Hard Choices, Soft Law

Kirton, John; Trebilcock, M. J.

doi:10.4324/9781315253633

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Norms may also be found in 'soft' declaratory or 'informal' international law. 44 In the case of transnational best practices, two sets of norms are most relevant. First, owing to best practices' focus on generating authority outside the context of traditional international law-making and formal state consent, are norms specifically concerned with generating public acceptance of the authority of non-traditional or informal forms of global governance.…”

Section: Ivi Social Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Best practices in global governance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Best practices are increasingly used to govern a range of global issues. Yet, the rise of global governance through best practices has received scant attention in the International Relations literature. How do best practices differ from other modes of governance? How are they constructed? And to what end? We offer a novel conceptualisation of best practices as a unique mode of global governance principally distinguished by basing claims of political authority on existing practices. Belying their apolitical terminology, best practices in global governance are purposively constructed by political actors to steer targeted actors toward desired ends. We illustrate the characteristics of governance through best practices with reference to state and non-state global governance initiatives in a wide range of issue areas, ranging from finance and development to human rights and the environment, and through an in-depth case study of the ISEAL Alliance, a disseminator of best practices for transnational sustainability standard-setters. We find that governance through best practices has both positive and negative consequences. While it offers a pragmatic approach to global governance under conditions of fragmentation and polycentricity, it can also mask underlying power dynamics and political agendas and therefore requires ongoing critical scrutiny.

show abstract

Section: Ivi Social Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Best practices in global governance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disinformation by journalists is governed by the industry itself – professional colleagues will, in the SPJ's words, “encourage the exposure of unethical journalism as a means for rooting it out” of the market. One of the strengths of such self‐governance, exemplified in transnational governing capacity (Kirton & Trebilcock 2017), is that it is rather flexible and can adapt to changing circumstances quickly because it does not require a complex legislative procedure, but is enacted through mutual adjustment. In other words, rules are embedded ex post rather than ex ante .…”

Section: Algorithmic Governance In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach

Gritsenko

Wood

2020

Regulation & Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design‐based governance, with power exercised ex ante via choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self‐governance, and co‐governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design‐based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re‐conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, such rules are largely informal and flexible in the sense that they are open to interpretation and adjustment by those who are regulated (cf. Kirton and Trebilcock 2004). The domain and applicability of soft rules and the conditions for compliance are defined in conjunction with the rules themselves.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

International Relations Theory

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of governance took shape partly in reaction to a dominant perspective in which social control was perceived as primarily mobilized by and confined to the nation-state. This perception is particularly striking in the literature of political science and international relations (Keohane 1982; Baldwin 1993). An objection to this state-centered view was raised with the catchphrase "governance without government" (Rosenau and Czempiel 1992). Theories of governance do not imply that states and governments disappear (e.g. Pierre 2000). Rather, they emphasize that the study of governance should not start from an exclusive focus on the state. Avant et al. (2010), for example, point to the multitude of actors involved in global governance, ranging from the great diversity of international organizations, multinational corporations and professional associations to advocacy groups, and these authors stress the diversity of their functions. Broadly speaking, these actors "create issues, set agendas, establish and implement rules or programs, and evaluate and/or adjudicate outcomes" (ibid.: 10). Theories of governance have turned attention to other important global and regional actors, to world society and, increasingly, to the interplay of states with other local and global actors, such as international bodies, corporations, civil society organizations and professional networks (for an overview, see Ansell and Torfing, Introduction in this Handbook). This has led to the development of theories and empirical studies of how these many diverse actors interact, network, collaborate and sometimes compete across sectors and levels. This chapter presents a perspective on governance in which the interplay of multiple actors is key but processes, rather than specific sets or groupings of actors, form the primary units of analysis. This framework has been developed to capture the organizational and institutional dynamics of transnational governance (see Djelic and Sahlin-Andersson 2006). The chapter is structured as follows. After a brief presentation of the broad background to this developed framework, the next section presents the notion of a transnational world. Then come two sections presenting the principal characteristics of transnational governance: distributed yet organized governance and the multiinstitutional embeddedness of governance processes. The following section describes how these features tend to result in self-reinforcing and ambiguous processes. In a final section three important topics for a future research agenda on transnational governance are presented. This framework on transnational governance took shape primarily as a result of empirical studies of "regulatory activism" (Djelic and Sahlin-Andersson 2006, chap.

show abstract

Hard Choices, Soft Law

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Best practices in global governance

Best practices in global governance

Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach

International Relations Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About