CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

NONǧTRADITIONAL NORMS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW The question whether administrative control has to be organized at the international or domestic level, and how control has to be organized, remains open. A global administrative space has been identified consisting of the sum of these transnational administrative mechanisms, principles, and practices. This space is characterized by diversity and fragmentation since global administrative bodies were not created equal. Global administrative actors range from international agencies, subsidiary organs such as general assemblies, Conferences of the Parties, special or functional committees, and/or private actors. The output overlaps to a great extent with IN-LAW, whereas GAL also studies decision-making processes, guidelines, policy harmonization, and standardization activities. 33 However, major differences are also to be noted in terms of scope. First, other than IN-LAW, GAL does not exclude private standard-setting from its scope. Second, GAL also takes account of formal and legally binding output of traditional international organizations. An activity does not have to be ‘informal’ to be subject to a GAL analysis. GAL thus takes a rather inclusive view on what constitutes ‘global administrative action’. 34 An interesting consequence of the GAL approach is the evaporation of the sharp separation of the domestic and the international. 35 Reasons are twofold. First, it can be noted that administrative law has entered international relations because of altered models of national representation in international affairs. States increasingly have delegated tasks to administrative agencies and regulators. Within the mandate accorded to them by national parliaments and/or governments, the latter may act at the international plane. Second, at the global level, a considerable number of international institutions perform functions that resemble national administrative action. 36 A main advantage of taking an administrative law perspective on non-traditional norms is the theoretical framework offered to explain and categorize international rulemaking. Clear procedural advantages emerge, which on their turn may strengthen accountability standards. Introducing administrative procedures to global regulatory action can ensure that administrative bodies also adequately integrate standards of transparency, participation, and effective review. However, given the large number of fundamentally very different transnational initiatives that are considered to be part of the global administrative phase, it has proven difficult to discern common characteristics, left alone to decide on the legal principles to guide future administrative action. The global administrative space does not consist of a coherent and clear 33 Von Bernstorff, J., “Procedures of Decision-Making and the Role of Law in International Organizations”, German Law Journal , 2008, Vol. 9, No. 11, pp. 1939-1964; Kingsbury, Casini, op. cit. 31. 34 Dann Ph., von Engelhardt, M., “Legal Approaches to Global Governance and Accountability: Informal Lawmaking, International Public Authority, and Global Administrative Law Compared”. In: Informal International Lawmaking , op. cit. 19, pp. 106-121, at 107. 35 Kingsbury, B., “The Concept of ‘Law’ in Global Administrative Law”, European Journal of International Law , 2009, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 23-57, at 25. 36 Krisch, Kingsbury, Stewart, op. cit. 30; Krisch, N., Kingsbury, B., “Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order”, European Journal of International Law , 2006, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-13.