You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items

  • Author or Editor: Nils Vanstappen x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Nils Vanstappen

Chapter 5 deals with a major challenge for CCAMLR: non-compliance. This chapter argues that one way CCAMLR can promote – and has promoted – compliance is by ensuring that its decision-making process is legitimate. The focus is specifically on two principles guaranteeing legitimate decision-making, namely inclusive participation and evidence-based decision-making. The normative content of these principles is discussed, as well as their legal status and substance under international fisheries law. CCAMLR’s design and decision-making process are studied in the context of these principles.

You do not have access to this content

Nils Vanstappen and Jan Wouters

This content is available to you

Samuel Cogolati, Linda Hamid and Nils Vanstappen

Over the last decade, global public goods (GPGs) have been at the centre of the policy discourse of prominent international organisations, States, and non-government organisations (NGOs) alike. The concept emerged in 1999, in a seminal book sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and finds its origins in economic theory. The economic literature defines public goods as non-rival, since anyone can benefit from them without diminishing the quantity available to other consumers, and non-excludable, as no one can realistically be excluded from their consumption. Nowadays, an increasing number of public goods transcend national boundaries. For instance: climate change mitigation, the eradication of infectious diseases, the fight against corruption, or the protection of the ozone layer are all seen as GPGs. But despite its topicality, the concept has attracted little attention from legal scholars around the globe. Not only this, but among the few authors that actually engage with the topic, the majority focus on issues related to the provision of GPGs, while the question of what goods should be publicly provided in the first place, as well as the decision-making process underlying such a determination, has been left largely unexplored. It is with respect to this specific issue that we wish to contribute to the debate. In our view, the definition of GPGs is a matter of policy choice, as it goes beyond economic, value-free considerations. Therefore, it cannot lie beyond the control of democratic structures. GPGs cannot be defined in a democratic and legal vacuum—a legitimate and inclusive decision-making process is required. In this article, we endeavour to explain how international legal scholarship, in particular the global administrative law and global constitutionalism projects, can contribute to integrating democratic standards in the process of defining GPGs.