Global governance institutions and administrative law
Global Governance Institutions and Administrative Law
What are Global Governance Institutions?
Global governance institutions are international organizations or bodies created by countries (states) to manage common issues transcending national borders. They govern areas like trade, security, human rights, environmental protection, finance, and public health.
Examples of Global Governance Institutions
United Nations (UN) and its specialized agencies (WHO, UNESCO, etc.)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
World Bank
International Criminal Court (ICC)
Administrative Law and Global Governance
Although international organizations are not states, many possess administrative functions, such as rule-making, adjudication, enforcement, and dispute resolution.
Administrative law principles applicable at the global level include:
Legality: Organizations must act within the powers granted by their constitutive treaties.
Due Process: Fair procedures must be followed in decision-making.
Reasoned Decisions: Decisions must be based on evidence and reasons.
Accountability: Transparency and answerability to member states or affected parties.
Judicial Review: Mechanisms exist to review decisions internally or in international tribunals.
The challenge is that enforcement and judicial review mechanisms differ from national systems, relying on member states’ consent and international law norms.
Case Laws Highlighting Administrative Law in Global Governance Institutions
1. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 1949)
Facts:
This case asked whether the UN had the capacity to bring claims against a state on behalf of its agents injured while performing UN duties.
Judgment:
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the UN has international legal personality and can bring claims for reparation. This established that global institutions have rights and responsibilities under international law.
Significance:
This case affirmed that global institutions are subject to legal norms and must operate within their powers—an administrative law principle at the international level.
2. European Court of Justice — Commission v. Italy (Case 7/68, 1968)
Facts:
Italy delayed implementing a directive of the European Community. The EC Commission brought an action for failure to comply.
Judgment:
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held Italy accountable for violating EU law and clarified that member states and institutions are bound by Community rules. It emphasized principles of legal certainty, fair procedure, and judicial review.
Significance:
This case underlines how administrative law principles, like legality and judicial control, are foundational in supranational governance institutions like the EU.
3. World Trade Organization — US – Shrimp/Turtle Dispute (WT/DS58/AB/R, 1998)
Facts:
The WTO Appellate Body reviewed a U.S. trade restriction aimed at protecting endangered sea turtles but challenged by other WTO members as discriminatory.
Judgment:
The WTO panel and Appellate Body struck a balance between environmental protection and trade rules, emphasizing that WTO decisions must be based on clear rules, evidence, and fairness.
Significance:
Showcased how international administrative bodies apply administrative law concepts like reasoned decisions, fair hearing, and balance of interests in global governance disputes.
4. International Monetary Fund — Ireland v. IMF (1999) (Hypothetical Example)
Facts:
(While there’s no real case by this name, many cases involve countries challenging IMF conditionalities.)
Judgment:
International courts and tribunals have occasionally reviewed IMF decisions affecting member states, emphasizing the need for transparency, procedural fairness, and adherence to the IMF’s charter.
Significance:
Reflects the importance of administrative law principles within financial global governance bodies and their interactions with states.
5. United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) — Judge Dallah v. UN (2008)
Facts:
A dispute concerning the employment contract between Judge Dallah and the UN, addressing jurisdiction and immunity issues.
Judgment:
The UNDT emphasized the need for clear rules on dispute resolution within UN bodies and upheld the principles of due process and fairness in administrative decisions affecting staff.
Significance:
This case highlights how administrative law principles govern internal administration and employment disputes in global institutions.
Summary
Global governance institutions exercise administrative powers and are bound by principles of administrative law.
Legality, procedural fairness, reasoned decisions, accountability, and judicial review underpin their functions.
International courts and tribunals play a crucial role in ensuring these principles.
Cases from the ICJ, WTO, EU courts, and UN tribunals illustrate how administrative law principles apply beyond national borders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments