Accountability or "good decisions"? The competing goals of civil society participation in international governance

Global Society

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 37-57

  Steffek, Jens ^a   Ferretti, Maria Paola ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; CIVIL SOCIETY; DECISION MAKING; EUROPEAN UNION; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION;

EID: 58149469927     PISSN: 13600826     EISSN: 1469798X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13600820802556736     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. Michael Zürn, "Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems", Government and Opposition, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2004), pp. 260-287.
2. See Rodger A. Payne and Nayef Samhat, Democratizing Global Politics: Discourse, Norms, International Regimes, and Political Community (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2004)
3. Jan Aart Scholte, "Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance", Government and Opposition, Vol. 39, No. 2 (2004), pp. 211-233
4. Stijn Smismans, Law, Legitimacy and European Governance: Functional Participation in Social Regulation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
5. Paul Magnette, "Democracy in the European Union: Why and How to Combine Representation and Participation?", in S. Smismans (ed.), Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006) pp. 23-41.
6. Chadwick Alger, "The Emerging Roles of NGOs in the UN System: From Article 71 to a People's Millennium Assembly", Global Governance, Vol. 8, No. 1 (2002), pp. 93-117.
7. Jan Aart Scholte, "The IMF and Civil Society: An Interim Progress Report", in M. Edwards and J. Gaventa (eds.), Global Citizen Action (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), pp. 87-104.
8. Steve Charnovitz, "Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in the World Trade Organization", University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1996), pp. 331-357
9. Daniel C. Esty, "The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis", World Trade Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2002), pp. 7-22.
10. The official title of the document known as the Cardoso report is We the Peoples: Civil Society, the United Nations and Global Governance: Report of the Panel of Eminent Persons on United Nations-Civil Society Relations, UN Doc. A/58/817 (11 June 2004). The panel that drafted it was chaired by Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the former president of Brazil.
11. PeterWilletts, "The Cardoso Report on the UN and Civil Society: Functionalism, Global Corporatism or Global Democracy?", Global Governance, Vol. 12, No. 3 (2006), pp. 305-324.
12. For useful discussions of this question see also Gabriele Abels, "Citizen Involvement in Public Policy-making: Does it Improve Democratic Legitimacy and Accountability? The Case of PTA.", Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2007), pp. 103-117 (103)
13. Beate Kohler-Koch, "The Organization of Interests and Democracy in the European Union", in Beate Kohler-Koch and Berthold Rittberger (eds.), Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), pp. 393-444
14. Scholte, Civil Society andDemocraticallyAccountable GlobalGovernance, op. cit.
15. Bruce Ackerman and James S. Fishkin, Deliberation Day (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004).
16. Gregor Dü rrenberger et al., "Integrated Assessment Focus Groups: Bridging the Gap between Science and Policy?", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 26, No. 5 (1999), pp. 341-349.
17. Colin Finney, "Implementing a Citizen-based Deliberative Process on the Internet: The Buckinghamshire Health Authority Electronic Citizen Jury in the UK", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2000), pp. 45-64.
18. Corinna Fischer et al., "Science Shops in Europe: The Public as Stakeholder", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 31, No. 3 (2004), pp. 199-211.
19. Gene Rowe and J.G. Gammack, "Promises and Perils of Electronic Public Engagement", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2004), pp. 39-54.
20. Zü rn, op. cit.
21. Robert O. Keohane, The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism, GARNETWorking Paper 09/06 (Warwick: University of Warwick, 2006), p. 3.
22. Sheila Jasanoff, "Contested Boundaries in Policy-relevant Science", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1987), pp. 231-256
23. Simon Joss and Sergio Bellucci (eds.), Participatory Technology Assessment: European Perspectives (London: Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, 2002).
24. For example, Charnovitz, op. cit.
25. Daniel C. Esty, "Non-governmental Organizations at the World Trade Organization: Cooperation, Competition, or Exclusion", Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1998), pp. 123-147
26. Daniel C. Esty, The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis, op. cit.
27. Joseph S. Nye, "Globalization's Democratic Deficit. How to Make International Institutions More Accountable", Foreign Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 4 (2001), pp. 2-6
28. Scholte, Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance, op. cit.
29. Jü rgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), p. 367.
30. See section on the European setting below.
31. MichaelW. Dowdle, "Public Accountability: Conceptual, Historical, and Epistemic Mappings", in M.W. Dowdle (ed.), Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 3.
32. Mark Bovens, "Analyzing and Assessing Public Accountability: A Conceptual Framework", European Governance Papers (EUROGOV), No. C-06-01 (2006).
33. David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi., "Introduction", in D. Held and M. Koenig- Archibugi (eds.), Global Governance and Public Accountability (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 1-7.
34. Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
35. Christopher Lord, A Democratic Audit of the European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), p. 195.
36. Richard Mulgan, "Accountability: An Ever Expanding Concept?", Public Administration, Vol. 78, No. 3 (2000), pp. 555-573.
37. Scholte, Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance, op. cit., pp. 219, 220.
38. Marlies Glasius, "Expertise in the Cause of Justice: Global Civil Society Influence on the Statute for an International Criminal Court", in M. Glasius, M. Kaldor and H. Anheier (eds.), Global Civil Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 150.
39. Bernhard Peters, Die Integration moderner Gesellschaften (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1993), p. 348.
40. John Uhr, "Redesigning Accountability", Australian Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 2 (1993), pp. 1-16.
41. Thomas F. Gieryn, "The Boundaries of Science", in S. Jasanoff et al. (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage, 1995).
42. Angela Liberatore and Silvio Funtowicz, "Democratising' Expertise and 'Expertising' Democracy: What Does this Mean and Why Bother?", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2003), pp. 146-150.
43. Ulrich Beck, World Risk Society (Cambridge: Polity, 1999).
44. Brian Wynne, Risk Management and Hazardous Waste (New York: Springer, 1987).
45. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot be Avoided in Politics, and What Should be Done About It (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996).
46. Maeve Cooke, "Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy", Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 48. No. 5 (2000), p. 948.
47. Anthony McGrew and Paola Robotti, "Why Adapting? Just Adopt It! The Role of Deliberation in the Governance of International Accounting Standards", Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, San Diego, 2006, p. 8.
48. Gutmann and Thompson, op. cit.
49. Jaye Ellis, "International Regimes and the Legitimacy of Rules. A Discourse-ethical Approach", Alternatives, Vol. 27, No. 3 (2002), p. 292
50. Nicole Deitelhoff and Harald Mü ller, "Theoretical Paradise - Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas", Review of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1 (2005), pp. 167-179.
51. Thomas Bernauer, Genes, Trade and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).
52. In 2003 three exporters (from the United States, Canada and Argentina) of agricultural and food products containing GMOs filed complaints under the WTOdispute-settlement mechanismagainst the EC's alleged moratorium on the approval of GMOs during the period of October 1998 to August 2003, as well as against some of the EC Member States' national ban on GMOs and GM foods. In 2006, the WTO panel on the EC-Biotech dispute issued its official report: European Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293, Panel Report circulated on 29 September 2006, available: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news06_e/291r_e.htm. (accessed 18 July 2008). Several legal, social and ethical concerns linked to this dispute remain to be addressed.
53. David Vogel, The New Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe (London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2001); Susana Borras, "Legitimate Governance of Risk at the EU Level? The Case of Genetically Modified Organisms", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73, No. 1 (2006), pp. 61-75.
54. See White Paper on Food Safety, COM (1999) 719 Final; Science, Society and the Citizen in Europe. Working Document, SEC(2000)1973; Report of the working group "Democratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems", 2 July 2001, available: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf. (accessed 14 July 2008).
55. Gabriele Abels, "The Long and Winding Road from Asilomar to Brussels: Science, Politics and the Public in Biotechnology Regulation", Science as Culture, Vol. 14, No. 4 (2005), p. 348.
56. Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, "Biotechnology: The Next Transatlantic Trade War?", The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 4 (2000), pp. 41-54.
57. Les Levidow et al., "European Union Regulation of Agri-biotechnology: Precautionary Links between Science, Expertise and Policy", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 32, No. 4 (2005), pp. 261-276.
58. The EFSA is an independent scientific body, established by the European Parliament and Council Regulation 178/2002/EC of 28 January 2002. Its task is to meet the demand for sound and independent scientific advice to the Commission. In particular the EFSA's scientific GMO Panel deals with questions of genetically modified organisms as defined in Directive 18/2001/EC (regulating deliberate release of GMOs into the environment) and 1829/2003/EC (regulating GM food and feed).
59. Jon Elster, "Deliberation and Constitution Making", in J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 97-122
60. James Fishkin, Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991).
61. Thomas O. McGarity, "Public Participation in Risk Regulation", RISK: Health, Safety & Environment, Vol. 1 (1990), pp. 103-130.
62. Consiglio dei Diritti Genetici, Analisi delle osservazioni del pubblico alle notifiche presentate secondo la direttiva 2001/18/CE (Rome, 2005).
63. For example C/NL/04/01, insect-resistant cotton, events 281-24-263 and 3006-210-23.
64. Alfons Bora has called this a structural coupling of science and law, which has produced a techno-scientific normative system that rigidly defines the legitimate objects of discussion, the specific definition of risk and its societal acceptability; Alfons Bora, "Grenzen der Partizipation? Risikoentscheidungen und Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung im Recht", Zeitschrift fü r Rechtssoziologie, Vol. 15, No. 2 (1994), pp. 126-152.
65. Friends of the Earth Europe, Throwing Caution to the Wind. A Review of the EFSA and its Work on Genetically Modified Foods and Crops, available: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/publications/EFSAreport.pdf. (2004) (accessed 21 October 2007).
66. Andreas Dü r and Dirk De Bièvre, "Inclusion without Influence? NGOs in European Trade Policy", Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 27, No. 1 (2007), pp. 79-101
67. Dawid Friedrich, "Democratic Aspiration Meets Political Reality: Participation of Organized Civil Society in Selected European Policy Processes", in J. Steffek et al. (eds.), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 140-165
68. Pierre-Benoit Joly and Gérald Assouline, Assessing Debate and Participative Technology in Europe, Final Report (Grenoble: INRA, 2001).
69. 13 Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002 (OECD Protocol 408), Covance Study No. 6103-293, issued 17 December 2002.
70. Oberverwaltungsgericht fü r das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 8. Senat, Beschluss vom 20. Juni 2005, Az: 8 B 940/05.
71. The WTO guidelines for relations with non-state actors were established by a 1996 General Council decision; see WTO Doc. WT/L/162 (23 July 1996), para. VI.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, "The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy", in R.B. Porter, S. Pierre, A. Subramanian and A.B. Zampetti (eds.), Efficiency, Equity, and Legitimacy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001), pp. 264-294.
75. Marc Williams and Lucy Ford, "The World Trade Organization, Social Movements and Global Environmental Management", Environmental Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1999), pp. 268-289.
76. Jens Steffek and Ulrike Ehling, "Civil Society Participation at the Margins: The Case of WTO", in J. Steffek, C. Kissling and P. Nanz (eds.), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 95-115.
77. Jona Razzaque, "Transparency and Participation of Civil Society in International Institutions Related to Biotechnology", in S. Thoyer and B. Martimort-Asso (eds.), Participation for Sustainability in Trade (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 137-160.
78. See Codex Alimentarius Commission, Strategic Framework 2003-2007, para. 16, available: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2361e/y2361e00.htm. (accessed 8 February 2007).
79. Ibid., para. 17.
80. Michael A. Livermore, "Authority and Legitimacy in Global Governance: Deliberation, Institutional Differentiation, and the Codex Alimentarius", New York University Law Review, Vol. 81, No. 2 (2006), p. 781.
81. Leslie Sklair, "Democracy and the Transnational Capitalist Class", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 581, No. 1 (2002), p. 150
82. Razzaque, op. cit., pp. 154, 155.
83. Thorsten Hü ller and Matthias L. Maier, "Fixing the Codex? Global Food-safety Governance under Review", in C. Joerges and E.-U. Petersmann (eds.), Constitutionalism, Multilevel Trade Governance and Social Regulation (Oxford: Hart, 2006), p. 280.
84. In 2005, hearings were opened to the public for the first time in the Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC Hormones Dispute. Seats for a closed-circuit broadcast of the panels' hearings in a separate viewing room were granted to the public and WTO members; see the Communication from the chairman, WTO Doc. WT/DS320/8 and WT/DS321/8 (2 August 2005). So far, however, this has not become general practice.
85. Robyn Eckersley, "A Green Public Sphere in the WTO? The Amicus Curiae Interventions in the Transatlantic Biotech Dispute", European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 13, No. 3 (2007 , pp. 329-356.
86. Petros C. Mavroidis, "Amicus Curiae Briefs before the WTO: Much Ado About Nothing", in A. v. Bogdandy, P.C. Mavroidis and Y. Mény (eds.), European Integration and International Coordination: Studies in Transnational Economic Law in Honour of Claus Dieter Ehlermann (The Hague: Kluwer, 2002), pp. 317-329.
87. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Makane M. Mbengue, "GMOs and Trade: Issues at Stake in the EC Biotech Dispute", RECIEL, Vol. 13, No. 3 (2004), pp. 289-305.
88. See European Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WTO Docs. WT/DS291 (United States), WT/DS292 (Canada), and WT/DS293 (Argentina) (13 May 2004).
89. For the briefs, see http://www.trade-environment.org/page/theme/tewto/ biotechcase. htm. (accessed 10 July 2008).
90. The panellists stated that "in rendering our decision, we did not find it necessary to take the amicus curiae briefs into account" (WTO Doc. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, para. 7.11).
91. See WTO Doc. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, paras. 6.183-6.196.
92. WTO Doc. WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, para. 6.196.
93. Ulrich Eichelmann, "A Brief History of River Protection in Europe", World Rivers Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (2006), p. 5.
94. Manuel Jimenez, "Consolidation through Institutionalisation? Dilemmas of the Spanish Environmental Movement in the 1990s", Environmental Politics, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1999), pp. 149-171.
95. Kerstin Martens, NGOs and the United Nations: Institutionalization, Professionalization and Adaptation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
96. Sabine Saurugger, "The Professionalisation of Interest Representation: A Problem for the Participation of Civil Society in EU Governance?", in S. Smismans (ed.), Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006), pp. 260-276.
97. Marina S. Ottaway, "Corporatism Goes Global", Global Governance, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2001), pp. 265-293.
98. Michelle Beyeler, "Erfolge der Globalisierungskritik? Eine Analyse der Kampagnen gegen WEF und WTO", Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2006), pp. 50-63.
99. Bernhard Gill, "The Role of Technology Assessment in the Biotechnology Debate in Germany", Science as Culture, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1993), pp. 69-84.
100. Kerstin Martens, "Non-governmental Organisations as Corporatist Mediator? An Analysis of NGOs in the UNESCO System", Global Society Vol. 15, No. 4 (2001), p. 391.
101. Justin Greenwood and Darren Halpin, "The Public Governance of Interest Groups in the European Union: Does Regulating Groups for "Representativeness" Strengthen Input Legitimacy?", Paper presented at the 3rd ECPR General Conference, Budapest, 2005.
102. Kal Raustiala, "States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions", International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4 (1997), pp. 719-740.
103. Carolyn Hendriks, "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy", Political Studies, Vol. 54, No. 3 (2006), pp. 486-508.