CYIL Vol. 5, 2014

SANDERIJN DUQUET – JAN WOUTERS CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ set of administrative rules and it is unlikely that agreement on this will ever be found. Challenges are clear: transnational or global administrations were not founded on the basis of a common legal tradition, nor do they necessarily share a set of predetermined constitutional principles. 37 GAL researchers do not shy away from this debate: the identification of common principles and standards in global administrative lawmaking is a recurring theme in research. Results, however, have been unsatisfactory. Scholars disagree on if and how efforts have to be undertaken to select, define, and further develop principles and values at the global plane. 38 On the one hand, the further elaboration of common administrative rules seems crucial, not just for a proper administration of justice for individuals, but more broadly for the legitimacy of transnational and international administrative action in general. 39 On the other hand, a main strand in literature suggests that the finding of agreement on a universal set of administrative law principles should not be a priority for GAL. Either way, problems related to the selection of principles of global administrative law emerge. Given the variety in international institutions, regimes, and networks, it has been argued that diversity and pluralism are preferred ways to cope with this issue. 40 The latter approach, however, may leave the impression that the GAL framework, as it stands, is not fully living up to its potential. Although, at first glance, it provides a concrete and useful methodology to order non-traditional norms at transnational and international levels, GAL’s comprehensiveness tends to decelerate the development of common global administrative principles. 3.3 International Public Authority Studies conducted in the framework of the research project at the Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg on the ‘Exercise of International Public Authority’ (IPA) emphasize the notions of governance and public law in global governance activities. The prevailing hypothesis is that ‘governance’ is about creating (public) order. 41 The IPA methodology enables the identification of all those international governance phenomena it believes public lawyers should study. The concrete benchmark used is whether public authority is exercised by international actors. 42 The IPA 37 For further reading, see Kuo, M.-S., “Between Fragmentation and Unity: The Uneasy Relationship between Global Administrative Law and Global Constitutionalism”, San Diego International Law Journal , 2009, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 439-467. 38 Harlow, C., “Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values”, European Journal of International Law , 2006, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 187-214. 39 Wouters, J., Duquet, S., “Reasonableness as a Standard of Judicial Review: Comparative, European and International Perspectives”, Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico , 2014, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 33-74. 40 For further reading, see Robalino-Orellana, J., Rodriguez-Arana Munoz, J., Global Administrative Law: Towards a Lex Administrativa , Folkstone: CMP Publishing, 2010; Harlow, op. cit. 38. 41 Peters, B.G., Savoie, D.J., Governance in a Changing Environment . Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1995, at 15. 42 Von Bogdandy, Dann, Goldmann, op. cit. 21, pp. 11-12.