Page 34 - THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE’S ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF THE OLYMPIC GAMES- A MULTI-METHOD INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ANALYSIS Ryan Gautier

Chapter Two – Global Governance and Legitimacy
valued, recurring patterns of behaviour.”2 This broad definition covers both the actual actor qua organisation, as well as the various rules, regulations, standards, procedures, etc. that it seeks to implement and enforce,3 both of which are examined in this work. Huntington’s definition also covers informal rules (e.g., norms), which will be discussed to a minor degree in the conclusion to this thesis. The two primary institutions are of interest in this thesis. First, the IOC, which is an actor, as well as an amalgam of rules. Second, the Olympic Games, which is not an actor, but is certainly an institution under Huntington’s definition, in that it is a collection of rules, regulations, and standards around a recurring event. I will use ‘institution’ generally, but will refer to ‘actors’ and ‘rules’ when it is necessary to differentiate.
The actual practice of global governance is a patchwork of various institutions. Actors that engage in global governance includes states, international organisations, corporations, and civil society groups (e.g., NGOs). The manner in which these various actors exercise institutional authority ranges from formal agreements such as treaties concluded by states to informal pressure from other groups.4 Of particular relevance to this research is that institutional authority is frequently exercised through actors engaging in rule-making and standard-setting. This situation appears to be analogous to domestic governments, where a significant degree of governance is carried out by administrative agencies who engage in rule-making, standard-setting, and the application of these rules and standards.5 However, unlike their domestic counterparts, many global governance actors (i.e., those who are not states) do not possess a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, as opposed to states in a domestic setting.6
2 Samuel Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (Yale 1968) 12. A similar definition has been used by constructivists, namely Alexander Wendt, who defined institution as a “relatively stable set or “structure” of identities and interests” that may be formal or informal. Alexander Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’ (1992) 46 International Organization 391, 399.
3 ibid.
4 Keohane (n 1) 132.
5 See, e.g., Nico Krisch, ‘The Structure of Postnational Authority’ (2015)
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2564579> accessed 08 May 2015; Kingsbury et al (n 53) 17; Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore, ‘The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations’ (1999) 53 International Organization 699, 699.
6 Allen Buchanan and Robert O. Keohane, ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’ (2006) 20 Ethics and International Affairs 405, 406.
24