Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBenvenisti, Eyalen
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-16T23:30:41Z
dc.date.available2019-04-16T23:30:41Z
dc.date.issued2018-05-01en
dc.identifier.issn0938-5428
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/291722
dc.description.abstractThe law on global governance that emerged after World War II was grounded in irrefutable trust in international organizations and an assumption that their subjection to legal discipline and judicial review would be unnecessary and, in fact, detrimental to their success. The law that evolved systematically insulated international organizations from internal and external scrutiny and absolved them of any inherent legal obligations – and, to a degree, continues to do so. Indeed, it was only well after the end of the Cold War that mistrust in global governance began to trickle through into the legal discourse and the realization gradually took hold that the operation of international organizations needed to be subject to the disciplining power of the law. Since the mid-1990s, scholars have sought to identify the conditions under which trust in global bodies can be regained, mainly by borrowing and adapting domestic public law precepts that emphasize accountability through communications with those affected. Today, although a ‘culture of accountability’ may have taken root, its legal tools are still shaping up and are often contested. More importantly, these communicative tools are ill-equipped to address the new modalities of governance that are based on decision making by machines using raw data (rather than two-way exchange with stakeholders) as their input. The new information and communication technologies challenge the foundational premise of the accountability school – that ‘the more communication, the better’ – as voters turned users obtain their information from increasingly fragmented and privatized marketplaces of ideas that are manipulated for economic and political gain. In this article, I describe and analyse how the law has evolved to acknowledge the need for accountability, how it has designed norms for this purpose and continues in this endeavour, yet also how the challenges it faces today are leaving its most fundamental assumptions open to question. I argue that, given the growing influence of public and private global governance bodies on our daily lives and the shape of our political communities, the task of the law of global governance is no longer limited to ensuring the accountability of global bodies but also serves to protect human dignity and the very viability of the democratic state.
dc.rightsAll rights reserved
dc.rights.uri
dc.titleUpholding democracy amid the challenges of new technology: What role for the law of global governance?en
dc.typeArticle
prism.endingPage671
prism.issueIdentifier2en
prism.publicationDate2018en
prism.publicationNameEuropean Journal of International Lawen
prism.startingPage671
prism.volume29en
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.38882
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-11-26en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1093/ejil/chy031en
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-05-01en
dc.contributor.orcidBenvenisti, Eyal [0000-0003-4568-9991]
dc.identifier.eissn1464-3596
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
rioxxterms.freetoread.startdate2019-05-01


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record