Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-rx7pk Total loading time: 1.511 Render date: 2022-10-07T07:04:38.009Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nico Krisch*
Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals, Barcelona. Email


The consensual structure of the international legal order, with its strong emphasis on the sovereign equality of states, has always been somewhat precarious. In different waves over the centuries, it has been attacked for its incongruence with the realities of inequality in international politics, for its tension with ideals of democracy and human rights, and for standing in the way of more effective problem solving in the international community. While surprisingly resilient in the face of such challenges, the consensual structure has seen renewed attacks in recent years. In the 1990s, those attacks were mainly “moral” in character. They were related to the liberal turn in international law, and some of them, under the banner of human rights, aimed at weakening principles of nonintervention and immunity. Others, starting from the idea of an emerging “international community,” questioned the prevailing contractual models of international law and emphasized the rise of norms and processes reflecting community values rather than individual state interests. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the focus has shifted, and attacks are more often framed in terms of effectiveness or global public goods. Classical international law is regarded as increasingly incapable of providing much-needed solutions for the challenges of a globalized world; as countries become ever more interdependent and vulnerable to global challenges, an order that safeguards states’ freedoms at the cost of common policies is often seen as anachronistic. According to this view, what is needed—and what we are likely to see—is a turn to nonconsensual lawmaking mechanisms, especially through powerful international institutions with majoritarian voting rules.

Research Article
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2014

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.)


1 See, e.g., Fernando R Tesón, A Philosophy of International Law (1998); Beitz, Charles R., Political Theory and International Relations (2d ed. 1999)Google Scholar.

2 See, e.g., Charney, Jonathan I., Universal International Law, 87 AJIL 529 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tomuschat, Christian, Obligations Arising for States Without or Against Their Will, 241 Recueil Des Cours 195 (1993 IV)Google Scholar; Simma, Bruno, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, 250 Recueil Des Cours 217 (1994)Google Scholar. See also the overview in Andreas Paulus, Die Internationale Gemeinschaft Im VöLkerrecht: Eine Untersuchung Zur Entwicklung Des Völkerrechts Im Zeitalter Der Globalisierung (2001).

3 See the analysis in part I and in the legal literature, especially Helfer, Laurence R., Nonconsensual International Lawmaking, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 71 Google Scholar; Guzman, Andrew T., Against Consent, 52 Va. J. Int’l L. 747 (2012)Google Scholar; Joel P. Trachtman, The Future of International Law: Global Government (2013).

4 I have some sympathies for the normative argument but regard it as one-sided, leaving out countervailing arguments about the right domain of decision making.see Nico Krisch, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law 69–108 (2010). See also the analysis and critique of this position in Shaffer, Gregory, International Law and Global Public Goods in a Legal Pluralist World, 23 Eur. J. Int’L L. 669, 683–93 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See, e.g., Tomuschat, supra note 2, at 278 –90; Hall, Stephen, The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism, 12 Eur. J. Int’l L. 269 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weil, Prosper, Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?, 77 AJIL 413, 433–34 (1983) (especially on custom)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charney, supra note 2, at 536–42; Kelly, Patrick, The Twilight of Customary International Law, 40 Va. J. Int’l L. 449, 508–16 (2000)Google Scholar.

6 see Klabbers, Jan, An Introduction to International Institutional Law 53–73 (2d ed. 2009)Google Scholar.

7 Traditional customary law is typically viewed as too slow and unpredictable in its processes to serve regulatory purposes well, whereas “modern” custom—more focused on opinio juris than actual state practice—is typically viewed as requiring broader consensus to gain legal force. See generally Roberts, Anthea E., Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation, 95 AJIL 757 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Non-excludable because nobody can be excluded from their usage, and non-rivalrous because they do not deteriorate if more people use them. See, e.g., Andreu Mas-Colell, Michaeld. Whinston & Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory 359–60 (1995); Shaffer, supra note 4, at 673–5. Non-excludable goods are the primary focus here because of the particular governance challenges that they present. See also the definition in Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups 14–15 (1965), which includes merely non-excludable goods (often termed common-pool resources). Other definitions focus on the non-rivalrous element and include club goods, which are non-rivalrous but excludable. See, e.g., Samuelson, Paul A., The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure, 36 Rev. Econ. & Stat. 387 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21St Century (Inge Kaul, Isabelle Grunberg & Marc A. Stern eds., 1999); Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization (Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven & Ronald U. Mendoza eds., 2003).

10 For overviews, see Kaul, Inge, Global Public Goods: Explaining Their Underprovision, 15 J. Int’l Econ. L. 729 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Gonzalo Escribano Francés, Provisión de Bienes Públicos Globales y Economía Política International, in La Protección De Bienes Juridicos Globales 39 (Carlos Espósito & Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez eds., 2012). But see also the critique by Friedrich Kratochwil, Problems of Policy-Design Based on Insufficient Conceptualization: The Case of “Public Goods, in Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods: Theories, Rules and Institutions for the Central Policy Challenge in the 21St Century 61 (Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann ed., 2012) (Eur. Univ. Inst., Working Paper RSCAS 2012/23)), at http://cadmus.

11 Olson, supra note 8, at 13–16.

12 Nordhaus, William N., Paul Samuelson and Global Public Goods 8 (2005), at Google Scholar

13 see Scott Barrett, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, chs. 1–3 (2007); Bodansky, Daniel, What’s in a Concept? Global Public Goods, International Law, and Legitimacy, 23 Eur. J. Int’l L. 651, 658 – 65 (2012); Shaffer, supra note 4, at 675–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 On the different types of goods, see the overview in Bodansky, supra note 13, at 658 – 65.

15 See Barrett, supra note 13, ch. 4.

16 see Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, Art. 4, Sept. 16, 1987, 1522 UNTS 3, available at

17 see Helfer, supra note 3, at 100–02. Consent requirements in international law are, after all, merely formal protections of sovereign equality. see Krisch, Nico, More Equal Than the Rest? Hierarchy, Equality and U.S. Predominance in International Law, in United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law 135 (Byers, Michael & Nolte, Georg eds., 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See generally Ostrom, Elinor, Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems, 100 Am. Econ. Rev. 1 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Barrett, supra note 13, at 72.

20 The interest of international lawyers in global public goods can be seen in a number of recent symposia. see Symposium, Global Public Goods and the Plurality of Legal Orders, 23 Eur. J. Int’l L. 643 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mini-symposium on Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods, 15 J. Int’l Econ. L. 709–91 (2012); Multilevel Governance of Interdependent Public Goods, supra note 10; La Protección De Bienes Juridicos Globales, supra note 10.

21 Guzman, supra note 3, at 749 (the “commitment to consent is a major problem for today’s international legal system”); Trachtman, supra note 3, at 2 (“[T]here will be circumstances in which more highly articulated constitutional or organizational structures—including executive, legislative, and judicial functions—will be useful.”); Helfer, supra note 3, at 124 –25 (“it has become apparent that voluntary treaty making and treaty adherence procedures often produce a problematic result”).

22 Shaffer, supra note 4, at 679 (“For aggregate efforts public goods..., there is a greater need for centralized institutions to produce them, leading to a relinquishment of some national sovereignty.”); Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses A. & Wouters, Jan, Informal International Law making: An Assessment and Template to Keep It Both Effective and Accountable, in Informal International Lawmaking 500, 525 (Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses & Wouters, Jan eds., 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (state consent is seen as “too strict” as it “makes collective action in an increasingly networked but diversified world extremely difficult”); Kumm, Mattias, The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship Between Constitutionalism in and Beyond the State, in Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, And Global Governance 259, 298 (Dunoff, Jeffrey L. & Trachtman, Joel P. eds., 2009)Google Scholar (international intervention beyond traditional constraints becomes legitimate if “there are good reasons for deciding an issue on the international level, because the concerns that need to be addressed are best addressed by a larger community in order to solve collective action problems and secure the provision of global public goods”).

23 Jutta Brunnee & P Stephen J. Toope, Legitimacy and Legality in International Law (2010); see also Esty, Daniel C. & Moffa, Anthony L.I., Why Climate Change Collective Action Has Failed and What Needs to Be Done Within and Without the Trade Regime, 15 J. Int’l Econ. L. 777, 779 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (“a new environmental regime needs to be constructed with institutional capacities designed to respond to global-scale collective action problems”).

24 See supra note 2 and accompanying text.

25 Klabbers, Jan, Law-Making and Constitutionalism, in The Constitutionalization of International Law 81, 114 (Klabbers, Jan, Peters, Anne & Ulfstein, Geir eds., 2009)Google Scholar; see also Weil, supra note 5.

26 see Fritz W Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (1999).

27 For Scharpf, arguments from output could ground only pareto-optimal solutions but not measures with greater distributive effects. In later works, he has softened this limitation, especially with respect to judge-made law in the EU. see Scharpf, Fritz W, Legitimacy in the Multilevel European Polity, 1 Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev. 173, 189–90 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 see Fritz W Scharpf, Legitimationskonzepte jenseits des Nationalstaats (Max Planck Inst. for the Study of Societies, Working Paper No. 04/6, 2004).

29 See, e.g., Moravcsik, Andrew & Sangiovanni, Andrea, On Democracy and “Public Interest” in the European Union, in Die Reformierbarkeit Der Demokratie. Innovationen Und Blockaden 122(Streeck, Wolfgang & Mainz, Renate eds., 2002)Google Scholar.

30 Buchanan, Allen & Keohane, Robert O., The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions, 20 Ethics & Int’l Aff. 405, 422 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 see Keohane, Robert O., Global Governance and Legitimacy, 18 Rev. Int’l Pol. Econ. 99 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 see Held, David, Democratic Accountability and Political Effectiveness from a Cosmopolitan Perspective, 39 Gov’t & Opposition 364, 383–86 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pettit, Philip, Democracy, National and International, 89 Monist 301 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics(2006); James Bohman, Democracy Across Borders: From Deêmos to Deêmoi (2007).

33 See the overview in de Búrca, Graínne, Developing Democracy Beyond the State, 46 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 101 (2008)Google Scholar.

34 See, for example, the more demanding position defended in Jürgen Habermas Dergeteilte Westen ch. 6 (2004); Habermas, Jürgen, The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution for World Society, 15 Constellations 444 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 See, e.g., Guzman, supra note 3, at 788–90.

36 see Tomuschat, supra note 2, at 241–352; Simma, supra note 2, at 322–75; Helfer, supra note 3, at 74–75; Guzman, supra note 3, at 775–87; Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, Consent to Be Bound—Anything New Under the Sun?, 74 Nordic J. Int’l L. 483 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dumberry, Patrick, Incoherent and Ineffective: The Concept of Persistent Objector Revisited, 59 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 779, 785–94 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 For a recent functionalist account along such lines, see Trachtman, supra note 3.

38 For example, consent may be lacking entirely; it may be thought of as tacit; or it may come at one remove, as in the creation of majoritarian or independent institutions with rulemaking or adjudicatory powers.

39 see Guzman, supra note 3; Trachtman, supra note 3; see also Tomuschat, supra note 2, at 240.

40 see Kennedy, David, The Move to Institutions, 8 Cardozo L. Rev. 841 (1987)Google Scholar.

41 Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L. & Tierney, Michael J., Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations, and Principal-Agent Theory, in Delegation and Agency in International Organizations 3, 21 (Hawkins, Darren G., Lake, David A., Nielson, Daniel L. & Tierney, Michael J. eds., 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Randall Stone, Controlling Institutions:International Organizations and the Global Economy 27 (2011). But see also the contrary finding in Koremenos, Barbara, When, What and Why Do States Choose to Delegate?, 71 Law & Contemp. Probs. 151, 170–2 (2008)Google Scholar, which may be due to a stronger focus on delegation involving dispute settlement rather than policymaking. See also id. at 179. On delegation and its forms in general, see Bradley, Curtis A. & Kelley, Judith G., The Concept of International Delegation, 71 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1 (2008)Google Scholar.

42 see Putnam, Tonya L., Courts Without Borders: Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere, 63 Int’l Org. 459, 460, 483 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, Developments in the Law: Extra territoriality, 124 HARV. L. REV. 1226 (2011); Bradford, Anu, The Brussels Effect, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1 (2012)Google Scholar.

43 see Berman, Paul Schiff, The Globalization of Jurisdiction, 151 U. Pa. L. Rev. 311 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buxbaum, Hannah L., Transnational Regulatory Litigation, 46 Va. J. Int’l L. 251 (2006)Google Scholar; Michaels, Ralf, Global Problems in Domestic Courts, in The Law of the Future and the Future of Law 165 (Muller, Sam, Zouridis, Stavros, Frishman, Morly & Kistemaker, Laura eds., 2011), at Google Scholar.

44 See, e.g., Abbott, Kenneth W. & Snidal, Duncan, Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, 54 Int’l Org. 421 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (2004); Shaffer, Gregory C. & Pollack, Mark A., Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements and Antagonists in International Governance, 94 Minn. L. Rev. 706 (2010)Google Scholar. Conceptually, I understand soft law as categorically different from hard law (and not just as another point on a continuum); see Raustiala, Kal, Form and Substance in International Agreements, 99 AJIL 581 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Abbott & Snidal, supra note 44, at 429.

46 See supra notes 13–15 and accompanying text.

47 see Naím, Moisés, Minilateralism: The Magic Number to Get Real International Action, 173 Foreign Pol’y 135 (2009)Google Scholar. On the relationship between minilateralism and multilateralism in different regimes, see Kahler, Miles, Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers, 46 Int’l Org. 681 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 see Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change, in Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, And Power 1 (Mahoney, James & Thelen, Kathleen eds., 2010)Google Scholar.

49 see Hawkins et al., supra note 41, at 22; Viola, Lora, Snidal, Duncan & Zu¨rn, Michael, Sovereign (In)equality in the Evolution of the International System, in Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State (Leibfried, Stephan, Huber, Evelyn & Stephens, John eds., forthcoming 2014)Google Scholar.

50 see Daniel W. Drezner, All Politics Is Global: Explaining International Regulatory Regimes (2007).

51 See, e.g., Ingo Rohlfing, Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework 84–96 (2012); see also Odell, John S., Case Study Methods in International Political Economy, 2 Int’l Stud. Persp. 161, 166 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flyvbjerg, Bent, Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research, 12 Qualitative Inquiry 219, 231–32 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 11, 1997, 2303 UNTS 162, available at

53 see Guzman, Andrew T., Is International Antitrust Possible?, 73 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1501, 1510 –24 (1998)Google Scholar; Guzman, Andrew T., Competition Law and Cooperation: Possible Strategies, in Cooperation, Comity, And Competition Policy 345, 354 (Guzman, Andrew T. ed., 2011)Google Scholar. But see also the different emphasis in Bradford, Anu, International Antitrust Negotiations and the False Hope of the WTO, 48 Harv. Int’l L.J. 383 (2007)Google Scholar.

54 David J. Gerber, Global Competition: Law, Markets, And Globalization 24–31 (2010).

55 See id. at 38–52; Wood, Diane P., The Impossible Dream: Real International Antitrust, U. Chi. Legal F. 277, 281–84 (1992)Google Scholar.

56 Wood, supra note 55, at 284–85.

57 Id. at 285– 87; Sokol, D. Daniel, International Antitrust Institutions, in Cooperation, Comity, And Competition Policy, supra note 53, at 187, 199–200.Google Scholar

58 see Wood, supra note 55, at 297–300.

59 United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 444 (2d Cir. 1945).

60 see Maher M. Dabbah, International and Comparative Competition Law 432–49 (2010).

61 see Damien Geradin, Marc Reysen, & David Henry, Extraterritoriality, Comity, and Cooperation in EU Competition Law, in Cooperation, Comity, And Competition Policy, supra note 53, at 21, 26–30. The effects doctrine has remained somewhat circumscribed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. See, e.g., Case 89/85, In re Wood Pulp Cartel, 1988 E.C.R. 5193.

62 Dabbah, supra note 60, at 469; see also Wood, supra note 55, at 301. On European attempts to promote its approach to competition law abroad, see Aydin, Umut, Promoting Competition: European Union and the Global Competition Order, 34 J. Eur. Integration 663 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 See the contributions in Cooperation, Comity, And Competition Policy, supra note 53, especially those on Brazil and China, and also Einer Elhauge & Damien Geradin, Global Antitrust Law and Economics 1187–88 (2d ed. 2011).

64 See Cédric Ryngaert, Jurisdiction Over Antitrust Violations in International Law 19597 (2008).

65 Dabbah, supra note 60, at 423, 469–76.

66 see Bradford, supra note 42, at 10–20.

67 But see the limitations reflected in F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004). See also Note, supra note 42, at 1269 –79, which observes an expansion of extraterritorial criminal prosecution in anti trust cases as jurisdiction for civil suits has been restricted in the wake of Empagran.

68 see Dabbah, Maher M., Future Directions in Bilateral Cooperation: A Policy Perspective, in Cooperation, Comity, And Competition Policy, supra note 53, at 287, 290 –93Google Scholar.

69 see Bradford, supra note 42, at 19–22, who also argues that stricter EU rules typically take precedence over more permissive U.S. rules in the area.

70 see Kindleberger, Charles P., Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy: Exploitation, Public Goods, and Free Rides, 25 Int’l Stud. Q. 242 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Snidal, Duncan, The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory, 39 Int’l ORG. 579 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 For concise discussions of limits to the decentralized approach to antitrust regulation and enforcement, see Geradin, Damien, The Perils of Antitrust Proliferation: The Globalization of Antitrust and the Risks of Overregulation of Competitive Behavior, 10 Chi. J. Int’l L. 189 (2009)Google Scholar; Fox, Eleanor M., Antitrust Without Borders: From Roots to Codes to Networks, in Cooperation, Comity, And Competition Policy, supra note 53, at 265, 273–79Google Scholar.

72 see Fox, supra note 71, at 272; Gerber, supra note 54, at 101– 07.

73 Fox, supra note 71, at 272.

74 see Gerber, supra note 54, at 103–07; see also Elhauge & Geradin, supra note 63, at 1239–47.

75 see Gerber, supra note 54, at 105–06; Fox, supra note 71, at 272; Bradford, supra note 53, at 401–10.

76 see Guzman, Is International Antitrust Possible?, supra note 53, at 1537.

77 Gerber, supra note 54, at 106–07; Bhattacharjea, Aditya, The Case for a Multilateral Agreement on Competition Policy: A Developing Country Perspective, 9 J. Int’l Econ. L. 293, 295–99 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bradford, supra note 53, at 410–13, emphasizes the problem of transaction costs for developing countries.

78 See the analysis of country incentives in Guzman, Is International Antitrust Possible?, supra note 53, at 1526 – 29. See also Bradford, supra note 53, at 401–37, who also argues that negotiations failed largely because of the lack of expected benefits, but does not discuss the impact of extraterritorial regulation on that calculation.

79 Gerber, supra note 54, at 108–09; Elhauge & Geradin, supra note 63, at 1225–39; Dabbah,supra note 60, at 494–540; Gal, Michal S., Regional Competition Law Agreements: An Important Step for Antitrust Enforcement, 60 U. Toronto L. J. 239 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 See generally Gerber, supra note 54, at 111–16; Dabbah, supra note 60, at 130–53 (also discussing on the continuing role of the UN Conference on Trade and Development).

81 see Fox, Eleanor M., Linked-In: Antitrust and the Virtues of a Virtual Network, 43 Int’l Law. 151 (2009)Google Scholar; Gerber, supra note 54, at 115–16; Sokol, supra note 57, 200–02; Djelic, Marie-Laure, International Competition Network, in Handbook of Transnational Governance 80 (Hale, Thomas & Held, David eds., 2011)Google Scholar; The International Competition Network At Ten: Origins, Accomplishments and Aspirations (Paul Lugard ed., 2011); Yane Svetiev, The Limits of Informal International Law: Enforcement, Norm-Generation, and Learning in the ICN, in Informal International Lawmaking, supra note 22, at 271. See also the discussion of problems in Gal, Michal S., Antitrust in a Globalized Economy: The Unique Enforcement Challenges Faced by Small and Developing Jurisdictions, 33 Fordham Int’l L.J. 1, 45–54 (2009)Google Scholar.

82 see Guzman, Is International Antitrust Possible?, supra note 53, at 1526 –27.

83 See also the accounts in Gal, supra note 81, at 40–45, and Gerber, supra note 54, at 74–78.

84 See, e.g., Revised Recommendation of the Council Concerning Cooperation Between Member Countries on Anticompetitive Practices Affecting International Trade, OECD Doc. C(95)130/FINAL (Sept. 21, 1995).

85 For U.S. antitrust agreements, see U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Cooperation Agreements, at; for EU antitrust agreements, see Commission, European, Bilateral Relations on Competition Issues, at Google Scholar. See also the U.S. enforcement guidelines for antitrust authorities, with direct reference to the OECD recommendation, in Elhauge & Geradin, supra note 63, at 1226 (paragraph 2.92).

86 See especially the 1991 and 1998 agreements between the United States and EU, in Elhauge & Geradin, supra note 63, at 1226 –34.

87 International Competition Network, Recommended Practices for Merger Notification Procedures (n.d.), at

88 International Competition Network Steering Group, International Enforcement Cooperation Project 1 (2012), at

89 see Barrett, supra note 13, at 74.

90 On the extent of the challenge, see David G. Victor, Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet, chs. 2, 5, 6 (2011).

91 I do not discuss here potential (but highly problematic) strategies of geo-engineering, which could be employed by single states or even private actors. see Barrett, supra note 13, at 37– 40; Victor, supra note 90, at 185–96; Specter, Michael, The Climate Fixers: Is There a Technological Solution to Global Warming?, New Yorker, May 14, 2012, at 96 Google Scholar.

92 see Ostrom, Elinor, Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change, 20 Global Envtl. Change 550 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 see Barrett, supra note 13, ch. 3; Victor, supra note 90, at 210 –15.

94 May 9, 1992, 1771 UNTS 107, S. Treaty DOC. NO. 102-38 (1992).

95 For overviews, see Brunnée & Toope, supra note 23, at 13141; Philippe Sands, Jacqueline Peel, Adriana Fabra Aguilar & Ruth Mackenzie, Principles of International Environmental Law 274–98 (3d ed. 2012). Fora critical account, see Victor, supra note 90, ch.7. For the ratification status, see United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, at For a concise account of dominant concerns driving institutional design, see Thompson, Alexander, Rational Design in Motion: Uncertainty and Flexibility in the Global Climate Regime, 16 Eur. J. Int’l Rel. 269 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 see Victor, supra note 90, at 210 –15, 224 –29; Streck, Charlotte, Innovativeness and Paralysis in International Climate Policy, 1 Transnat’l Envtl. L. 137, 139 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In 2012, and over objections from Russia, parties agreed to a second commitment period under the Protocol, effectively extending it until 2020, though with binding emissions reduction obligations for only a small set of countries. see Harrabin, Roger, UN Climate Talks Extend Kyoto Protocol, Promise Compensation, BBC News (Dec. 8, 2012), at Google Scholar.

97 See also Eckersley, Robyn, Moving Forward in the Climate Negotiations: Multilateralism or Minilateralism?, 12 Global Envtl. Pol. 24, 30–31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who diagnoses a particularly strong, “affirmative” form of multilateralism in the climate change context.

98 See, for example, the account of the Copenhagen negotiations, with more than forty thousand participants, in Bodansky, Daniel, The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: A Postmortem, 104 AJIL 230 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Consensus is not defined in the UNFCCC, but the formula in Article IX of the WTO Agreement is often taken to capture the practice: “The body concerned shall be deemed to have decided by consensus on a matter submitted for its consideration, if no Member, present at the meeting when the decision is taken, formally objects to the pro posed decision.” Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Art. IX n. 1, Apr. 15, 1994, 1867 UNTS 154; see also Alan Boyle & Christine Chinkin, The Making of International Law 157–58 (2007).

100 Decision 1/CP.15 (Dec. 18, 2009), in Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, Held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009, Addendum, Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Fifteenth Session, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 (Mar. 30, 2010).

101 see French, Duncan & Rajamani, Lavanya, Climate Change and International Environmental Law: Musings on a Journey to Somewhere, 25 J. Envt’l L. 437, 448–51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Id. at 449 –50. I wish to thank Veerle Heyvaert for drawing my attention to this development.

103 See also the discussion in Brunnée, Jutta, COPing with Consent: Law-Making Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 15 Leiden J. Int’l L. 1, 23–33 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Supra note 52.

105 On the debate, see Streck, supra note 96, at 147.

106 Id.; see also Brunnée & Toope supra note 23, at 185, 201.

107 Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, 7th Sess., Marrakesh, Morocco, Oct. 29–Nov. 10, 2001, Report of the Conference of the Parties at 64, Decision 24/CP.7, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.3 (Jan. 21, 2002).

108 Id.

109 see Brunn&e & Toope, supra note 23, at 201–04.

110 see French & Rajamani, supra note 101, at 443–48.

111 see Eckersley, supra note 97.

112 see Bodansky, supra note 98, at 234; Ian Clark, Hegemony in International Society 231–32 (2011).

113 Bodansky, supra note 98, at 238; McGregor, Ian M., Disenfranchisement of Countries and Civil Society at COP-15 in Copenhagen, 11 Global Envtl. Pol. 1, 5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On previous, related critiques in climate change negotiations, see Keohane, Robert O. & Victor, David G., The Regime Complex for Climate Change, 9 Persp. On Pol. 7, 15 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the broader picture, Fisher, Dana R. & Green, Jessica F., Understanding Disenfanchisement: Civil Society and Developing Countries’ Influence and Participation in Global Governance for Sustainable Development, 4 Global Envtl. Pol. 65 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

114 The COP only “took note” of the document. see Conference of the Parties, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen, Dec. 7–19,2009, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, Addendum at 4, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 (Mar. 30, 2010).

115 see Rajamani, Lavanya, The Cancun Climate Agreements: Reading the Text, Subtext, and Tea Leaves, 60 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 499, 515 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

116 see Keohane & Victor, supra note 113.

117 See id. and Abbott, Kenneth W., The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change (2011), at CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for different, though largely complementary, accounts.

118 see Un Scor, 62d Sess., 5663d mtg., UN Doc. S/PV/5663 (Apr. 17, 2007).

119 See, e.g., Scott, Shirley V., Climate Change and Peak Oil as Threats to International Peace and Security: Is It Time for the Security Council to Legislate?, 9 Melb. J. Int’l L. 495 (2008)Google Scholar.

120 On Security Council powers and their extension in general, see Krisch, Nico, Chapter VII Powers: The General Framework and Article 39, in The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 1237 & 1272 (Simma, Bruno, Khan, Daniel-Erasmus, Nolte, Georg & Paulus, Andreas eds., 3rd ed. 2012)Google Scholar.

121 see UN SCOR, 62d Sess., 5663d mtg., UN Doc. S/PV/5663 (Apr. 17, 2007). On the different positions in the debate, see Cousins, Stephanie, UN Security Council: Playing a Role in the International Climate Change Regime?, 25 Global Change, Peace & Security 191, 201–07 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 See Statement by the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PRST/2011/15 (July 20, 2011), and the Security Council’s controversial discussion in UN SCOR, 66th Sess., 6587th mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.6587 (July 20, 2011). In 2013, because of objections, discussions were held at an informal meeting. see Flavia Krause-Jackson, Climate Change’s Links to Conflict Draws UN Attention, (Feb. 16, 2013), at

123 see UNSCOR 62 d Sess., 5663d mtg., UNDoc. S/PV/5663 (Apr. 17, 2007); UNSCOR 66th Sess., 6587th mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.6587 (July 20, 2011).

124 On unilateralism in environmental affairs generally, see Shaffer, Gregory & Bodansky, Daniel, Transnationalism, Unilateralism and International Law, 1 Transnat’l Envtl L. 31 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and also Bodansky, Daniel, What’s So Bad About Unilateral Action to Protect the Environment?, 11 Eur. J. Int’l L. 339 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

125 See, e.g., Bushnell, James, Peterman, Carla & Wolfram, Catherine, Local Solutions to Global Problems: Climate Change Policies and Regulatory Jurisdiction, 2 Rev. Envtl. Econ. Pol’y 175–93 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But see also Freeman, Jody & Guzman, Andrew, Climate Change and U.S. Interests, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1531 (2009)Google Scholar, who are more hopeful about the effects of unilateral action (by the United States).

126 see Monjon, Stéphanie & Quirion, Philippe, Addressing Leakage in the EU ETS: Border Adjustment or Output-Based Allocation?, 70 Ecological Econ. 1957 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, Joanne & Rajamani, Lavanya, EU Climate Change Unilateralism, 23 Eur. J. Int’l L. 469 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 see Kanter, James, At Climate Talks, Trade Pressures Mount, N.Y. Times (Dec. 17, 2009), at Google Scholar; Voituriez, Tancréde & Wang, Xin, Getting the Carbon Price Right Through Climate Border Measures: A Chinese Perspective, 11 Climate Pol’y 1257 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harvey, Fiona, Sanctions Threat to European Airlines over Emissions Trading, Guardian (Feb. 23, 2012), at http://www.guard Scholar For a normative discussion see Eckersley, Robyn, The Politics of Carbon Leakage and the Fairness of Border Measures, 24 Ethics & Int’l Aff. 367 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 On territorial extension see Scott, Joanne, Extraterritoriality and Territorial Extension in EU Law, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. (forthcoming 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

129 Case C-366/10, Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. Secy of State for Energy and Climate Change, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, para. 154 (Oct. 6, 2011), at The European Court of Justice used a more conventional approach to ground jurisdiction. See Case C-366/10, Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. Sec’y of State for Energy and Climate Change, Judgment, paras. 121–30 (Dec. 21, 2011).

130 See also the “cosmopolitan pluralist” conception of jurisdiction in Berman, supra note 43, at 481–501.

131 see Barrett, supra note 13, at 59–61,133–48.

132 see Clunan, Anne L., The Fight Against Terrorist Financing, 121 Pol. Sci. Q. 569, 572 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, supra note 13, at 60.

133 see Clunan, supra note 132, at 570 –74; Barrett, Richard, Time to Reexamine Regulation Designed to Counter the Financing of Terrorism, 41 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 7, 11 (2009)Google Scholar.

134 see Saul, Ben, Defining Terrorism in International Law, ch. 3 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walter, Christian, Terrorism, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Wolfrum, Ru¨diger ed., 2011)Google Scholar; see also Terrorism and International Law (Rosalyn Higgins & Maurice Flory eds., 1997).

135 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Dec. 9, 1999, 2178 UNTS 197; see also Lavalle, Roberto, The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 60 Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches óffentliches Recht Und Vólkerrecht 491 (2000)Google Scholar.

136 SC Res. 1267 (Oct. 15, 1999); SC Res. 1333 (Dec. 19, 2000).

137 See generally, Bantekas, Ilias, The International Law of Terrorist Financing, 97 AJIL 315 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clunan, supra note 132; Jae-Myong Koh, Suppressing Terrorist Financing and Money Laundering (2006); Biersteker, Thomas J., Eckert, Sue E. & Romaniuk, Peter, International Initiatives to Combat the Financing of Terrorism, in Countering the Financing of Terrorism 235 (Biersteker, Thomas J. & Eckert, Sue E. eds., 2008)Google Scholar; Levi, Michael, Combating the Financing of Terrorism, 50 Brit. J. Criminology 650 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

138 SC Res. 1373 (Sept. 28, 2001).

140 see Rosand, Eric & Miller, Alistair, Strengthening International Law and Global Implementation, in Uniting Against Terror: Cooperative Nonmilitary Responses to the Global Terrorist Threat 51 (Cortright, David & Lopez, George A. eds., 2007)Google Scholar; Messmer, William B. & Yordán, Carlos L., A Partnership to Counter International Terrorism: The UN Security Council and the UN Member States, 34 Stud. In Conflict & Terrorism 843, 846–51 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

141 Heupel, Monika, Combining Hierarchical and Soft Modes of Governance: The UN Security Council’s Approach to Terrorism and weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation After 9/11, 43 Cooperation & Conflict 7 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142 See, e.g., Rosand, Eric, The Security Council’s Efforts to Monitor the Implementation of Al Qaeda/Taliban Sanctions, 98 AJIL 745 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 See, e.g., KOH, supra note 137, at 143–54.

144 see Biersteker et al., supra note 137, at 239–41; Gardner, Kathryn L., Terrorism Defanged: The Financial Action Task Force and International Efforts to Capture Terrorist Finances, in Uniting Against Terror: Cooperative Nonmilitary Responses to the Global Terrorist Threat, supra note 140, at 157 Google Scholar; Heng, Yee-Kuang & McDonagh, Ken, The Other War on Terror Revealed: Global Governmentality and the Financial Action Task Force’s Campaign Against Terrorist Financing, 34 Rev. Int’l Stud. 553 (2008)Google Scholar; Ian Roberge, Financial Action Task Force, in Handbook of Transnational Governance, supra note 81, at 45.

145 Financial Action Task Force, FATF Recommendations: IX Special Recommendations (2014), at

146 SC Res. 1617 (July 29, 2005).

147 see KOH, supra note 137, at 170–77; Biersteker et al., supra note 137, at 241– 42.

148 see Gathii, James Thuo, The Financial Action Task Force and Global Administrative Law, J. Prof. Law. 197, 208 (2010)Google Scholar.

149 see Gardner, supra note 144, at 170–71. On the initial controversy and potential reasons for the later shift, see Hu¨lsse, Rainer, Even Clubs Can’t Do Without Legitimacy: Why the Anti–Money Laundering Blacklist Was Suspended, 2 Reg. & Governance 459, 462–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150 see Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 473; Roberge, supra note 144, at 47; Financial Action Task Force, High-Risk and Non-cooperative Jurisdictions: FATF Public Statement—19 October 2012 (Oct. 19, 2012), at In 2012, the FATF has also threatened Turkey with the suspension of membership because of continuing compliance problems. see Financial Action Task Force, FATF General: Outcomes of the Plenary Meeting of the FATF, Paris, 17–19 October 2012: Statement on Turkey (Oct. 19, 2012), at theplenarymeetingofthefatfparis17-19october2012.html.

151 On the impact of the global regime and its limits, see Clunan, supra note 132, at 578–83, Biersteker et al., supra note 137, at 243–49, Heng & McDonagh, supra note 144, at 564–72, Messmer & Yordán, supra note 140, at 851–58, Jeanne K. Giraldo & Trinkunas, Harold A., Terrorist Financing: Explaining Government Responses, in Terrorism Financing and State Responses 282, 291–94 (Giraldo, Jeanne K. & Trinkunas, Harold A. eds., 2007)Google Scholar, and Barrett, Richard, Preventing the Financing of Terrorism, 44 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 719 (2012)Google Scholar.

152 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, supra note 135, Arts. 7, 10. On the quasi-universal character of such jurisdiction, see Cedric Ryngaert, Jurisdiction in International Law 104–06 (2008). The Convention seeks to avoid jurisdictional conflict by an obligation of countries to “strive to coordinate” their actions. See Article 7(5).

153 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, supra note 135, Art. 8; SC Res. 1373, supra note 138, para. 1(c).

153 On the United States see Jimmy Gurulé, Unfunding Terror: The Legal Response to the Financing of Global Terrorism, ch. 8 (2008). For a relatively permissive view on jurisdictional limits to U.S. action, see Colangelo, Anthony J., Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Terrorism and the Intersection of National and International Law, 48 Harv. J. Int’l L. 121 (2007)Google Scholar.

155 see Anne L.Clunan, U.S. and International Responses to Terrorist Financing, in Terrorism Financingand State Responses, supra note 151, at 260, 265, 277–79; Eckert, Sue E., The US Regulatory Approach to Terrorist Financing, in Countering the Financing of Terrorism, supra note 137, at 209–17Google Scholar; Gurulé, supra note 154, at 156–72.

156 On jurisdictional issues in securities regulation, see Ryngaert, supra note 152, at 77–78; Vagts, Detlev F., Extraterritoriality and the Corporate Governance Law, 97 AJIL 289 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

157 But see also de Moraes Ruehsen, Moyara, Arab Government Responses to the Threat of Terrorist Financing, in Terrorism Financing and State Responses, supra note 151, at 152, 164, 167, on skepticism and charges of bias against the U.S. listing processGoogle Scholar.

158 On the “club” character see Drezner, supra note 50, at 142, and Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 461.

159 see Drezner, supra note 50, at 142–44; Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 461–62.

160 Quoted in Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 464.

161 Id. at 464–65.

162 see Drezner, supra note 50, at 142–45; Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 462; Heng & McDonagh, supra note 144, at 565– 68; Sharman, J.C., The Bark Is the Bite: International Organizations and Backlisting, 16 Rev Int’l. Pol. Econ. 573 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Giraldo & Trinkunas, supra note 151, at 287– 88.

163 see KOH, supra note 137, at 177–88; Gardner, supra note 144, at 168–70; Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 470; Heng & McDonagh, supra note 144, at 571–72.

164 Financial Action Task Force, FATF Recommendations: Review of the FATF Standards (2014), at

165 See the account in Drezner, supra note 50, at 142, and see Gathii, supra note 148, at 203– 04.

166 See supra note 120 and accompanying text.

167 see Szasz, Paul C., The Security Council Starts Legislating, 96 AJIL 901 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Talmon, Stefan, The Security Council as World Legislature, 99 AJIL 175 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

168 see Johnstone, Ian, Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing Down the Deliberative Deficit, 102 AJIL 275, 284 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The reaction in the UN General Assembly, however, has been described as “tepid”by Szasz, supra note 167, at 903. See also the mixed picture in Cathérine Denis, Le Pouvoirnormatif Du Conseil De Sécurité Des Nations Unies: Portée Et Limites 317–40 (2005).

169 see Krisch, supra note 120, at 1253–54. But see SC Res. 1540 (Apr. 28, 2004).

170 see Szasz, supra note 167, at 903, but also the nuances in Denis, supra note 168, at 151–54.

171 see Johnstone, supra note 168, at 284–89.

172 See id. at 290–94; see also Talmon, supra note 167, at 177–78, 186–88.

173 see SC Res. 1977 (Apr. 20, 2011).

174 See supra note 51 and accompanying text.

175 See the qualitatively demanding account of multilateralism in Ruggie, John G., Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution, 46 Int’l Org. 561 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

176 See, e.g., Raustiala, Kal, The “Participatory Revolution” in International Environmental Law, 21 Harv. Envtl L. Rev. 537 (1997)Google Scholar. See also Boyle & Chinkin, supra note 99, ch. 2, on the increasing participation of nonstate actors in international lawmaking more broadly.

177 see Bodansky, supra note 112, at 230.

178 For a discussion of the hurdles for dealing with antitrust in the WTO, see Guzman, Andrew, International Antitrust and the WTO: The Lesson from Intellectual Property, 43 Va. J. Int’l L. 933, 953–56 (2003)Google Scholar.

179 See supra notes 100–02 and accompanying text.

180 In the UNFCCC context, agreement on voting rules— especially majority voting— has been elusive, and decisions continue to be taken by consensus.see Rajamani, supra note 115, at 515 & n.138. Deviations from consensual decision making are not infrequent in international institutions. see Klabbers, supra note 6, at 206–11; Sands, Philippe & Klein, Pierre, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions 261–75 (5th ed. 2001)Google Scholar. They are less frequent in the context of multilateral treaty conferences. see Boyle & Chinkin, supra note 99, at 157– 60. COPs are hybrids between both institutional types. see Brunnée, supra note 103, at 16; see also Churchill, Robin R. & Ulfstein, Geir, Autonomous Institutional Arrangements in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: A Little-Noticed Phenomenon in International Law, 94 AJIL 623 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

181 On the relation of treaties, consensus, and custom, see Boyle & Chinkin, supra note 99, at 234 –38.

182 With a view to negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty, see Akande, Dapo, What Is the Meaning of “Consensus” in International Decision Making?, EJIL: TALK! (Apr. 8, 2013), at Google Scholar.

183 On the example of the Montreal Protocol, see Bodansky, Daniel, Legitimacy, in Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law 704 (Bodansky, Daniel, Brunnée, Jutta & Hey, Ellen eds., 2008)Google Scholar.

184 See, for example, UN SCOR, 57th Sess., 4453d mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.4453 (Jan. 18, 2002), on anti-terrorism legislation, and UNSCOR 62 d Sess., 5663d mtg., UNDoc.S/PV/5663 (Apr. 17, 2007) on climate change.

185 See supra notes 104–09 and accompanying text.

186 see Fidler, D., Sars: Governance and the Globalization of Disease 132–45 (2004)Google Scholar.

187 See José E.|Alvarez, International Organizations As Law-Makers (2005).

188 Id., ch. 9; Boyle & Chinkin, supra note 99, ch. 6; International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance (Armin von Bogdandy & Ingo Venzke eds., 2012).

189 see Brunnée, supra note 103, at 23–31; Wiersema, Annecoos, The New International Law-Makers? Conferences of the Parties to Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 31 Mich. J. Int’l L. 231 (2009)Google Scholar.

190 See supra note 67; Buxbaum, supra note 43, at 273–75.

191 On such a turn in the interpretation of the Alien Tort Statute, see Note, supra note 42, at 1233– 45, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), and Curtis A.Bradley, Supreme Court Holds That Alien Tort Statute Does Not Apply to Conduct in Foreign Countries, ASIL Insights (Apr. 18, 2013), at On securities regulation see Fox, Merritt B., Securities Class Actions Against Foreign Issuers, 64 Stan. L. Rev. 1173, 1243–63 (2012)Google Scholar.

192 See supra note 129 and accompanying text.

193 see section above entitled “The Challenge of Global Public Goods.”

194 See, e.g., Abbott & Snidal, supra note 44; Slaughter, supra note 44; Informal International Lawmaking, supra note 22; Shaffer & Pollack, supra note 44; Vabulas, Felicity & Snidal, Duncan, Organization Without Delegation: Informal Intergovernmental Organizations (IIGOs) and the Spectrum of Intergovernmental Arrangements, 8 Rev. Int’l Orgs. 193 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

195 See Lipson, Charles, Why Are Some International Agreements Informal?, 45 Int’l Org. 495 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the overview in Shaffer & Pollack, supra note 44, at 719.

196 See, e.g., the analysis in Abbott & Snidal, supra note 44. But see also the greater sensitivity to varying constellations of membership between formal and informal institutions in Vabulas & Snidal, supra note 194.

197 see Slaughter, supra note 44, at 227–30; Jonathan G.S. Koppell, World Rule: Accountability, Legitimacy, And the Design of Global Governance 161– 62, 171–73 (2010); Viola et al., supra note 49.

198 But see also Vabulas & Snidal, supra note 194, at 213–14, on the benefits that both powerful and weak countries may derive from informal institutions.

199 See Drezner, Daniel W., The Power and Peril of International Regime Complexity, 7 Persp. On Pol. 65 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but see also the more ambivalent picture in Helfer, Laurence R., Regime Shifting: The TRIPs Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking, 29 Yale J. Int’l L. 1 (2004)Google Scholar, and Alter, Karen J. & Meunier, Sophie, The Politics of International Regime Complexity, 7 Persp. On Pol. 13 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

200 BRICS is a shorthand for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. On their emergence in world politics, see, for example, Hurrell, Andrew, Hegemony, Liberalism and Global Order: What Space for Would-Be Great Powers?, 82 Int’l Aff. 1 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Russia is not a member of BASIC.

201 On the WTO see Narlikar, Amrita, New Powers in the Club: The Challenges of Global Trade Governance, 86 Int’l Aff. 717 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On recent quota “rebalancing” at the IMF, see International Monetary Fund, G-20 Ministerial Meeting: G-20 Ministers Agree ‘Historic’ Reforms in IMF Governance (Oct. 23, 2010), at

202 On instantiations of legalized hegemony, see Gerry Simpson, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (2004). On hierarchies and club structures in international politics, see Drezner, supra note 50, Clark, supra note 112, and David A. Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations (2009).

203 See, e.g., Tomuschat, supra note 2, at 240, 328–29; Trachtman, supra note 3, at 253–87.

204 For a related discussion see Keohane, Robert O. & Nye, Joseph S., Between Centralization and Fragmentation: The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy, in Powerand Governance in A Partially Globalized World 219 (Keohane, Robert O. ed., 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

205 see Mahbubani, Kishore, The Permanent and Elected Council Members, in The Un Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21St Century 253 (Malone, David ed., 2004)Google Scholar.

206 see Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 469.

207 see Wessel, Jared, Financial Action Task Force: A Study in Balancing Sovereignty with Equality in Global Administrative Law, 13 Widener L. Rev. 169, 183 (2006)Google Scholar. On the G-20, see Cooper, Andrew F., The G 20 As an Improvised Crisis Committee and/or a Contested ‘Steering Committee’ for the World, 86 Int’l AFF. 741 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cooper, Andrew F., The G 20 and Its Regional Critics: The Search for Inclusion, 2 Global Pol’y 203 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

208 See the accounts of MEF meetings at Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, Past Meetings, at

209 See also Financial Action Task Force, Financial Action Task Force Mandate (2012–2020), para. 12 (Apr. 20, 2012), at (describing the functions of FATF-style regional bodies).

210 See supra note 160 and accompanying text.

211 see Financial Action Task Force, supra note 209.

212 see Hu¨lsse, supra note 149, at 471.

213 see Financial Action Task Force, High-Risk and Non-cooperative Jurisdictions (2014), at groupicrg.html. On the procedure in its more confrontational variant of the early 2000s, see Wessel, supra note 207, at 176.

214 see Kingsbury, Benedict, Krisch, Nico & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemp. Probs., Summer/Autumn 2005, at 15, 37–9 (2005)Google Scholar.

215 See Barr, Michael S. & Miller, Geoffrey P., Global Administrative Law: The View from Basel, 17 Eur. J. Int’l L. 15, 24–8 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the Basel Committee.

216 See supra notes 123, 172, and accompanying text.

217 see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Recommendations and Best Practices: Revised Recommendation of the Council Concerning Co-operation Between Member Countrieson Anticompetitive Practices Affecting International Trade, OECD Doc. C(95)130/FINAL, para. I(A)(1) (July 27–28, 1995).

218 Id., para. I(B)(4)(b), (6).

219 See, e.g., id., paras. I(A)(1), (B)(4)(b). For an instance of friction despite such consultation, see Morgan, Eleanor & McGuire, Steven, Transatlantic Divergence: GE-Honeywell and the EU’s Merger Policy, 11 J. Eur. Pub. Pol’y 39 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

220 Council Directive 2003/87/EC, Art. 25(a), 2003 O.J. (L 275) 35.

221 Scott & Rajamani, supra note 126, at 469.

222 During the policymaking stage, when the EU held public consultations on extending emissions trading to aviation, non-EU governments could have taken part but apparently did not do so. see European Commission, Reducing the Climate Change Impact of Aviation: Report on the Public Consultation March–May 2005, at 4–6, 37–39 (n.d.), at

223 See, e.g., Kingsbury et al., supra note 214, at 37–42; Krisch, supra note 120, at 1258–59.

224 See also Eckersley, supra note 97, for a normative argument in favor of an “inclusive” minilateralism with greater elements of representation.

225 Goldstein, Judith, Kahler, Miles, Keohane, Robert O. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Introduction: Legalization and World Politics, 54 Int’l Org. 385, 385 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

226 See, e.g., Kingsbury, Benedict, Foreword: Is the Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 679 (1999)Google Scholar.

227 Kahler, Miles, Conclusion: The Causes and Consequences of Legalization, 54 Int’l Org. 661, 661 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Bru¨tsch, Christian & Lehmkuhl, Dirk, Complex Legalization and the Many Moves to Law, in Law and Legal Ization in Transnational Relations 9 (Bru¨tsch, Christian & Lehmkuhl, Dirk, eds., 2007)Google Scholar.

228 Kahler, supra note 47.

229 On informal solutions within formal institutions, see Stone, supra note 41; Cogan, Jacob Katz, Representation and Power in International Organizations: The Operational Constitution and Its Critics, 103 AJIL 209 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On an early example of an outside option, the Concert of Europe, see Simpson, supra note 202, ch. 4.

230 see Balakrishnan Rajagopal, International Law From Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance, ch. 4 (2003).

231 Reus-Smit, Christian, The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions, 51 Int’l Org. 555, 558 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

232 Denemark, Robert & Hoffmann, Matthew J., Just Scraps of Paper? The Dynamics of Multilateral Treaty-Making, 43 Cooperation & Conflict 185, 186 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

233 Id.

234 Id.

235 Whereas an average of thirty-five new treaties was deposited with the UN secretary-general each year in previous decades, this figure reportedly dropped to around twenty for the period of 2000 to 2009; see Pauwelyn, Joost, Wessel, Ramses & Wouters, Jan, When Structures Become Shackles: Stagnation and Dynamics in International Law-making, 25 Eur. J. Int’l L. (forthcoming 2014)Google Scholar.

236 See, e.g., Braithwaite, John & Drahos, Peter, Global Business Regulation 3 (2000)Google Scholar; Mattli, Walter & Woods, Ngaire, In Whose Benefit? Explaining Regulatory Change in Global Politics, in The Politics of Global Regulation 1 (Mattli, Walter & Woods, Ngaire eds., 2009)Google Scholar.

237 See, e.g., Slaughter, supra note 44; Pauwelyn et al., supra note 22; Handbook of Transnational Governance, supra note 81. But see also Stefan Voigt, The Economics of Informal International Law: An Empirical Assessment, in Informal International Lawmaking, supra note 22, at 82, who finds a sharp increase in in for mal agreements concluded by the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, but a decrease since 2007.

238 See also Kingsbury et al., supra note 214, at 37–41.

239 See, e.g., Alvarez, supra note 187, at 588–601; Kingsbury, Benedict, The Concept of “Law” in Global Administrative Law, 20 Eur. J. Int’l L. 23 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pauwelyn et al., supra note 22, at 526 –33.

240 see Raustiala, supra note 44, at 586–91.

241 See, for example, the conceptualization of hard and soft law on a continuum in Abbott & Snidal, supra note 44, and also Cotterrell, Roger, What Is Transnational Law?, 37 Law & Soc. Inquiry 500 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

242 See also Bru¨tsch & Lehmkuhl, supra note 227.

243 Most case studies in the initial legalization project were then also concerned with international trade and trading blocs as instances of legalization. Another relatively strong case concerned human rights, whereas the remaining ones (monetary affairs and Asia) displayed limited degrees of legalization. see Legalization and World Politics (Judith L. Goldstein et al. eds., 2001).

244 see Denemark & Hoffmann,supra note 232, at 202–6.The issue areas are categorized only broadly, however, so they will often mix different problem types.

245 See the range of issues and institutions in Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies (Ayelet Berman, Sanderijn Duquet, Joost Pauwelyn, Ramses A. Wessel & Jan Wouters eds., 2012), at

246 see Abbott & Snidal, supra note 44, at 429; see also Krasner, Stephen D., Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier, 43 World Pol. 336 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tim Bu¨the & Walter Mattli, The New Global Rulers: The Privatization of Regulation in the World Economy (2011).

247 Drezner, supra note 50.

248 For an overview of institutional structures, see Koppell, supra note 197.

249 The present inquiry does not allow for firm conclusions on this matter, however, since the design provides no comparison between cases involving public goods and ones involving other types of goods.

250 see Abbott & Snidal, supra note 44.

251 See also Drezner, supra note 50.

252 The delegation of powers by multilateral treaties to international institutions rarely involves formal voting privileges for powerful countries. see Koremenos, supra note 41, at 165– 68. Privileges are typically of an informal nature. see Cogan, supra note 229; Stone, supra note 41.

253 see Krisch, Nico, International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power in the Shaping of the International Legal Order, 16 Eur. J. Int’l L. 369 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

254 See supra notes 26–34 and accompanying text.

255 See supra note 12 and accompanying text.

Cited by

Linked content