The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [AIIB] is the world’s newest multilateral development bank [MDB] and already one of Asia’s largest international organizations by membership. This paper will compare the institutional structure of the AIIB with that of the Asian Development Bank [ADB] to identify areas in which the AIIB has innovated as a matter of international institutional law. In reviewing the constituent documents, bylaws, and operational policies of the two banks, the paper will juxtapose the AIIB and ADB’s approaches to membership, project finance, voting, and governance. It will identify not only innovations, but also the likely implications, positive and negative, thereof. Finally, it will assess the degree to which these innovations may impact the AIIB’s ability to partner with existing MDBs. In particular, the AIIB’s approach to project finance and governance mark a significant break from the status quo, while in other areas it has remained conservative.

Writing in 1884, the Scottish international lawyer James Lorimer described an international government that should 'belong : : : to all nations and to none'. 1 Lorimer's paradox reflects a tension between the desirability of independence in an international organization and states' want to extend their sovereignty to the organization, which the states brought into existence. This tension has informed the design of all international organizations. 2 The earliest secretariats were regularly placed under the supervision of the member statesbelonging to 'all'but the International Labour Organisation (ILO) shifted toward an independent secretariat with employees loyal to the organizationbelonging to 'none'. 3 Article 9 of the ILO Constitution created dual obligations: employees 'shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization', and member states will 'not to seek to influence [ILO staff] in the discharge of their responsibilities'. 4 Since 1945 many international organizations have adopted this approach, 5 perhaps most importantly the United Nations. 6 This evolution is entirely appropriate. The international character of an international organization demands a degree of independence from its member states, but increased independence need not go hand-in-hand with reduced transparency. Such transparency is crucial to member states' trust in the organization's staff, and to the organization's legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. Today, the activities of international organizations touch upon almost every sphere of life, yet average citizens' opportunities to scrutinize international organizations' activities remain limited. Bearing this in mind, a second look at Lorimer's paradox is warranted: an international organization should belong to all nations and to none. Although a 'nation' is more than its national government, existing scholarship on the law of international organizations nevertheless tends to assess the degree of government ownership of an organization. 7 In The Working World of

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract