Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:03:06.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International organisations and human rights: What direct authority needs for its legitimation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

Monika Heupel ,
Gisela Hirschmann  and
Michael Zürn
Monika Heupel*
Affiliation:
Junior Professor for International and European Politics, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
Gisela Hirschmann*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of International Relations, Leiden University
Michael Zürn*
Affiliation:
Professor, Director of the Research Unit Global Governance, WZB Berlin Social Science Center
*
*Correspondence to: Monika Heupel, Junior Professor for International and European Politics, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Feldkirchenstr. 21, 96045 Bamberg, Germany. Author’s email: [email protected]
**Correspondence to: Gisela Hirschmann, Assistant Professor of International Relations, Leiden University, Pieter de la Court Building, Wassenaarseweg 52, 233 AK Leiden, Netherlands. Authors email: [email protected]
***Correspondence to: Michael Zürn, Professor, Director of the Research Unit Global Governance, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human rights violations by international organisations (IOs) are a possible side effect of their growing authority. Recent examples are the cases of sexual exploitation by UN peacekeepers and violations caused by IMF austerity measures. In response, IOs increasingly develop safeguards to protect human rights from being violated through their policies to regain legitimacy. We argue that this development can be accounted for by a mechanism we call ‘authority-legitimation mechanism’. We test this theoretical expectation against ten case studies on UN and EU sanctions policies, UN and NATO peacekeeping and World Bank and IMF lending. Next, we demonstrate inductively that the authority-legitimation mechanism can evolve through different pathways, depending on which actors get engaged. We label these pathways legislative institution-building if parliaments in member states put pressure on their governments to campaign for human rights safeguards in IOs, judicial institution-building if courts demand human rights safeguards, like-minded institution-building if civil society organisations, middle powers and IO bodies with little formal power push for human rights safeguards, or anticipatory institution-building if IOs adopt such safeguards from other IOs without having violated human rights themselves. Finally, we argue that which of these pathways are activated and how effective they are depends on specific conditions.

Keywords

International OrganizationsHuman RightsAuthorityLegitimacyLegitimation
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 343 - 366
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, ‘Domestic court reactions to UN Security Council sanctions’, in August Reinisch (ed.), Challenging Acts of International Organizations before National Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 54–76 (p. 55)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Sue E. Eckert and Thomas J. Biersteker, ‘Due Process and Targeted Sanctions: An Update of the “Watson Report”’ (Providence, RI: Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, 2012), p. 36, available at: {http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub/Watson%20Report%20Update%2012_12.pdf} accessed 23 May 2017.

3 Abbott, Kenneth W. and Snidal, Duncan, ‘Hard and soft law in international governance’, International Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 421–456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Simmons, Beth A., Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Liberal theories of international law’, in Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack (eds), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 83–118 Google Scholar.

5 Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘Introduction: Integrating international and domestic theories of international bargaining’, in Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson, and Robert D. Putnam (eds), Doubled-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 1–41 Google Scholar; Putnam, Robert D., ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization, 42:3 (1988), pp. 427–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, for example, Rutherford, Kenneth R., ‘The evolving arms control agenda: Implications of the role of NGOs in banning antipersonnel landmines’, World Politics, 53:1 (2000), pp. 74–114 Google Scholar; Deitelhoff, Nicole, ‘The discursive process of legalization: Charting islands of persuasion in the ICC case’, International Organization, 63:1 (2009), pp. 33–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 But see Heupel, Monika, ‘With power comes responsibility: Human rights protection in United Nations sanctions policy’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:4 (2013), pp. 771–795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For a detailed analysis of the cases, see Heupel, Monika and Zürn, Michael (eds), Protecting the Individual from International Authority: Human Rights in International Organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

9 Simmerl, Georg and Zürn, Michael, ‘Internationale Autorität: Zwei Perspektiven’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 23:1 (2016), pp. 38–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Bennett, Andrew and Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘Process tracing: From philosophical roots to best practices’, in Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel (eds), Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 19 Google Scholar.

11 Cooper, Scott, Hawkins, Darren, Jacoby, Wade, and Nielson, Daniel, ‘Yielding sovereignty to international institutions: Bringing system structure back in’, International Studies Review, 10:3 (2008), p. 505 Google Scholar; Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin, and Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, ‘International authority and its politicization’, International Theory, 4:1 (2012), pp. 69–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary, Lenz, Tobias, Bezuijen, Jeanine, Ceka, Besir, and Derderyan, Svet, Measuring International Authority: A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance, Volume III (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Google Scholar; Michael Zürn, Martin Binder, Alexandros Tokhi, Xaver Keller, and Autumn Lockwood Payton, ‘The International Authority Data Project’, paper presented at the International Authority Workshop, Berlin, 10–11 December 2015.

13 von Bogdandy, Armin et al. (eds), The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions: Advancing International Institutional Law (Heidelberg: Springer, 2010)Google Scholar; Bodansky, Daniel, ‘Legitimacy in international law and international relations’, in Dunoff and Pollack (eds), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations, pp. 321–341 Google Scholar.

14 Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Sanctions sometimes smart: Targeted sanctions in theory and practice’, International Studies Review, 13:1 (2011), pp. 96–108 Google Scholar.

15 McCorquodale, Robert, ‘International organisations and international human rights law: One giant leap for humankind’, in Kaiyan H. Kaikobad and Michael Bohlander (eds), International Law and Power: Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice: Essays in Honour of Colin Warbrick (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), pp. 141–162 (p. 142)Google Scholar.

16 Verdirame, Guglielmo, The UN and Human Rights: Who Guards the Guardians? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 TRIPS stands for trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights.

18 Clapham, Andrew, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State-Actors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Forst, Rainer, Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung: Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit (Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp, 2007)Google Scholar.

20 Beetham, David, The Legitimation of Power (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barker, Rodney, Legitimating Identities: The Self-Presentations of Rulers and Subjects (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zaum, Dominik (ed.), Legitimating International Organizations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Gutner, Tamar and Thompson, Alexander, ‘The politics of IO performance: a framework’, The Review of International Organizations, 5:3 (2010), pp. 227–248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and its Critics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

23 Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘Efficient process tracing: Analyzing the causal mechanisms of European integration’, in Bennett and Checkel (eds), Process Tracing, ch. 4 Google Scholar; Beach, Derek and Pedersen, Rasmus Brun, Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2013), pp. 14–15, 29–31, 102–103 Google Scholar; Büthe, Tim, ‘Taking temporality seriously: Modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence’, American Political Science Review, 96:3 (2002), pp. 481–493 Google Scholar.

24 George, Alexander L., ‘Case studies and theory development: the method of structured, focused comparison’, in Paul G. Lauren (ed.), Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory, and Policy (London: Collier Macmillan, 1979), pp. 43–68 Google Scholar; George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), ch. 3 Google Scholar.

25 Mayntz, Renate, ‘Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34:2 (2004), p. 241 Google Scholar.

26 Bennett and Checkel (eds), Process Tracing.

27 Simmons, Beth A., Dobbin, Frank, and Garrett, Geoffrey, The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Börzel, Tanja A. and Risse, Thomas, ‘From Europeanisation to diffusion: Introduction’, West European Politics, 35:1 (2012), pp. 1–19 Google Scholar.

28 Bennett and Checkel (eds), Process Tracing.

29 George, and Bennett, , Case Studies and Theory Development, p. 212 Google Scholar.

30 See Beach, and Pedersen, , Process-Tracing Methods, pp. 16–18 Google Scholar.

31 For more information on how we identify pathways, see Heupel, Monika and Hirschmann, Gisela, ‘Conceptual framework’, in Heupel and Zürn (eds), Protecting the Individual from International Authority, pp. 40–65 Google Scholar.

32 See also Grant, Ruth W. and Keohane, Robert O., ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, American Political Science Review, 99:1 (2005), pp. 29–43 Google Scholar; Kingsbury, Benedict, Krisch, Nico, and Stewart, Richard B., ‘The emergence of global administrative law’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 68:3 (2005), pp. 15–61 Google Scholar.

33 The coding was done by Monika Heupel (five case studies), Gisela Hirschmann (four case studies), and Theresa Reinold (one case study). A more detailed description of the operationalisation of the dependent variable and the aggregation rules is provided in Appendix I.

34 Child, John and Heavens, Sally J., ‘The social constitution of organizations and its implications for organizational learning’, in Meinolf Dierkes, Ariane B. Antal, John Child, and Ikujiro Nonaka (eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 308–326 Google Scholar.

35 Aldrich, Howard and Herker, Diane, ‘Boundary spanning roles and organization structure’, The Academy of Management Review, 2:2 (1977), pp. 217–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), pp. 27–28 Google Scholar.

37 Schimmelfennig, Frank, The EU, NATO, and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

38 Gehring, Thomas and Oberthür, Sebastian, ‘The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions’, European Journal of International Relations, 15:1 (2009), pp. 132–135 Google Scholar.

39 Information on the composition of the values and evolution over time is provided in Appendix II.

40 For detailed case-specific information, see Heupel and Zürn (eds), Protecting the Individual.

41 UN Secretary-General, UN doc. ST/SGB/2003/13, ‘Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse’ (9 October 2003).

42 See the website of the Conduct and Discipline Unit, available at: {https://conduct.unmissions.org} accessed 5 April 2017.

43 UN Secretary-General, UN doc. ST/SGB 1999/13, ‘Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the “Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law”’ (6 August 1999).

44 United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), UN doc. UNMIK/REG/2000/38, ‘Regulation 2000/38 on the Establishment of the Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo’ (30 June 2000); UNMIK, UN doc. UNMIK/REG/2001/18, ‘Regulation on the Establishment of a Detention Review Commission for Extra-Judicial Detentions based on Executive Orders’ (25 August 2001).

45 See, for example, UN Security Council Res. 1822 (2008).

46 See, for example, UN Security Council Res. 1989 (2011).

47 See, for example, Council of the EU, 7697/07, ‘European Union Autonomous/Additional Restrictive Measures (Sanctions) – Recommendations for Dealing with Country-Specific EU Autonomous Sanctions or EU Additions to UN Sanctions Lists’ (3 April 2007), available at: {http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st07/st07697.en07.pdf} accessed 1 November 2015.

48 World Bank, ‘Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Vol. I: Policies, Procedures and Cross-Sectoral Issues’ (1991), available at: {http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/0-8213-1843-8} accessed 23 March 2017.

49 IBRD and IDA, ‘The World Bank Inspection Panel’, Resolution No. IBRD 93–10, Resolution IDA 93–6 (22 September 1993), available at: {http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/ResolutionMarch2005.pdf} accessed 21 October 2015.

50 See, for example, Council of the EU, 10198/1/04 REV1, ‘Basic Principles on the Use of Restrictive Measures (Sanctions)’ (7 June 2004), available at: {http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/04/st10/st10198-re01.en04.pdf} accessed 2 October 2013.

51 See, for example, Informal Working Group of the Security Council on General Issues of Sanctions, Non-paper/Rev 10, ‘Chairman’s Proposed Outcome’ (26 September 2002), available at: {http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Sanc%20Chair%20Prop%20Outcome.pdf} accessed 9 January 2017.

52 NATO, EAPC doc. EAPC(C)D(2004)0029, ‘Policy on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings’ (8 June 2004); NATO, EAPC doc. EAPC(C)D(2004)0029, ‘Policy on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings’ (8 June 2004), Appendix 2.

53 COMKFOR Directive 42 of 9 October 2001, reprinted in Amnesty International, ‘Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): International officials flout international law’, AI Index: EUR 70/008/2002 (1 September 2002).

54 Gillingham, Robert (ed.), Poverty and Social Impact Analysis by the IMF: Review Methodology and Selected Evidence (Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, 2008)Google Scholar.

55 See, for example, Moravcsik, Andrew, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Freund, Corinna and Rittberger, Volker, ‘Utilitarian-liberal foreign policy theory’, in Volker Rittberger (ed.), German Foreign Policy since Unification: Theories and Case Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), pp. 68–104 Google Scholar.

56 Forsythe, David P., Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1988)Google Scholar; Hasenclever, Andreas, Die Macht der Moral in der internationalen Politik: Militärische Interventionen westlicher Staaten in Somalia, Ruanda und Bosnien-Herzegowina (Frankfurt aM: Campus, 2001)Google Scholar.

57 Scott, James M., ‘In the loop: Congressional influence in American foreign policy’, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 25:1 (1997), pp. 47–75 Google Scholar.

58 Wade, Robert H., ‘Greening the Bank: the struggle over the environment, 1970–1995’, in Devesh Kapur, John P. Lewis, and Richard C. Webb (eds), The World Bank: Its First Half Century (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), pp. 611–734 Google Scholar; Udall, Lori, ‘The World Bank and public accountability: Has anything changed?’, in Jonathan Fox and L. D. Brown (eds), The Struggle for Accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and Grassroots Movements (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), pp. 391–436 Google Scholar; Park, Susan, World Bank Group Interactions with Environmentalists: Changing International Organisation Identities (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

59 The White House, ‘National Security Presidential Directive NSPD-22’, Washington, DC (16 December 2002), available at: {http://www.combat-trafficking.army.mil/documents/policy/NSPD-22.pdf} accessed 1 November 2015.

60 NATO, EAPC doc. EAPC(C)D(2004)0029, ‘Policy on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings’ (8 June 2004).

61 For the formal and informal competences of the US Congress in general, see Scott, ‘In the loop’, p. 49.

62 See, for example, Operations Evaluation Department, ‘OED Review of the World Bank’s Performance on the Environment’, Washington, DC (2001), p. 3, available at: {http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2001/06/1490093/oed-review-banks-performance-environment}; The White House, ‘National Security Presidential Directive’ Google Scholar.

63 Ikenberry, G. J., After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Krisch, Nico, ‘International law in times of hegemony: Unequal power and the shaping of the international legal order’, European Journal of International Law, 16:3 (2005), pp. 369–408 Google Scholar; Zürn, Michael, ‘Jenseits der Anarchie: Autorität und Herrschaft in der Global Governance’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 56:2 (2015), pp. 319–333 Google Scholar.

64 See Fox, Jonathan A. and Brown, David L., ‘Introduction’, in Fox and Brown (eds), The Struggle for Accountability, p. 15 Google Scholar.

65 For US reservations regarding external jurisdiction over peacekeepers, see Zwanenburg, Marten, ‘The statute for an international criminal court and the United States: Peacekeepers under fire?’, European Journal of International Law, 10 (1999), pp. 124–143 Google Scholar.

66 Abbott, and Snidal, , ‘Hard and soft law’; Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson, and Michael J. Tierney (eds), Delegation and Agency in International Organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

67 Moravcsik, Andrew, ‘The paradox of U.S. human rights policy’, in Michael Ignatieff (ed.), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp. 147–197 Google Scholar.

68 See, for example, Sweet, Alec Stone, Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 See, for example, Wessel, Jared, ‘Judicial policymaking at the International Criminal Court: an institutional guide to analyzing international adjudication’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 44:2 (2006), pp. 377–452 Google Scholar; Hirschl, Ran, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

70 Shapiro, Martin, Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

71 Alter, Karen J., ‘Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008), pp. 33–63 Google Scholar.

72 Ginsburg, Tom, ‘International Judicial Lawmaking’, Law and Economics Working Paper No. 26 (Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, 2005)Google Scholar.

73 Heupel, Monika, ‘Judicial policymaking in the EU Courts: Safeguarding due process in EU sanctions policy against terror suspects’, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18:4 (2012), pp. 311–327 Google Scholar [Special Issue, ‘European Anti-Terror Policies Ten Years after 9/11’, eds Donatella Della Porta and Lasse Lindekilde].

74 Court of First Instance, Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran v. Council of the European Union [2006] ECR II-4665, 12 December 2006.

75 Guild, Elspeth, ‘The uses and abuses of counter-terrorism policies in Europe: the case of the “terrorist lists”’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 46:1 (2008), p. 189 Google Scholar.

76 Eriksson, Mikael, In Search of a Due Process: Listing and Delisting Practices in the European Union (Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, 2009), pp. 22, 32 Google Scholar.

77 European Court of Justice, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, ECR I-6351, 3 September 2008.

78 Iain Cameron, EXPO/B/DROI/2007/34 OCT, ‘Respecting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and EU/UN Sanctions: State of Play’, Study commissioned by the European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union (7 October 2008), available at: {www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2008/385542/EXPO-DROI_ET%282008%29385542_EN.pdf} accessed 8 October 2015.

79 Aoife Nolan, Bruce Porter, and Malcolm Langford, ‘The Justiciability of Social and Economic Rights: An Updated Appraisal’, NYU School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No. 15/2007 (New York: New York University, 2007).

80 Mattli, Walter and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘Revisiting the European Court of Justice’, International Organization, 52:1 (1998), pp. 177–209 Google Scholar; Tallberg, Jonas, ‘Supranational influence in EU enforcement: the ECJ and the principle of state liability’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:1 (2000), pp. 104–121 Google Scholar; Reinisch, August, International Organizations before National Courts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

81 Warleigh, Alex, ‘“Europeanizing” civil society: NGOs as agents of political socialization’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39:4 (2001), p. 629 Google Scholar; Cooper, Andrew F., ‘Like-minded nations, NGOs and the changing pattern of diplomacy within the UN system: an introductory perspective’, in Andrew F. Cooper, John English, and Ramesh C. Thakur (eds), Enhancing Global Governance: Towards a New Diplomacy? (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2002), pp. 1–18 Google Scholar.

82 Tarrow, Sidney G., Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (3rd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar.

83 Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics’, International Social Science Journal, 51:159 (1999), p. 97 Google Scholar.

84 Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, ‘The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice’, Science, 211:4481 (1981), pp. 453–458 Google Scholar.

85 Risse, Thomas and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 1–38 Google Scholar.

86 Save the Children UK, ‘Note for Implementing and Operational Partners by UNHCR and Save the Children UK on Sexual Violence & Exploitation: The Experience of Refugee Children in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone Based on Initial Findings and Recommendations from Assessment Mission 22 October–30 November 2001’ (2002), available at: {http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/sexual_violence_and_exploitation_1.pdf}; UN General Assembly, UN doc. A/59/710, ‘A Comprehensive Strategy to Eliminate Future Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations [the “Zeid Report”]’ (24 March 2005).

87 See, for example, Amnesty International, AI Index: IOR 40/01/94, ‘Peace-keeping and Human Rights’ (January 1994), available at: {https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/IOR40/001/1994/en/}; Council of Europe, CommDH(2002)11, ‘Kosovo: The Human Rights Situation and the Fate of Persons Displaced From their Homes: Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights for the Attention of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe’ (2002), available at: {https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=982119&-Site=COE}.

88 Amnesty International, AI Index: EUR 05/002/2004, ‘The Apparent Lack of Accountability of International Peacekeeping Forces in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina’ (April 2004), available at: {http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR05/002/2004/en}; OSCE, ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System (September 2001–February 2002)’, OSCE Mission in Kosovo, Department of Human Rights and Rule of Law (2002), available at: {http://www.osce.org/kosovo/13043}.

89 See, for example, Mueller, John and Mueller, Karl, ‘Sanctions of mass destruction’, Foreign Affairs, 78 (1999), pp. 43–52 Google Scholar.

90 The Watson Institute, ‘Targeted Financial Sanctions: A Manual for Design and Implementation: Contributions from the Interlaken Process’, Providence, RI (2001), available at: {http://www.watsoninstitute.org/tfs/TFS.pdf}; UN Security Council, S/2005/841, ‘Note by the President of the Security Council’ (2005).

91 IMF, ‘Evaluation Report: Fiscal Adjustment in IMF-Supported Programs: Report by the Independent Evaluation Office’ (2003), pp. 8–9, available at: {http://www.imf.org/external/np/ieo/2003/fis/}.

92 Keck, and Sikkink, , Activists Beyond Borders, p. 27 Google Scholar.

93 Barbara Crossette, ‘When peacekeepers turn into troublemakers’, The New York Times (7 January 1996), available at: {www.nytimes.com/1996/01/07/weekinreview/the-world-when-peacekeepers-turn-into-troublemakers.html} accessed 16 October 2015.

94 Amnesty International, ‘The Apparent Lack of Accountability’.

95 Richard Roth and Rula Amin, ‘Sanctions send Iraq on downward spiral’, CNN (12 July 1999), available at: {http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9907/12/iraq.sanctions/} accessed 12 October 2015; Interview by Theresa Reinold with NGO official relating to the IMF case, Washington, DC, 12 June 2012.

96 Schimmelfennig, The EU, NATO, and the Integration of Europe.

97 Barnett, Michael N. and Finnemore, Martha, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

98 United Nations, Charter (1945), Chapter I, Article 1, available at: {http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html} accessed 23 May 2017.

99 UN Secretary-General, ‘Secretary-General’s Bulletin: Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse’ (9 October 2003), available at: {www.unhcr.org/405ac6614.html} accessed 16 October 2015.

100 Cora C. True-Frost, ‘The Security Council and norm consumption’, NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 40:1 (2007), pp. 115–216 Google Scholar.

101 Wallander, Celeste, ‘Institutional assets and adaptability: NATO after the Cold War’, International Organization, 54:4 (2000), pp. 705–735 Google Scholar; Interviews with senior IMF official and NGO official, Washington, DC, 13 and 14 June 2012.

102 See Levitt, Barbara and March, James G., ‘Organizational learning’, Annual Review of Sociology, 14 (1988), p. 329 Google Scholar.

103 Hadewych Hazelzet, ‘Carrots or Sticks: EU and US Reactions to Human Rights Violations (1989–2000)’ (PhD thesis, Florence, Italy, 2001), p. 48; Eriksson, In Search of a Due Process, p. 11.

104 Wallensteen, Peter, Staibano, Carina, and Eriksson, Mikael, Making Targeted Sanctions Effective: Guidelines for the Implementation of UN Policy Options (Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, 2003), p. 141 Google Scholar.

105 Eriksson, Mikael, Operational Conflict Prevention and the Use of Targeted Sanctions: Conditions for Effective Implementation by the EU and UN (New York: Center on International Cooperation, New York University, 2008), p. 11 Google Scholar.

106 See De Vries, Anthonius W. and Hazelzet, Hadewych, ‘The EU as a new actor on the sanctions scene’, in Peter Wallensteen and Carina Staibano (eds), International Sanctions: Between Words and Wars in the Global System (London: Frank Cass, 2005), p. 95 Google Scholar.

107 See Eriksson, , Operational Conflict Prevention, p. 11 Google Scholar.

108 Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational’, International Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 457–488 Google Scholar.

109 Teitel, Ruti, Humanity’s Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar. For the distinction between thin and thick conceptions of the rule of law, see Tamanaha, Brian Z., On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 91–113 Google Scholar.

110 See also Buchanan, Allen and Keohane, Robert O., ‘The legitimacy of global governance institutions’, Ethics & International Affairs, 20:4 (2006), pp. 405–437 Google Scholar.

111 Zürn, Michael, ‘Global governance and legitimacy problems’, Government & Opposition, 39:2 (2004), pp. 260–287 Google Scholar.

112 Dingwerth, Klaus, ‘Global democracy and the democratic minimum: Why a procedural account alone is insufficient’, European Journal of International Relations, 20:4 (2014), pp. 1124–1147 Google Scholar.

113 We measure name recognition by Google Scholar counts (retrieved 9 May 2012). While this is admittedly a rough measure, it indicates the relative relevance of IOs in public debates.

114 The remaining five IOs that did not introduce human rights protection provisions are the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

115 Zürn, et al., ‘The International Authority Data Project’; Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, ‘Delegation and pooling in international organizations’, The Review of International Organizations, 10:3 (2015), pp. 305–328 Google Scholar.

116 Alter, Karen J., The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

117 Reinisch, International Organizations before National Courts ; Ryngaert, Cedric, ‘The immunity of international organizations before domestic courts: Recent trends’, International Organizations Law Review, 7:1 (2010), pp. 121–148 Google Scholar.

118 Bissell, Richard E. and Nanwani, Suresh, ‘Multilateral development bank accountability mechanisms: Developments and challenges’, Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 6:1 (2009), pp. 2–55 Google Scholar.

119 Sánchez-Barrueco, Mária L., ‘The promotion and protection of human rights during common security and defence policy operations: In-between a spreading state of mind and an unsolved concern’, in Jan Erik Wetzel (ed.), The EU as a ‘Global Player’ in Human Rights? (London: Routledge, 2011), pp. 158–159 Google Scholar.

120 See interview by Monika Heupel with a member state representative, Washington, DC, 20 September 2012.

Supplementary material: File

Heupel et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Heupel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 48.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Heupel et al. supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Heupel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 116.9 KB