Page 23 - THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE’S ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF THE OLYMPIC GAMES- A MULTI-METHOD INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYSIS Ryan Gautier

Chapter One – Introduction
on the global governance actor.54 However, other global governance actors, such as the IOC, are private actors. Without states members, there is no ex ante responsibility to states (or perhaps any other actor) whereby states set out mandates or procedural safeguards. In addition, there may be no ex post consequences for these private actors, as states may not be able to assert legal jurisdiction over these actors. As these actors are not considered ‘subjects of international law’,55 international legal avenues are often foreclosed. As such, many global governance actors are perceived to be unaccountable.
Given the broad ambit of global governance, a few theoretical frameworks are useful to help make sense of the system. To understand how global governance actors operate in a general manner, this thesis relies on the international relations theory of constructivism. Although the political science theory of constructivism provides a lens in which to understand how international actors behave in a general manner, more specific theoretical frameworks are required to analyse global governance, and the IOC’s role and actions. To that end, this thesis relies on four theoretical concepts: constructivism, legitimacy, global administrative law (‘GAL’), and neoliberalism. These are discussed briefly below, and legitimacy and global administrative law are examined in greater detail in Chapter Two.
3.1. Constructivism and International Law
In the world of international relations, actors operate in an environment of anarchy. Constructivism conceives of this environment as one where the beliefs and interests of actors are not pre-determined, but are constructed through interactions with other actors.56 Norms, identity, knowledge, and culture are elements that shape the interests of international actors, and these interests motivate the actions that international actors take.57 Constructivism stands in contrast to other international relations theories, particularly of the realist and liberal strain, which focus on the self-interests of the actors involved (which is often further reduced to material interests), and the utility of these actions in fulfilling those
54 ibid 26.
55 Jan Klabbers, International Law (Cambridge University Press 2013) 67–68.
56 Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’ (1992) 46 International Organization 391, 403.
57 Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner, ‘International Organization and the Study of
World Politics’ (1998) 52 International Organization 645, 679.
13