This chapter discusses an oft-cited source of the All-Affected Principle in a procedural maxim of Roman private law known by the tag quod omnes tangit (‘what touches all’), a maxim that became a more expansive principle of medieval canon and civil law. By exploring some of the maxim’s original contexts and formulations, the chapter draws out several important lessons for the All-Affected Principle itself: the interplay between procedural and substantive claims; the empowerment of some to advance such claims on behalf of others; and the need for procedural closure. It then explores the possible application of this approach in the context of how climate change touches all and how claims might be made on the basis of the All-Affected Principle accordingly. Identification of moral rights to a fair per capita share of a global carbon budget, and rights against the unjust imposition of harm or the risk of harm, are both considered as potential sources of such claims. A range of possible institutional arrangements to advance and realize such claims, such as trusteeship, are briefly considered in conclusion.

This chapter establishes a framework for the analyis and assessment of the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. I establish a definition of IO accountability mechanisms, as well as a detailed taxonomy of them. I also propose a normative framework for assessing the sufficiency of IO accountability mechanisms, based on the right to remedy and procedural justice research. From these two strands of theory, I establish concrete normative yardsticks for assessing four aspects of IO accountability mechanisms: Access, Voice, Neutrality, and Outcome.