Need For International Administrative Laws: Significance And Evolution

Introduction

In the recent decade, the global village has seen the rapid evolution of economic communication and increasing interrelationship between the countries and its people. It is unsurprising that this rapid globalization had also paved the way to the emergence of increased international legal regulation and administrative laws in order to promote good faith and greater and polished international trade.

Private and public interests have long transcended national borders, resulting in challenges that necessitated international solutions. Diplomatic conferences first attempted to address these issues through treaties or conventions whose implementation was left entirely to the discretion of individual states.[1] Various global problems, on the other hand, have been functionally handled through international administrative institutions from the middle of the nineteenth century.

Global administration appears to be lasting and institutionally complex, rather than an occasional matter of sparse agreements. Focusing on intergovernmental organizations with permanent administrative personnel, the world’s least integrated country is a formal member of 14 organizations, while almost every other country is a formal member of over 100. There are also agreements that provide rights and responsibilities but do not generate administrative capacity. To a significant and growing extent, then, rulemaking directly impacting the freedom of action of individuals and nation-states is taking place in global settings, formed by the world’s nations but no longer under their effective control, undemocratically but not wholly unaccountably. This is referred to as worldwide administration in the claim-making process. This global rulemaking, on the other hand, does not work under the shadow of a state and is not governed by a centralized authority.[2]

Significance of Global Administrative Law

1. Accountability in International Arena: Any global administrative regime relies on the coordinated action of various international, transnational, and domestic components and actors to function, and thus requires mechanisms to ensure that each of them fulfils their assigned roles in accordance with the regime’s norms (ECHR, Article 8(1))[3]. The World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body adopts procedures to assert and assist in implementing global regime rules against scattered domestic administrations in order to hold them accountable. States can be considered as the center of any global order, especially one organized under a pluralist idea, and hence as having a vital interest in policing the bounds of any delegation to global administration. Domestic procedures, such as administrative law processes created to control transnational or intergovernmental organizations, can serve this police function to the extent that they use the terms of any delegation as the foundation for legality tests (Kingsbury 2005)[4]. GAL tries to ensure that the various components and agents of the global order fulfil their assigned responsibilities and adhere to the regime’s internal legislation on this basis. An approach to GAL that emphasizes legality and focuses on review as a mechanism of control by central actors over subordinate or peripheral agencies and actors is adaptable to various ideas of international order and so could serve as a normative foundation for GAL.
2. Protection of Rights: Individual rights and the associated idea of the rule of law are the most common rights-based justifications for the necessity for a GAL. Administrative violation of individual rights, whether through the imposition of sanctions, liabilities, disadvantageous status determinations, or other means, almost always necessitate a prior hearing for the affected person, specific justifications, and the possibility of review by an independent body. This line of reasoning appears to underpin a number of new bodies of practice in GAL, particularly in circumstances when global administration operates directly on individuals (Kingsbury 2005)[5]. As a result, the demand that the Security Council give persons named as sanctions targets some form of due process supports the concept of rights protection. Furthermore, a rights-based theory of GAL has a second dimension in which it might be founded on state rights. Administrative law tools would preserve governments’ rights under this manner. They could ensure that administrative actors do not overstep their powers in dealing with third countries, or that their competences in dealing with member states are not exceeded. The WTO mechanism that protects against national regulators exercising over-reaching jurisdiction is a good example.
3. Enforcing Democracy: Implementation of democratic norms in appraising the necessity, performance, and prospects of GAL (Kingsbury 2005)[6] is the third and most normatively demanding strand. GAL serves these functions for administrations that operate transnational or international Globalization, which is based on the premise of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and public participation in administrative rule–making, just as domestic administrative law serves democracy by ensuring administrative adherence to parliamentary statutes and providing transparency and public participation in administrative rule–making. These ideals must be promoted through the changing features of international law, which are heavily influenced by globalization. As a result, GAL might use democratic implementation as a normative foundation.

Furthermore, the GAL has, by approaching the international arena in a procedurally and substantively rich approach, developed some basic legal principles which would not have existed without GAL, these are as follows:

Transparency and Procedural Undertaking:

Transparency in decision-making and access to information are critical foundations for the effective use of participation and review rights. It immediately increases accountability by making administrative decisions and relevant papers available for public and peer review. In GAL, these principles are increasingly being used. International organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are now responding to criticism of decision-making opacity by making internal information available to the general public. Another way to promote transparency is to involve NGOs in decision-making, as in the case of the Codex (Suppan 2004)[7].

Rational Decision-making:

Reasons for administrative decisions, including responses to important points presented by parties or commenters, have been extended from domestic legislation to some global or regional agencies. The shrimp–turtle decision[8] is crucial in establishing principles of reasoned decision-making for global administrative regulation, as is the Security Council’s decision to require, at least internally, some kind of justification by the proposing country before an individual’s assets are frozen. A documented, reasoned determination has also been made a prerequisite for measures against a specific athlete in the global anti-doping program.

The facts of the shrimp-turtle case were that the United States established an embargo on shrimp imports from countries that utilize fishing methods that threaten sea turtles in 1989. The shrimp were not classified as endangered, but the marine turtles were. As a result, the Embargo was prompted by a legitimate desire to save animal species from extinction. India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand filed a complaint with the WTO on the basis of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Dispute[9] (hereinafter as DSU), claiming that the embargo was a violation of Art. XI of the GATT (1994)[10], which provides for the universal abolition of quantitative limitations on trade. The WTO Appellate Body found that the United States has used § 609 of Public Law 101–162[11] in a way that is arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination between members of certification under § 609 (b)(2)[12] is there a transparent and predictable certification process that the US follows. The certification processes under section 609 primarily consist of administrative ex-parte inquiry or “verification” by staff of the Department of State’s Office of Marine Conservation with staff of the US National Marine Fisheries Service. There is no formal opportunity for an applicant country to be heard, or to respond to any arguments that may be made. Furthermore, on applications for any type of certification, whether under section 609(b)(2) (A) and (B)[13] or under section 609(b)(2), no formal written reasoned conclusion, whether of acceptance or refusal, is made (c). Countries whose applications are approved are listed in a Federal Register list of approved applications; however, they are not alerted. Countries whose applications are denied do not receive notice of the decision or the reasons for the refusal. There is no method for appealing or reviewing a denial of an application.

Review Process

One of the most widely acknowledged characteristics of domestic administrative law is the right to have a decision of a domestic administrative body impacting one’s rights reviewed by a court or other independent tribunal, which is paralleled to some extent in global administration (Kingsbury 2005).[14] Some international Human Rights Instruments, such as the ICCPR’s Article 14[15] (Kingsbury 2005)[16] and the ECHR’s Articles 6 and 13[17], treat access to a court to challenge harmful judgments as a human right. In a number of situations, European HR organizations have reaffirmed the importance of this right in regard to intergovernmental administrative decisions (Art. 14 ICCPR).[18]

Substantive Application:

When Individual Rights are prioritized in HR treaties, substantive requirements for administrative activity, such as proportionality, rational relationships between means and objectives, and the use of realistic expectations, might be expected to be enshrined in GAL. In the jurisprudence of various international human rights regimes, proportionality is a key problem. Interference with many individual rights, for example, can only be permissible under the ECHR if the interference is proportionate to the legitimate public goal pursued.[19]

Conclusion

The spread of international relations throughout the globe had made the evolution of global administrative law necessary and had facilitated in its furtherance. It is certain that without the GAL international relations would have, sooner or later, descended into a state of chaos. The Gal is a pillar, a glue that is holding together the fragile international relations and is healing and strengthening these relations too.

---

References

[1] Norman L. Hill, The Public International Conference; Its Function, Organization, and Procedure (Stanford University Press 1929).

[2] Joshua Cohen, Charles F. Sabel, Global Democracy, 102 International Law and Politics, 103 (2005).

[3] European Convention of Human Rights, art. 8(1).

[4] Benedict Kingsbury, The Emergency of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law and Contemporary Problems, 250 (2005).

[5] Id.

[6] Kingsbury, supra note 4.

[7] Steve Suppan, Consumers International’s Decision Making in the Global Market, Codex Briefing Paper (2004), https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/Codex%20Briefing%20Paper.pdf.

[8] US Shrimp-Turtle Case, World Trade Organisation (2017), https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds58sum_e.pdf.

[9] Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, 1994.

[10] General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947, art. XI.

[11] U.S. Public Law 101-162, 1989, §609.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Kingsbury, supra note 4.

[15] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976, art. 14.

[16] Kingsbury, supra note 4.

[17] European Convention of Human Rights, art. 6, 13.

[18] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976, art. 14.

[19] European Convention of Human Rights, art. 6, 13.