Page 35 - 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
Decisions made by global governance institutions may directly affect/involve individuals, bypassing the state. This situation is common in the private sector, where individuals interact with corporations and the like on a daily basis—entering into contracts, and so forth. The state provides a backdrop of protection to these interactions, regulating certain types of contracts (e.g., rules to protect minors, or disclosure requirements for loans), and providing courts to adjudicate disputes. The particular concern with global governance actors is that they often exercise ‘public power’ akin to a state. This power is not necessarily negotiated between the individual and the global governance institution, as an interaction between an individual and a corporation would be. Instead, the power is generally exercised over an individual, as is that of a state. However, unlike a state, global governance institutions are not accountable to either ‘the people’ in a broad sense, or to affected individuals, for their actions.7
2.2. Global Administrative Law
One manner in which international lawyers have attempted to address the problem of the unaccountability of global governance actors is to conceptualise them as comparable to domestic administrative actors. As noted above, a significant amount of global governance is exercised through rule-making, standard-setting, and application—administrative actions. Historically, domestic administrative actors in liberal democracies have historically had a difficult relationship with accountability to those they affect.8 Similarly, global administrative law focuses on approaches that have been applied to domestic administrative actors to improve the accountability of global administrative actors, namely: increasing transparency of and public participation in decision-making, and review (judicial or otherwise).9 These approaches will be considered in regards to the IOC, particularly in Chapters Five, Six, and Seven.
7 Although Nico Krisch posits that accountability should be to ‘the people’ in a cosmopolitan sense, and to affected individuals, this approach is contested, particularly in regards to who the ‘the people’ are. Nico Krisch, ‘The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 247.
8 Richard B. Stewart, ‘The Reformation of American Administrative Law’ (1975) 88 Harvard Law Review 1667, 1670–71.
9 See Kristin L. Retherford, ‘Regulating the Corporate Tap: Applying Global Administrative Law Principles to Achieve the Human Right to Water’ (2013) 88 Indiana Law Journal 811, 830.
25