Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T17:22:03.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Administrative Law: Can it Bring Global Governance to Account?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Andrew D Mitchell  and
John Farnik
Andrew D Mitchell*
Affiliation:
Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne; Supreme Court of Victoria and High Court of Australia; Tim Fischer Centre for Global Trade & Finance, Bond University
John Farnik*
Affiliation:
Blake Dawson
*
Email <a.mitchell@unimelb.edu.au>.
Email <john.farnik@blakedawson.com>.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years, scholars worldwide have begun organising and developing a coherent framework and research agenda focused on the emerging field of ‘global administrative law’. This nascent body of law, unlike domestic or national forms of administrative law, does not operate within the bounds of unitary nation states, and unlike traditional accounts of public international law, it does not arise exclusively between nation states. Instead it operates in a transnational or global space occupied by a vast variety of administrative actors responsible for trans-governmental regulation and administration; the field of ‘global governance’. To combat growing concerns that there are crucial legitimacy, accountability and democratic deficiencies inherent in this system of global governance, numerous administrative law type mechanisms and principles have been developed by global administrative bodies. Global administrative law embodies the totality of these various mechanisms and principles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 237 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was first presented at the 2008 National Administrative Law Forum, Melbourne, 7–8 August 2008. The authors would like to thank Alice Ashbolt, Georgina Dimopoulos, Sarah Ganz and Besma Grifat for their suggestions and ideas on earlier versions of this paper.

References

1 The most conspicuous example of this body of scholarship is the Global Administrative Law Project of the NYU School of Law found online at <http://www.iilj.org/GAL/> at 1 September 2009.

2 See, eg, Benedict, Kingsbury, Nico, Krisch and Richard, B Stewart, ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68(3) Law and Contemporary Problems 15Google Scholar; Benedict, Kingsbury, ‘The Administrative Law Frontier in Global Governance’ (2005) 99 American Society of International Law Proceedings 143Google Scholar.

3 Eleanor, Kinney, ‘The Emerging Field of International Administrative Law: Its Content and Potential’ (2002) 54 Administrative Law Review 415, 416–17Google Scholar.

4 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 18-19.

5 Ibid.

6 Kinney, above n 3, 417–8.

7 Ibid, 419.

8 Kingsbury, above n 2, 143.

9 Kinney, above n 3, 419.

10 Alfred, C Aman Jr, ‘The Limits of Globalization and the Future of Administrative Law: From Government to Governance’ (2001) 8 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 379Google Scholar.

11 See generally Matthew, Diller, ‘Introduction: Redefining the Public Sector: Accountability and Democracy in the Era of Privatisation’ (2001) 28 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1307Google Scholar; Anne-Marie, Slaughter, ‘Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy’ (2003) 24 Michigan Journal of International Law 1041Google Scholar; David Zaring, ‘Informal Procedure, Hard and Soft, in International Administration’ International Law and Justice Working Paper 2004/6 (Global Administrative Law Series). See further Part IV below.

12 See, eg, Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 20–3; Richard, Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?’ (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 63, 65-7Google Scholar.

13 Other categories of bodies are suggested by various scholars. For example, in Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 20, ‘cooperative arrangements between national regulatory officials', ‘distributed administration conducted by national regulators under treaty, network, or other cooperative regimes', ‘administration by hybrid intergovernmental-private arrangements’ and ‘administration by private institutions with regulatory functions’ are also identified as discernible groups of trans-governmental regulatory bodies, yet the point is made that many of these groups ‘overlap or combine’ in practice.

14 See Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 21; Kinney, above n 3, 420.

15 Philippe, Sands and Pierre, Klein, Bowett's Law of International Institutions (5th ed, 2001) 442Google Scholar.

16 Ibid 16.

17 See, eg, Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 21; Kinney, above n 3, 420.

18 Philippe, Sands and Pierre, Klein, Bowett's Law of International Institutions (5th ed, 2001), 43Google Scholar. The United Nations Security Council maintains a website with a description of its composition and functions at <http://www.un.org/sc/> at 1 September 2009.

19 Charter of the United Nations arts 39-51 (Chapter VII); Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 21.

20 The World Trade Organization maintains a home page at <http://www.wto.org/> at 1 September 2009.

21 Tania, Voon, ‘The World Trade Organisation’ in Andrew, Mitchell and Jenny, Beards (eds), International Law: In Principle (2009)Google Scholar ch 11. Other examples include, eg, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Food and Agriculture Organization.

22 Slaughter, ‘Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy', above n 11.

23 Peter, M Haas, ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Co-ordination’ (1992) 46 International Organization 1Google Scholar.

24 Kinney, above n 3, 416. There is voluminous literature on the nature and extent of these informal networks. See, eg, Anne-Marie, Slaughter, ‘Governing the Global Economy through Government Networks’ in Michael, Byers (ed) The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law (2000) 177Google Scholar; David, Zaring, ‘International Law by Other Means: The Twilight Existence of International Financial Regulatory Organizations’ (1998) 33 Texas International Law Journal 281Google Scholar; Zaring, ‘Informal Procedure, Hard and Soft, in International Administration', above n 11; Kal, Raustiala ‘The Architecture of International Cooperation: Transgovernmental Networks and the Future of International Law’ (2002) 43 Virginia Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar.

25 Robert, O Keohane and Joseph, S Nye Jr, ‘Transgovernmental Relations and International Organizations’ (1974) 27 World Politics 39Google Scholar.

26 Picciotto, ‘Networks In International Economic Integration: Fragmented States and the Dilemmas of Neo-Liberalism’ (1996) 17 Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 1014Google Scholar.

27 See, eg, Zaring, ‘Informal Procedure, Hard and Soft, in International Administration', above n 11, 7–11. The Basel Committee maintains a homepage at <http://www.bis.org/bcbs/> at 1 September 2009.

28 History of the Basel Committee and its Membership (2009) Bank for International Settlements <http://www.bis.org/bcbs/history.pdf> at 29 July 2009.

29 The nations represented are: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

30 Zaring, ‘International Law by Other Means: The Twilight Existence of International Financial Regulatory Organizations', above n 24, 288.

31 History of the Basel Committee and its Membership (2007) Bank for International Settlements <http://www.bis.org/bcbs/history.pdf> at 10 July 2008.

32 See, eg, Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 20–23; Kinney, above n 3.

33 Aman, above n 10; Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 22.

34 Kinney, above n 3.

35 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 21-2. This includes, for example, national environmental regulators whose decisions are of concern to governments in other states as well as the international environmental regime.

36 This is one of the key objectives of the Global Administrative Law Project, see above n 1.

37 For equivalent principles in US law, see Richard, B Stewart, ‘Administrative Law in the Twenty-First Century’ (2003) 78 New York University Law Review 437Google Scholar and Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12, 73–5.

38 See generally Johnathon, R Macey, ‘Regulatory Globalization as a Response to Regulatory Competition’ (2003) 52 Emory Law Journal 1353Google Scholar; Lori, M Wallach, ‘Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization: The WTO, NAFTA and International Harmonization of Standards’ 50 University of Kansas Law Review 823Google Scholar; John Frerejon, ‘Accountability in a Global Context’ IILJ Working Paper 2007/5 (Global Administrative Law Series); Alois, Stutzer and Bruno, S Frey, ‘Making International Organizations More Democratic’ (2005) 1 Review of Law and Economics 305Google Scholar; David Dyzenhaus, ‘Accountability and the Concept of (Global) Administrative Law’ IILJ Working Paper 2008/7 (Global Administrative Law Series); Ruth, W Grant and Robert, O Keohane ‘Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics’ (2005) 99 American Political Science Review 29Google Scholar.

39 See generally Kingsbury, above n 2.

40 International Institute for Sustainable Development, Investment Treaty News (ITN), May 9 2007 (2007) 1-2 <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itn_may9_2007.pdf> at 22 July 2008.

41 Latin Leftists mull quitting World Bank Arbitrator (2007) Thomson Reuters, <http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2936448520070430?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true> at 22 July 2008.

42 Chittharanjan, Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations (2nd ed, 2005) 117–21Google Scholar.

43 Slaughter, ‘Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy', above n 11, 1054.

44 See generally, Stutzer and Frey, above n 38; See Wallach, above n 38; B S, Chimni ‘Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto’ (2006) 8 International Community Law Review 3Google Scholar.

45 Philip, Alston, ‘The Myopia of the Handmaidens: International Lawyers and Globalization’ (1997) 8 European Journal of International Law 435Google Scholar.

46 See, generally, Anne-Marie, Slaughter, ‘The Accountability of Government Networks’ (2001) 8 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 347Google Scholar.

47 Picciotto, above n 26.

48 Slaughter, ‘Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy', above n 11, 1056.

49 Zaring, ‘International Law by Other Means: The Twilight Existence of International Financial Regulatory Organizations', above n 24, 288.

50 Michael, Barr and Geoffrey, Miller, ‘Global Administrative Law: The View from Basel’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 15, 17Google Scholar.

51 Anne-Marie, Slaughter, A New World Order (2004) 12Google Scholar; Aman, above n 10; Martin, Shapiro, ‘Administrative Law Unbounded: Reflections on Government and Governance’ (2001) 8 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 369Google Scholar.

52 See generally, Stutzer and Frey, above n 38.

53 See Kinney, above n 3; Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2.

54 For a detailed analysis of the distinction between prototypical administrative law procedural requirements and general public law values see Carol, Harlow, ‘Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 187Google Scholar.

55 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2.

56 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 37.

57 See Harlow, above n 54.

58 See Slaughter, A New World Order, above n 51, 12.

59 Slaughter, A New World Order, above n 51, chap 4.

60 This is the traditional account referred to in Shapiro, above n 51, 369.

61 See Slaughter, ‘Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy’, above n 11, for a short history of the ‘trans-governmentalism’ phenomenon in its legal, political science and sociological dimensions.

62 The independence of droit administratif (administrative law) as a coherent and distinct body of law has long been recognised in French jurisprudence. See for example, Blanco, Tribunal des Conflits, 8 February 1873, about the independence of the Administrative Law: ‘Considérant que la responsabilité, qui peut incomber à l'Etat, pour les dommages causés aux particuliers par le fait des personnes qu'il emploie dans le service public, ne peut être régie par les principes qui sont établis dans le Code civil, pour les rapports de particulier à particulier ; Que cette responsabilité n'est ni générale, ni absolue ; qu'elle a ses règles spéciales qui varient suivant les besoins du service et la nécessité de concilier les droits de l'Etat avec les droits privés;’ ('Considering that the liability of the State for damages caused to individuals linked to the fact that it employs people in the public service, cannot be governed by principles that are established in the Civil Code, regarding the relations between individuals; That this liability is neither general nor absolute and has its own special rules, which vary depending on the service requirements and the need to reconcile the State's rights with private rights;’). See generally Guy, Braibant, Pierre, Devolvé, Bruno, Genevois, Marceau, Long and Prosper, Weil, In Les Grands Arrêts de la Jurisprudence Administrative (16th ed, 2007)Google Scholar and René, Chapus, Droit Administratif Général (15th ed, 2001)Google Scholar.

63 For a useful study of the comparative development of administrative law across numerous jurisdictions see Durga Das Basu, Comparative Administrative Law (1969), in particular the introductory section.

64 See, eg, Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) in Australia, and Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC §500 (2008) in the United States.

65 Ridge v Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66, 76 (Lord Reid).

66 See H B Jacobini, An Introduction to Comparative Administrative Law (1991), who suggests that until the League of Nations, there were insufficient international bureaucrats for truly international regulatory administrative action to take place.

67 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 28.

68 Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12.

69 Charles, Koch Jr, ‘Introduction: Globalization of Administrative and Regulatory Practice’ (2002) 54 Administrative Law Review 409Google Scholar.

70 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 28.

71 Ibid 30.

72 Ibid.

73 For a more detailed description of this ‘bottom up’ approach, see pt III of Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12.

74 Ibid 76.

75 August Reinisch, International Organizations before National Courts (2000).

76 Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. U 9/00, online at <http://www.ustavnisud.ba.> at 5 September 2009.

77 Also known as the Dayton Peace Agreement, online at <http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=380> at 5 September 2009.

78 The Bosnian Constitution is published online at <http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/article.php?pid=835&kat=518&pkat=500> at 5 September 2009.

79 Carsten, Stahn, ‘International Territorial Administration in the former Yugoslavia: Origins, Developments and Challenges Ahead’ (2001) 61 Zeitschrift für ausländiches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 107, 166-7Google Scholar.

80 Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. U 9/00 at [5]–[6].

81 Carsten Stahn, Accountability and Legitimacy in Practice: Lawmaking by Transitional Administrations (2005) European Society of International Law, 9 <http://www.esil-sedi.eu/english/pdf/Stahn.pdf> at 29 July 2009.

82 Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. U 9/00 at [5]–[6].

83 Ibid.

84 See, eg, Blackburn v Attorney-General [1971] 2 All ER 1380, 1382 (Lord Denning MR).

85 Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1987) 15 FCR 274 ('Peko-Wallsend’).

86 Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.

87 Peko-Wallsend (1987) 15 FCR 274, 307 (Wilcox J).

88 On the review of domestic implementation of transnational regulations see Vera Gowlland-Debbas and Djacoba Liva Tehindrazanarivelo (eds), National Implementation of United Nations Sanctions A Comparative Study (2004); Vera, Gowlland-Debbas, ‘The Domestic Implementation of UN Sanctions’ in Erika, De Wet, André, Nollkaemper and Petra, Kijkstra (eds), Review of the Security Council by Member States (2003) 63Google Scholar. See also Chris, Finn, ‘The Concept of “Justiciability” in Australian Administrative Law’ in Matthew, Groves and H P, Lee (eds), Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines (2007) 143Google Scholar.

89 It is difficult to imagine how an applicant, at such a preliminary point in the decision-making process, could satisfy the requirement of a ‘special interest in the subject matter’ of the decision: Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493.

90 Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12, 72.

91 See <http://www.citizen.org/> at 29 July 2009.

92 Public Citizen v Office of the United States Trade Representative, 970 F.2d 916 (1992).

93 United States Executive Order of the President No 13141 (1999) s 5.

94 However, interestingly, s 7 of the Order explicitly states that it does not create any procedural responsibility enforceable at law, thereby apparently precluding future judicial challenge grounded in a failure to carry out this procedural requirement: United States Executive Order of the President No 13141 (1999) s 7.

95 See Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 33 for examples of this type of legislation being passed.

96 Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12; Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 36.

97 Details of the 1267 Committee can be found online at United Nations Security Council, Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities <http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/> at 27 July 2009.

98 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 34. This series of cases is discussed further in Part VII below.

99 Peter, Gutherie, ‘Security Council Sanctions and the Protection of Individual Rights’ (2004) 60 New York University Annual Survey of American Law 491, 512-3Google Scholar.

100 Resolution on General Issues Relating to Sanctions, SC Res 1730, UN SCOR, sess, 5599th mtg, UN Doc S/Res/1730 (2006).

101 For commentary of such challenges with an Australian focus see Tony, Buti and Saul, Fridman, ‘Drug Testing in Sport: Legal Challenges and Issues’ (1999) 20 University of Queensland Law Journal 153Google Scholar.

102 The Code is published online: World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code (2003) <http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf> at 29 July 2009.

103 A complete legal opinion on the status of the code, and its capacity to protect the fundamental rights of affected athletes may be found online: Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler and Antonio Rigozzi, Legal Opinion on the Conformity of Article 10.6 of the 2007 Draft World Anti-Doping Code with the Fundamental Rights of Athletes (2007) World Anti-Doping Agency <http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Legal_Opinion_Conformity_10_6_complete_document.pdf> at 29 July 2009.

104 It has, nevertheless, been suggested that scrutiny by national courts may also have a potentially ‘chilling or disruptive’ effect: see Kingsbury, above n 2, 146.

105 Kinney, above n 3, 427; Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 34.

106 Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12.

107 General information regarding the Inspection Panel may be found at World Bank, The Inspection Panel <http://www.worldbank.org/inspectionpanel> at 27 July 2009.

108 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 34.

109 Ibrahim, Shihata, ‘The World Bank Inspection Panel – Its Historical, Legal and Operational Aspects’ in Gudmundur, Alfredsson and Rolf, Ring (eds), The Inspection Panel of the World Bank: A Different Complaints Procedure (2001) 7, 9–11Google Scholar.

110 David, Hunter, ‘Using the World Bank Inspection Panel to Defend the Interests of Project-Affected People’ (2003) 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 201Google Scholar, 203–4.

111 See, generally, Dana, Clark and David, Hunter, ‘The World Bank Inspection Panel: Amplifying Citizen Voices for Sustainable Development’ in Gudmundur, Alfredsson and Rolf, Ring (eds), The Inspection Panel of the World Bank: A Different Complaints Procedure (2001) 167Google Scholar.

112 Details of this mechanism may be found in the Operating Procedure of the Inspection Panel published online at World Bank, BP 17.55 Inspection Panel (1999) <http://www.worldbank.org/inspectionpanel> at 27 July 2009.

113 Hunter, above n 110, 205.

114 Ibid 206.

115 See Requests for Inspection: World Bank, Cases and Reports of the Inspection Panel <http://www.worldbank.org/inspectionpanel> at 27 July 2009.

116 In fact, it has already influenced the creation of similar procedures in the decision-making and review procedure of several international banks: see for example, Eugenia, McGill, ‘The Inspection Policy of the Asian Development Bank’ in Gudmundur, Alfredsson and Rolf, Ring (eds), The Inspection Panel of the World Bank: A Different Complaints Procedure (2001) 191Google Scholar.

117 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 34.

118 Clark and Hunter, above n 111, 182-6.

119 The new Accountability Mechanism became effective on 12 December 2003. For information regarding the previous Inspection Policy and the present Accountability Mechanism of the Asian Development Bank see Asian Development Bank, Accountability Mechanism <http://www.adb.org/Accountability-Mechanism/default.asp> at 27 July 2009.

120 For a registry containing all requests filed with both the CRP and the SPF see Asian Development Bank, Compliance Review Panel <http://lnadbg4.adb.org/dir0035p.nsf?Openat29July2008>. It is perhaps a testament to the efficacy of the more informal dispute resolution process available under the Consultation Phase that only two requests for compliance review have been made to the CRP since 2004, while 12 requests for mediation were filed with the SPF in the same period.

121 Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12, 88-90.

122 See, eg, discussion and references in Slaughter, ‘Global Government Networks, Global Information Agencies, and Disaggregated Democracy', above n 11.

123 Slaughter, A New World Order, above n 51, 12.

124 Barr and Miller, above n 50, 20.

125 Slaughter, ‘The Accountability of Government Networks', above n 46, 359.

126 Barr and Miller, above n 50, 24.

127 For an excellent account of this process, see ibid, 24–28.

128 Ibid 26-27.

129 Zaring, ‘International Law by Other Means: The Twilight Existence of International Financial Regulatory Organizations', above n 24, 288.

130 Ibid.

131 Barr and Miller, above n 50, 45–46.

132 Barr and Miller, above n 50, 31.

133 See, generally, Barr and Miller, above n 50.

134 See, generally, ibid 45.

135 See discussion above regarding Basel Committee adoption of transparency procedures and notice comment mechanisms which improve the efficacy of domestic administrative mechanisms.

136 For more discussion of these and related issues see Sabino, Cassese, ‘Administrative Law Without the State? The Challenge of Global Regulation’ (2006) 37 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 663Google Scholar.

137 For more discussion of these and related issues see ibid 684.

138 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 24.

139 Information regarding the CDM and the Executive Board which oversees it can be found online at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development Mechanism <http://cdm.unfccc.int/index.html> at 27 July 2009.

140 See, generally, discussion in Stewart, ‘U.S. Administrative Law: A Model for Global Administrative Law?', above n 12.

141 United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc WT/DS58/AB/R, AB-1998-4 (1998) (Report of the Appellate Body) ('US – Shrimp’).

142 See Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 36.

143 For more detailed discussion of the Shrimp/Turtle decision, and its connection with ‘due process’ as a principle of WTO law see Andrew Mitchell, Legal Principles in WTO Disputes (2008) 173-5.

144 WTO Report of the Appellate Body, US – Shrimp, above n 141 at [182].

145 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 36. For more on the WTO's contribution to global administrative law see Andrew, D Mitchell and Elizabeth, Sheargold, ‘Global Governance: The WTO's Contribution’ (2009) 46(3) Alberta Law ReviewGoogle Scholar (forthcoming).

146 See, generally, Kingsbury, above n 2, 145.

147 For detail of the litigation see David, Dyzenhaus, ‘The Rule of (Administrative) Law in International Law’ (2005) 68 Law and Contemporary Problems 127, 144–6Google Scholar; Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 32. Also, for discussion of the consequences of this litigation (specifically in relation to institutional reform) see Peter, Gutherie, ‘Security Council Sanctions and the Protection of Individual Rights’ (2005) 60 New York University Annual Survey of American Law 491, 519Google Scholar.

148 The Consolidated List is publicly available online at United Nations Security Council, Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and Associated Individuals and Entities <http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolist.shtml> at 27 July 2009.

149 Dyzenhaus, ‘The Rule of (Administrative) Law in International Law’ above n 147, 145.

150 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart, above n 2, 32.

151 See Kingsbury, above n 2, 145; for a more detailed explanation of the procedural fairness issues involved, see Dyzenhaus, ‘The Rule of (Administrative) Law in International Law’ above n 147, 141–51.

152 Dyzenhaus, ‘The Rule of (Administrative) Law in International Law’ above n 147, 144–6.

153 See Gutherie, above n 147, 521 for discussion of the availability of review.