and representatives of pharma

• No institutional conflict of interestsExample: Private Security Companies and IHL compliance

How to secure impartiality?• Rules on avoiding personal conflicts of interest

Example: Oversight protocol for the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers March (2012(

• Protection of internal “whistleblowers”• Checks and balances as an institutional safeguard

2. The regulation of the decision-making process

Goals: Transparency & participation (effective two-way communications)Means:2.1 Structured decision-making, public process2.2 Right to be heard (the “all affected principle”)2.3 Access to information2.4 Public participation

2.1 Structured, public process

Examples: “Notice and Comment” procedure:• OECD • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision• ICANN• Equator Principles

2.2 The right to be heard

Who has a right to be heard: The state? The individual? Others?• UNSC “Smart sanctions” listing & de-listing• WBIP in Mumbai transportation project• WTO DSB amicus briefs by NGOs• FATF, WADA• ILO’s “tripartite” system• Accreditation of NGOs: Codex Alimentarius

The “all affected principle:” the Aarhus Convention

2.3 Access to information

Specific Informational Tools:

• Environmental impact assessment

• The precautionary principle

• Structured measurements (indicators)

2.4 Public participation

• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision informal consultation with financial industry

• International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation

• Environmental IOs: Montreal, Aarhus, more

3. The regulation of the decision

3.1 Reason giving

3.2 Exercising proper discretion

3.3 Balancing and proportionality

3.4 Standard of Review/Margin of Appreciation

3.1 Reason giving

• Example: Targeted Sanctions regime

3.2 Exercising proper discretion

• Pursuing legitimate goals:– weighing only relevant considerations– weighing all relevant considerations

WBAT in de Merode’s caseWTO and Article XX GATT

Examples: – WBIP Mumbai Transportation Project– UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee

3.3 Balancing and proportionality • Improper balancing:

Examples:– WHO Swine Flu emergency vaccination– The Mangold Case (2010) German Constitutional Court

• Proportionality:

Examples:– UNSC Targeted Sanctions (Kadi)– WBIP and Mumbai transportation project

Standard of Review/Margin of Appreciation: Session 4