Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T19:42:52.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The non-existence of private self-regulation in the transnational sphere and its implications for the responsibility to procure legitimacy: The case of the lex sportiva

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2014

Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF), Baseler Strasse 27–31, 60329 Frankfurt am Main, Germany


This article is a critical examination of the claim that the emergence of private self-regulatory regimes in the transnational sphere signals a new trend of self-constitutionalization outside the limits of nation-state based or intergovernmental control. It deals with the question to what extent the diffusion of public authority in the sphere beyond the state affects the responsibility of the state(s) to procure the legitimacy of such private self-regulation. First, a conceptual argument is developed which identifies private self-regulatory regimes as rule systems nested in a specific constitutional order of the international society, here described as ‘neo-Westphalian’ (Section I). Second, implications for the responsibility to procure the legitimacy of collectively binding regulatory functions performed by private actors in the sphere beyond the state are considered (Section II). Often cited as a model example of autonomous societal self-regulation, the lex sportiva renders particularly strong plausibility for the claimed non-existence of purely private self-regulation. The regulation of performance-enhancing substances can serve to demonstrate the complex interactions between multiple public and private sites of constitutional authority (Section III). In conclusion (Section IV), I argue that, although the ultimate responsibility for providing legitimacy continues to lie with the state/world of states, the political order of the international society as construed in neo-Westphalian terms provides a dispersed and fragmented constitutional-style legal framework with few reliable guarantees that states are capable or willing to enact their background role. Therefore, a substantial part of the burden of – initial – legitimation must be carried by those directly involved in private self-regulation by constituting and exercising public authority.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)


Abbott, Kenneth W. and Snidal, Duncan. 2009. “The Governance Triangle: Regulatory Standards Institutions and the Shadow of the State.” In The Politics of Global Regulation, edited by Mattli, Walter and Woods, Ngaire, 4488. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Avbelj, Matej and Komarek, Jan, eds. 2012. Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Baumgart-Ochse, Claudia, et al. 2012. The Relevance of Private Actors in the Transnational Sphere for Just Peace Governance. PRIF Working Paper No. 13, Frankfurt am Main, June 2012.Google Scholar
Bellamy, Alex J. 2009. Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Black, Julia. 2008. “Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes.” Regulation and Governance 2(2):137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdandy, Armin von, Dann, Philipp and Goldmann, Matthias. 2008. “Developing the Publicness of Public International Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities.” German Law Journal 9(11):1375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogdandy, Armin von, Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Bernstorff, Jochen von, Dann, Philipp and Goldmann, Matthias, eds. 2010. The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, Tanja. 2010. “Governance with/out Government. False Promises or Flawed Premises?” SFB Governance Working Paper Series, No. 23, March 2010.Google Scholar
Börzel, Tanja and Risse, Thomas. 2005. “Public Private Partnerships: Effective and Legitimate Tools of Transnational Governance?” In Complex Sovereignty. Reconstituting Political Authority in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Grande, Edgar and Pauly, Louis, 195216. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen and Keohane, Robert O.. 2006. “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions.” Ethics and International Affairs 20(4):405–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bumke, Christian and Röthel, Anne, eds. 2012. Privates Recht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Burnheim, John. 1986. “Democracy, Nation States and the World System.” In New Forms of Democracy, edited by Held, David and Pollitt, Christopher, 219–39. London: Open University.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. 2014. “Reply to Scheuerman’s review of Globalization and Sovereignty.” Global Constitutionalism 3(1):119–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collin, Peter. 2011. “‘Gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung’ und ‘regulierte Selbstregulierung’” – ertragversprechende Analysekategorien für eine (rechts-)historische Perspektive?” In Selbstregulierung im 19. Jahrhundert – zwischen Autonomie und staatlichen Steuerungsansprüchen, edited by Collin, Peteret al., 331. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Conzelmann, Thomas and Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 2007. “The Potential and Limits of Governance by Private Codes of Conduct.” In Transnational Private Governance and its Limits, edited by Graz, Jean–Christophe and Nölke, Andreas, 98114. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Craig, Paul. 2003. “National Courts and Community Law.” In Governing Europe, edited by Hayward, Jack and Menon, Anand, 1535. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A. Claire, Haufler, Virginia and Porter, Tony, eds. 1999. Private Authority and International Affairs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, Nicole and Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 2013. “Business and Human Rights: How Corporate Norm Violaters become Norm-entrepreneurs.” In The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance, edited by Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen and Sikkink, Kathryn, 222–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwerth, Klaus. 2007. The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwerth, Klaus 2008. “North-South Parity in Global Governance: The Affirmative Procedures of the Forest Stewardship Council.” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 14(1):5372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingwerth, Klaus and Pattberg, Philipp. 2006. “Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics.” Global Governance 12(2):185203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flohr, Annegret. 2014. Industry Self-Regulation and International Legalization. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flohr, Annegret, Rieth, Lothar, Schwindenhammer, Sandra and Wolf, Klaus Dieter, eds. 2010. The Role of Business in Global Governance. Corporations as Norm-entrepreneurs. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970.Google Scholar
Grant, J. Andrew. 2011. “The Kimberly Process at Ten: Reflections on a Decade of Efforts to End the Trade in Conflict Diamonds.” In High-Value Natural Resources and Peacebuilding, edited by Lujala, Päivi and Rustad, Siri Aas, 159–80. Milton Park: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Grant, J. Andrew and Taylor, Ian. 2004. “Global Governance and Conflict Diamonds: The Kimberley Process and the Quest for Clean Gems.” The Round Table 93:385401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graz, Jean-Christophe and Nölke, Andreas, eds. 2007. Transnational Private Governance and its Limits. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulbrandsen, Lars H. 2004. “Overlapping Public and Private Governance. Can Forest Certification Fill the Gaps in the Global Forest Regime?Global Environmental Politics 4(2):7599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Ulrich. 2004. “Effektive Dopingbekämpfung ist ohne Staat nicht möglich. “ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 26 February 2004.Google Scholar
Hall, Rodney Bruce, and Biersteker, Thomas J.. 2002. “The Emergence of Private Authority in the International System.” In The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance’, edited by Hall, Rodney Bruce and Biersteker, Thomas J., 322. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Haufler, Virginia. 2001. A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-Regulation in a Global Economy. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Haufler, Virginia 2009a. “The Kimberley Process, Club Goods, and Public Enforcement of a Private Regime.” In Voluntary Programs: A Club Theory Perspective’, edited by Potoski, Matthew and Prakash, Aseem, 89105. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haufler, Virginia 2009b. “The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme: An Innovation in Global Governance and Conflict Prevention.” Journal of Business Ethics 89(4):403–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, David and McGrew, Anthony, eds. 2002. Governing Globalization. Power, Authority and Global Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Héritier, Adrienne and Lehmkuhl, Dirk. 2008. “Introduction: The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance.” Journal of Public Policy 28(1):117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobi, Anja P. 2013. “Governing War Economies: Conflict Diamonds and the Kimberley Process.” In The Transnational Governance of Violence and Crime. Non-State Actors in Security, edited by Jakobi, Anja P. and Wolf, Klaus Dieter, 84105. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joerges, Christian and Neyer, Juergen. 1997. “From Intergovernmental Bargaining to Deliberative Political Processes: The Constitutionalisation of Comitology.” European Law Journal 3(3):273–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauerhof, Rico. 2007. “Ein Anti-Doping-Gesetz als Garant für den sauberen Sport?HRRS. Onlinezeitschrift für Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung im Strafrecht 2(8):71–5, available at <> accessed 20 August 2013.Google Scholar
Kell, Georg. 2003. “The Global Compact: Origins, Operations, Progress, Challenges.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship 3(11):3549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ki-moon, Ban. 2013. “Responsibility to Protect: State Responsibility and Prevention. Report of the Secretary-General.” United Nations Document, A /67/929 – S /2013/399, available at <> accessed 25 October 2013.+accessed+25+October+2013.>Google Scholar
Knill, Christoph and Lehmkuhl, Dirk. 2002. “Private Actors and the State: Internationalization and Changing Patterns of Governance.” Governance 15(1):4163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Matthias. 2004. “Transnational Corporations and Public Accountability.” Government and Opposition 39(2):234–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooiman, Jan. 2000. “Societal Governance: Levels, Modes, and Orders of Social-Political Interaction.” In Debating Governance – Authority, Steering, and Democracy’, edited by Pierre, Jon, 138–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooiman, Jan 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotzenberg, Jochen. 2007. Die Bindung des Sportlers an private Dopingregeln und private Schiedsgerichte. Schriften zum Sportrecht, vol. 8. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias, Lang, Anthony F. Jr., Tully, James and Wiener, Antje. 2014. “Editorial: How Large is the World of Global Constitutionalism?Global Constitutionalism 3(1):18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmkuhl, Dirk. 2004. “Verrechtlichung privater Selbstregulierung: der lange Schatten staatlichen Rechts im transnationalen Sport. “ In Vom Nutzen und Elend internationaler Verrechtlichung. Eine Perspektive für Global Governance?, edited by Zürn, Michael and Zangl, Bernhard, 179–97. Bonn: Dietz.Google Scholar
Lehmkuhl, Dirk 2008. “Control Modes in the Age of Transnational Governance.” Law and Policy 30(3):336–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibfried, Stefan and Zürn, Michael, eds. 2005. Transformations of the State? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lengauer, Alina. 2011. Drittwirkung von Grundfreiheiten. Ein Beitrag zu dem Konzept des Normadressaten im Gemeinschaftsrecht. Wien/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Roy. 2012. “Swiss Federal Tribunal Overrules CAS Award in a Landmark Decision: FIFA vs Matuzalem.” International Sports Law Journal 34:35–8.Google Scholar
Loughlin, Martin. 2014. “‘Constitutional Pluralism’: An Oxymoron?Global Constitutionalism 3(1):930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüer, Christoph. 2006. Dopingstrafen im Sport und der Grundsatz ‘Ne bis in idem’. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des WADA-Code und des NADA-Code. Schriften zum Sportrecht, vol. 3. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1999. Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majone, Giandomenico. 1998. “Europe’s Democratic Deficit.” European Law Journal 4(1):528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, Jessica Tuchman. 1997. “Power Shift.” Foreign Affairs 76(1):5066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mätzler, Andreas. 2009. Die internationalen Organisationsstrukturen im Spitzensport und die Regelwerke der Sportverbände. Dissertation: University of Vienna, available at <> accessed 21 December 2011.Google Scholar
Michael, Lothar. 2005. “Private Standardsetter und demokratisch legitimierte Rechtsetzung. “In Demokratie in Europa’, edited by Bauer, Hartmut, Huber, Peter M. and Sommermann, Karl-Peter, 431–56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2007. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 1994. “Why the European Community Strengthens the State: International Co-operation and Domestic Politics.” Center for European Studies Working Paper Series No. 52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew 2002. “In Defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4):603–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niesen, Peter, ed. 2012. Transnationale Gerechtigkeit und Demokratie. Frankfurt am Main and New York, NY: Campus.Google Scholar
Nolte, Martin. 2012. “Vereinbartes Recht am Beispiel der lex sportiva. Wechselwirkungen zwischen ‘lex sportiva’ und ‘lex extra sportiva’.” In Privates Recht, edited by Bumke, Christian and Röthel, Anne, 107–18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Ougaard, Morten, and Leander, Anna, eds. 2010. Business and Global Governance. London: Routledge 2010.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2013. “The Challenge of Transnational Private Governance: Evaluating Authorization, Representation, and Accountability.” LIEPP Working Paper 8, February 2013, Lausanne.Google Scholar
Peters, Anne, and Armingeon, Klaus. 2009. “Introduction – Global Constitutionalism from an Interdisciplinary Perspective.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 16(2):385–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierre, Jon and Peters, B. Guy. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Poiares Maduro, Miguel. 2012. “Three Claims of Constitutional Pluralism.” In Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, edited by Avbelj, Matej and Komarek, Jan, 6784. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Quack, Sigrid. 2010. “Law, Expertise and Legitimacy in Transnational Economic Governance: An Introduction.” Socio-Economic Review 8(1):316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasche, Andreas and Kell, Georg, eds. 2010. The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, Trends and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinicke, Wolfgang H. 1998. Global Public Policy. Governing without Government. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Reissinger, Fabian. 2010. Staatliche Verantwortung zur Bekämpfung des Dopings. Schriften zum Sportrecht, vol. 19. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas, ed. 2011. Governance without a State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Risse, Thomas 2013. “Transnational Actors and World Politics.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas and Simmons, Beth A., 426–53. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto, eds. 1992. Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthel, Anne. 2007. “Lex mercatoria, lex sportiva, lex technica – Private Rechtsetzung jenseits des Nationalstaates?JuristenZeitung 62(15–16):755–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 2004. “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain. Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10(4):499531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John. 2013. Just Business. Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scherer, Andreas Georg and Palazzo, Guido, eds. 2008. Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 2014. “Globalization, Constitutionalism, and Sovereignty.” Global Constitutionalism 3(1): 102–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimank, Uwe and Glagow, Manfred. 1984. “Formen politischer Steuerung: Etatismus, Subsidiarität, Delegation und Neokorporatismus.” In Gesellschaftssteuerung zwischen Korporatismus und Subsidiarität, edited by Glagow, Manfred, 428. Bielefeld: A. J. Z. Druck & Verlag.Google Scholar
Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2001. “Das Konzept der regulierten Selbstregulierung als Bestandteil einer als Regelungswissenschaft verstandenen Rechtswissenschaft.” In Regulierte Selbstregulierung als Steuerungskonzept des Gewährleistungsstaates. Die Verwaltung, suppl. 4, 201–50.Google Scholar
Schuppert, Gunnar Folke 2011a. Governance und Rechtsetzung. Grundfragen einer modernen Regelungswissenschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuppert, Gunnar Folke 2011b. “Law without the State? A New Interplay between State and Non-State Actors in Governance by Rule Making.” In Governance without a State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood, edited by Risse, Thomas, 6586. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schuppert, Gunnar Folken.d. New Modes of Governance and the Rule of Law: The Case of Transnational Rule-Making, MS.Google Scholar
Sciulli, David. 1992 Theory of Societal Constitutionalism: Foundations of a Non-Marxistic Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sciulli, David 2001. Corporate Power in Civil Society. An Application of Societal Constitutionalism. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Siekmann, Robert C. R. 2012. “Anti-Doping Law in Sport: The Hybrid Character of WADA and the Human Rights of Athletes in Doping Cases (Proportionality Principle).” In Introduction to International and European Sports Law’, edited by Siekmann, Robert C. R., 313–33. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, Matthew and Zürn, Michael. 2013. “Contested World Orders: Rising Powers, Non-State Actors, and the Politics of Authority Beyond the Nation-state.” Paper presented at the “Rising Powers and Contested Orders in the Multipolar System” Conference, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio, 19–20 September 2013.Google Scholar
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Take, Ingo. 2012. “Regulating the Internet Infrastructure: A Comparative Appraisal of the Legitimacy of ICANN, ITU, and the WSIS.” Regulation and Governance 6(4):499523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubner, Gunther. 1997. “Foreword: Legal Regimes of Global Non-state Actors.” In Global Law without a State, edited by Teubner, Gunther, xiii–xvii. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther 2010. “Selbst-Konstitutionalisierung transnationaler Unternehmen? Zur Verknüpfung ‘privater‘ und ‘staatlicher‘ Corporate Codes of Conduct.” In Unternehmen, Markt und Verantwortung: Festschrift für Klaus Hopt, edited by Grundmann, Stephanet al., 1449–70. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther 2011. “The Project of Constitutional Sociology: Irritating Nation State Constitutionalism.” Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 32(2):189204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubner, Gunther 2012. Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. 2005. “International Convention against Doping in Sport.” ED.2005/CONVENTION ANTI-DOPING Rev, Paris, 19 October 2005, available at <> accessed 10 March 2013.+accessed+10+March+2013.>Google Scholar
Voser, Nathalie, and Meier, Philipp. 2010. “Swiss Federal Tribunal’s reasoning in the ‘Pechstein’ case confirms its strict approach to petitions to set aside arbitral awards.” Practical Law, 2 June 2010, available at <> accessed 1 April 2014.+accessed+1+April+2014.>Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje, Lang, Anthony F., Tully, James, Poiares Maduro, Miguel, and Kumm, Mattias. 2012. “Global Constitutionalism: Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.” Global Constitutionalism 1(1):115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 1999. “The New Raison d’État as a Problem for Democracy in World Society.” European Journal of International Relations 5(3):333–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter 2008. “Emerging Patterns of Global Governance: The New Interplay between the State, Business and Civil Society.” In Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship, edited by Scherer, Andreas Georg and Palazzo, Guido, 225–48. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter 2010. “Chartered Companies: Linking Private Security Governance in Early and Post Modernity.” In Corporate Security Responsibility? Private Governance Contributions to Peace and Security in Zones of Conflict’, edited by Deitelhoff, Nicole and Wolf, Klaus Dieter, 154–76. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter 2012a. “Legitimitätsbedarf und Legitimation privater Selbstregulierung im Fall der lex sportiva.” In Transnationale Gerechtigkeit und Demokratie, edited by Niesen, Peter, 189214. Frankfurt am Main and New York, NY: Campus.Google Scholar
Wolf, Klaus Dieter 2012b. “Private Akteure als Normsetzer – Politikwissenschaftliche Fragestellungen und Perspektiven.” In Privates Recht, edited Christian Bumke and Anne Röthel, 187205. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Wolfsberg Group. 2002. The Wolfsberg Anti-Money Laundering Principles for Correspondent Banking, available at <> accessed 30 April 2014.+accessed+30+April+2014.>Google Scholar
World Anti-Doping Agency. 2009. World-Anti-Doping-Code 2009, Canada available at <> accessed 30 April 2013.+accessed+30+April+2013.>Google Scholar
World Conference on Doping in Sport. 2003. Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport 2003, available at <> accessed 7 March 2013.+accessed+7+March+2013.>Google Scholar
Wright, Christopher. 2009. “Setting Standards for Responsible Banking: Examining the Role of the International Finance Corporation in the Emergence of the Equator Principles.” In International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance, edited by Biermann, Frank, Siebenhüner, Bernd and Schreyögg, Anna, 5170. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 1998. Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin and Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias. 2012. “International Political Authority and Its Politicization.” International Theory 4(1):69106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar