Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:30:01.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Guarding the guards: Pluralist accountability for human rights violations by international organisations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2018

Gisela Hirschmann
Gisela Hirschmann*
Affiliation:
Institute for Political Science, Leiden University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: g.k.hirschmann@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human rights violations committed by international organisations (IOs) have raised demands that IOs should be held accountable for their decisions, policies, and actions. However, traditional forms of accountability have often failed in the context of global governance. This article introduces pluralist accountability as a form of accountability whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. In pluralist accountability, third parties set the standards for IOs’ actions in relation to human rights, review their behaviour and impose normative or material sanctions in case of misbehaviour. The article further reveals two conditions that foster the development of pluralist accountability, namely the competition among third parties and the degree of vulnerability of the implementing actors or the mandating authority with regard to human rights demands. This argument is illustrated with empirical insights from peace operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, which were accused of human trafficking and the violation of the rights of detainees.

Keywords

International OrganisationsHuman RightsAccountabilityCompetitionVulnerabilityPeace Operations
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 20 - 38
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2018 

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.)

References

1 Heupel, Monika and Zürn, Michael (eds), Protecting the Individual from International Authority: Human Rights in International Organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Verdirame, Guglielmo, The UN and Human Rights: Who Guards the Guardians? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Aoi, Chiyuki, De Coning, Cedric, and Thakur, Ramesh Chandra (eds), Unintended Consequences of Peacekeeping Operations (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Hirschmann, Gisela, ‘When protectors become perpetrators: United Nations Peacekeeping and the protection of physical integrity’, in Heupel and Zürn (eds), Protecting the Individual from International Authority, pp. 157–185 Google Scholar; Mégret, Frédéric and Hoffmann, Florian, ‘The UN as a human rights violator? Some reflections on the United Nations changing human rights responsibilities’, Human Rights Quarterly, 25:2 (2003), pp. 314–342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sarah E. Mendelson, ‘Barracks and brothels: Peacekeepers and human trafficking in the Balkans’, Center for Strategic and International Studies Report (Washington 2005).

3 Human Rights Watch, At Your Own Risk: Reprisals against Critics of World Bank Group Projects, report no. 978-1-6231-32491 (2015); Salomon, Margot E., ‘Of austerity, human rights and international institutions’, European Law Journal, 21:4 (2015), pp. 521–545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Farrall, Jeremy M., ‘Rule of accountability or rule of law? Regulating the UN Security Council’s accountability deficits’, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 19:3 (2014), pp. 289–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias, ‘Accountability’, in Jacob K. Cogan, Ian Hurd, and Ian Johnstone (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Organizations (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

5 Chesterman, Simon, ‘UNaccountable? The United Nations, emergency powers, and the rule of law’, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42:5 (2009), pp. 1509–41 Google Scholar; Nye, Joseph S., ‘Globalization’s democratic deficit: How to make international institutions more accountable’, Foreign Affairs, 80:4 (2001), pp. 2–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Woods, Ngiare and Narlikar, Amrita, ‘Governance and the limits of accountability: the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank’, International Social Science Journal, 53:170 (2001), pp. 569–583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Brosig, Malte, ‘The interplay of international institutions in Kosovo between convergence, confusion and niche capabilities’, European Security, 20:2 (2011), pp. 185–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooley, Alexander and Ron, James, ‘The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action’, International Security, 27:1 (2002), pp. 5–39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gehring, Thomas and Faude, Benjamin, ‘A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and a division of labor’, Review of International Organizations, 9:4 (2014), pp. 471–498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘Competition and community: Constitutional courts, rhetorical action, and the institutionalization of human rights in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:8 (2006), pp. 1247–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Risse, Thomas and Ropp, Stephen C., ‘Introduction and overview’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 3–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Case C-402/05 P and C-415/05, P. Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, 2008, ECR I–6351. This judgement has been identified as an instance of ‘global constitutionalism’, and its implications have been widely discussed in the literature, for example Wiener, Antje et al., ‘Editorial. Global constitutionalism: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law’, Global Constitutionalism, 1:1 (2012), pp. 1–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wessels, Ramses A., ‘The Kadi Case: Towards a more substantive hierarchy in international law?’, International Organizations Law Review, 5 (2008), pp. 323–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See Georges v. United Nations, New York District Court, available at: {http://www.ijdh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Georges-v.-United-Nations-Complaint.pdf} accessed 31 January 2016.

11 Woods and Narlikar, ‘Governance and the limits of accountability’; Kickbusch, Ilona, ‘The development of international health policies – accountability intact?’, Social Science & Medicine, 51(2000), pp. 979–989 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 Bovens, Mark, ‘Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework’, European Law Journal, 13:4 (2007), pp. 447–468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buchanan, Allen and Keohane, Robert O., ‘The legitimacy of global governance institutions’, Ethics and International Affairs, 20:4 (2006), pp. 405–437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Wet, Erika, ‘Holding international institutions accountable: the complementary role of non-judicial oversight mechanisms and judicial review’, German Law Journal, 9 (2010), pp. 1987–2010 Google Scholar; Grant, Ruth W. and Keohane, Robert O., ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, American Political Science Review, 99:1 (2005), pp. 29–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grigorescu, Alexandru, ‘Horizontal accountability in intergovernmental organizations’, Ethics & International Affairs, 22:3 (2008), pp. 285–308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other conceptualisations have defined accountability on the basis of components; see Koppell, Jonathan G., World Role: Accountability, Legitimacy, and the Design of Global Governance (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scholte, Jan Aart, ‘Global governance, accountability and civil society’, in Jan Aart Scholte (ed.), Building Global Democracy? Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 8–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Goodhart, Michael, ‘Democratic accountability in global politics: Norms, not agents’, Journal of Politics, 73:1 (2011), pp. 45–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Hawkins, Darren G. et al., ‘Delegation under anarchy: States, international organizations, and principal-agent theory’, in Darren G. Hawkins et al. (eds), Delegation and Agency in International Organizations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 3–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCubbins, Matthew D. and Schwartz, Thomas, ‘Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms’, American Journal of Political Science, 28:1 (1984), pp. 165–179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Bovens, ‘Analysing and assessing accountability’; Grant and Keohane, ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, p. 41.

16 De Wet, ‘Holding international institutions accountable’, p. 856; Pollack, Mark A., ‘Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community’, International Organization, 51:1 (1997), pp. 99–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Grigorescu, ‘Horizontal accountability’; Keohane, Robert O., ‘Global governance and democratic accountability’, in David Held and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi (eds), Taming Globalization: Frontiers of Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 130–159 Google Scholar; Krisch, Nico, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, Thomas, ‘Transnational governance and legitimacy’, in Arthur Benz and Yannis Papadopoulos (eds), Governance and Democracy: Comparing National, European, and International Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 179–199 Google Scholar.

18 Bovens, ‘Analysing and assessing accountability’; Deshman, Abigail C., ‘Horizontal review between international organizations: Why, how, and who cares about corporate regulatory capture’, European Journal of International Law, 22:4 (2011), pp. 1089–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krisch, Beyond Constitutionalism; Woods and Narlikar, ‘Governance and the limits of accountability’.

19 Rubenstein, Jennifer, ‘Accountability in an unequal world’, Journal of Politics, 69:3 (2007), pp. 616–632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Pluralism has also been used by political theorists to describe the fragmentation of government in the struggle for power in democracies; see Dahl, Robert A., ‘Pluralism revisited’, Comparative Politics, 10:2 (1978), pp. 191–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Taking this further, pluralist accountability focuses on the different actors involved in the struggle for control over power. In a very different way, theorists of the English School have referred to pluralism in the debate about the relationship between states in international society; see Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The notion of pluralism here rejects an overarching normative framework such as human rights, in opposition to the concept of solidarism. The English School concept of pluralism thus assumes a plurality of normative standards that guide the society of states. The concept of pluralist accountability as it is used in this article differs from this because it implies a normative framework that is shared by the actors that are part of the accountability relationship.

21 Krisch, Beyond Constitutionalism; Burke-White, William, ‘International legal pluralism’, Michigan Journal of International Law, 25:4 (2004), pp. 963–979 Google Scholar; Berman, Paul Schiff, ‘A pluralist approach to international law’, Yale Journal of International Law, 32 (2007), pp. 301–329 Google Scholar; Stone Sweet, Alec, ‘Constitutionalism, legal pluralism, and international regimes’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16:2 (2009), pp. 621–645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Teubner, Gunther, ‘Global Bukinowa: Legal pluralism in the world society’, in Gunther Teubner (ed.), Global Law Without a State (Brookfield: Dartmouth, 1996), pp. 3–28 Google Scholar.

22 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Alter, Karen J., The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; Krisch, Beyond Constitutionalism.

24 Note, however, that the evaluation of the strength or the quality of pluralist accountability is not the main object of this article. Conceptualisations of accountability that are based on components such as Scholte’s will thus provide better frameworks to capture the variation in the degree of accountability (Scholte, ‘Global governance, accountability and civil society’, p. 17).

25 Tallberg, Jonas et al., The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zangl, Bernhard et al., ‘Between law and politics: Explaining international dispute settlement behavior’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:2 (2011), pp. 369–401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Steffek, Jens, ‘Explaining cooperation between IGOs and NGOs – push factors, pull factors, and the policy cycle’, Review of International Studies, 39:4 (2013), pp. 993–1013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Brosig, ‘The interplay of international institutions’; Cooley and Ron, ‘The NGO scramble’; Gehring and Faude, ‘A theory of emerging order’.

28 Kelley, Judith, ‘The more the merrier? The effects of having multiple international election monitoring organizations’, Perspectives on Politics, 7:1 (2009), pp. 59–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schimmelfennig, ‘Competition and community’.

29 Hafner-Burton, Emily M. and Tsutsui, Kiyoteru, ‘Human rights in a globalizing world: the paradox of empty promises’, American Journal of Sociology, 110:5 (2005), pp. 1373–1411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Grant and Keohane, ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’. This mutual recognition is crucial to distinguish accountability from protest or contestation and it is on that basis that the accountee subjects itself to review.

31 Risse and Ropp, ‘Introduction and overview’, p. 20.

32 Ibid., p. 21.

33 Hurd, Ian, ‘Torture and the politics of legitimation in international law’, in Andreas Follesdal, Johan K. Schaffer, and Geir Ulfstein (eds), The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 165–189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘The United States and torture: Does the spiral model work?’, in Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink (eds), The Persistent Power of Human Rights, pp. 145–163 Google Scholar.

34 Hurd, ‘Torture and the politics of legitimation’, p. 180; Sikkink, ‘The United States and torture’, p. 146.

35 Kelly, Michael, ‘The UN, security and human rights: Achieving a winning balance’, in Nigel D. White and Dirk Klaasen (eds), The UN, Human Rights and Post-Conflict Situations (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005), pp. 118–148 Google Scholar; Wouters, Jan and Schmitt, Pierre, ‘Challenging acts of other United Nations’ organs, subsidiary organs and officials’, in August Reinisch (ed.), Challenging Acts of International Organizations Before National Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 77–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Pierson, Paul, ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’, American Political Science Review, 94:2 (2000), pp. 251–267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Steffek, Jens and Nanz, Patricia, ‘Emergent patterns of civil society participation in global and European governance’, in Jens Steffek, Claudia Kissling, and Patricia Nanz (eds), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Deficit? (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 1–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tallberg, Jonas and Uhlin, Anders, ‘Civil society and global democracy: an assessment’, in Mathias Koenig-Archibugi and Raffaele Marchetti (eds), Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 210–232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Sperling, Valerie, Altered States: The Globalization of Accountability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; United Nations Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK/REG/1999/1, ‘UNMIK Regulation on the Authority of the Interim Administration’ (1999).

39 Chesterman, Simon, ‘Globalization rules: Accountability, power, and the prospects for global administrative law’, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 14:1 (2008), pp. 39–52 Google Scholar; Heupel and Zürn (eds), Protecting the Individual from International Authority; Kingsbury, Benedict, Krisch, Nico, and Stewart, Richard B., ‘The emergence of global administrative law’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 68:3/4 (2005), pp. 15–61 Google Scholar.

40 Nimkar, Ruta, ‘From Bosnia to Baghdad: the case for regulating private military and security companies’, Journal of Public and International Affairs, 20:1 (2009), pp. 1–24 Google Scholar; Pingeot, Louise, Dangerous Partnership: Private Military & Security Companies and the UN (New York: Global Policy Forum, 2012)Google Scholar.

41 For internal accountability, see Grigorescu, ‘Horizontal accountability’ or the Global Accountability Reports by One World Trust, available at: {http://gaportal.org/global-indicators/global-accountability-report} accessed 4 April 2017.

42 Amnesty International, AI Index: EUR 05/002/2004, ‘The Apparent Lack of Accountability of International Peace-Keeping Forces in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina’ (2004).

43 George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew, ‘Process-tracing and historical explanations’, in Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett (eds), Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 205–232 Google Scholar; Hedström, Peter and Ylikoski, Petri, ‘Causal mechanisms in the social sciences’, Annual Review of Sociology, 36:1 (2010), pp. 49–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1088(1996) (12 December 1996).

45 Buchan, Russell, Jones, Henry, and White, Nigel D., ‘The externalization of peacekeeping: Policy, responsibility, and accountability’, Journal of International Peacekeeping, 15:3–4 (2011), pp. 281–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Østensen, Åse G., ‘In the business of peace: the political influence of private military and security companies on UN peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping, 20:1 (2013), pp. 33–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In total, there were around 1,600–1,800 IPTF officers from over thirty countries deployed in Bosnia in 2002, one third of them were US police officers subcontracted by Dyncorp. See Colum Lynch, ‘Misconduct, corruption by U.S. police mar Bosnia mission’, UNClips (2001), available at: {http://unclips.blogspot.de/2009/05/us-police-misconduct-mars-bosnia.html} accessed 31 January 2015.

46 Human Rights Watch, Hopes Betrayed: Trafficking of Women and Girls to Post-Conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina for Forced Prostitution (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2002), p. 4 Google Scholar.

47 Human Rights Watch, Hopes Betrayed, pp. 49, 52, 62; Mendelson, ‘Barracks and brothels’.

48 Amnesty International, ‘The Apparent lack of Accountability’, p. 23.

49 Chappell, Duncan and Evans, John, ‘The role, preparation and performance of civilian police in United Nations peacekeeping operations’, Criminal Law Forum, 10:2 (1999), pp. 171–271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Framework Agreement Annex 11, Article 2, available at: {http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=380} accessed 31 January 2015.

51 See Annex 1A, Appendix B, Article 7 of the Framework Agreement, available at: {http://www.ohr.int/dpa/default.asp?content_id=380} accessed 31 January 2015.

52 Bolkovac, Kathryn and Lynn, Cari, The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman’s Fight for Justice (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)Google Scholar.

53 United Nations Secretary-General, UN doc. S/2000/1196, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (15 December 2000), para. 26.

54 Bolkovac and Lynn, The Whistleblower, p. 211.

55 The court stated that the failure of the UN administration and the IPTF to ‘take an adequate grip on the situation and do something about it’ was of an ‘exceptionally serious nature’ (UK Employment Tribunal, Bolkovac v. Dyncorp, case no. 3102729/01, Reserved Decision (1 July 2002), para. 38).

56 Hearing before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 24 April 2002, serial no. 107 85, available at: {http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa78948.000/hfa78948_0f.htm} accessed 31 January 2015; United States Department of Defense, ‘Assessment of DoD Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons. Phase II – Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo’, Office of the Inspector General, case no. H03L88433128 (8 December 2003).

57 Mary Robinson, ‘Realizing Human Rights’, Romanes Lecture, Oxford University (11 November 1997), available at: {http://www.un.org/rights/50/dpi1938.htm} accessed 31 January 2015.

58 Andrew Clapham, ‘The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Achievements and Frustrations’, paper presented at the ‘Symposium on the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: The First Ten Years of the Office, and the Next’, Columbia University Law School, New York (17–18 February 2003), available at: {http://www2.law.columbia.edu/hri/symposium/ClaphamPaper.htm#_ftnref1} accessed 31 January 2015.

59 Carolina Wennerholm and Eva Zillén, ‘IOM Regional Counter-trafficking Programme in the Western Balkans’, SIDA Evaluation 03/37, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (2003), p. 66.

60 Author’s telephone interview with Madeleine Rees, 14 September 2012.

61 Madeleine Rees, ‘The Gendered Dimensions of Sex Trafficking: Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies’, CDDRL Working Papers no. 7 (2012), available at: {http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23758/Rees_06_19_12.pdf} accessed 31 January 2015.

62 Human Rights Watch, Hopes Betrayed, pp. 2, 9.

63 United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Best Practices Unit, Human Trafficking Resource Package (United Nations: New York, 2004), p. 23 Google Scholar.

64 Amnesty International, ‘The Apparent lack of Accountability’.

65 Sabahudin Fijuljanin v. the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. CH/02/12499 (11 January 2003); Bogdan Subodic vs. BiH (23 September 2005); and Dusko Tesic and others vs. BiH (16 January 2005).

66 Majbritt Lyck, Peace Operations and International Criminal Justice: Building Peace after Mass Atrocities (New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 116.

67 Colum Lynch, ‘U.N. prosecutors giving terrorism evidence to U.S.’, The Washington Post (29 May 2002).

68 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘10 Years OSCE in Bosnia’, available at: {http://www.oscebih.org/documents/osce_bih_doc_2011030815040118eng.pdf} accessed 31 January 2015.

69 Valerija Galić, ‘Separation of Powers and Independence of Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies. Report: Bosnia and Herzegovina’, available at: {http://www.venice.coe.int/wccj/Rio/Papers/BiH_Galic_e.pdf} accessed 30 November 2014; Constitutional Court of BiH, Decision No. AP 953/05 (8 July 2006), available at: {http://www.ccbh.ba/eng/odluke/povuci_html.php?pid=59843} accessed 30 November 2014.

70 Figà-Talamanca, Niccolò, ‘The role of NATO in the Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina’, European Journal of International Law, 7:1 (1996), pp. 164–175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 See the summary of the meeting of NATO defence ministers at North Atlantic Council (8 June 2000), available at: {http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_18203.htm?selectedLocale=en} accessed 30 November 2014.

72 Jones, John R. W. D., ‘The implications of the Peace Agreement for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’, European Journal of International Law, 7:1 (1996), pp. 226–244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ryngaert, Cedric, ‘Arrest and detention’, in Luc Reydams, Jan Wouters, and Cedric Ryngaert (eds), International Prosecutors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 647–699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 ‘The General Framework Agreement for Peace gives us the authority to detain him as long as we deem necessary to continue our investigations, and his detention will continue for as long as we deem it appropriate.’ (SFOR Commander Vanier in reaction to complaints against the prolonged detention of Fijuljanin, as quoted by Amnesty International, ‘The Apparent lack of Accountability’, p. 16).

74 Lyck, Peace Operations and International Criminal Justice, p. 115.

75 United Nations Mission in Kosovo, UN doc. UNMIK/REG/2000/38, ‘UNMIK Regulation on the Establishment of the Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo’ (30 June 2000); United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 1244(1999)’ (10 June 1999).

76 Abraham, Elizabeth, ‘The sins of the savior: Holding the United Nations accountable to international human rights standards for executive order detentions in its Mission in Kosovo’, American University Law Review, 52 (2003), pp. 1291–1337 Google Scholar.

77 Council of Europe, ‘Kosovo: The Human Rights Situation and the Fate of Persons Displaced from their Homes’, Report by Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights for the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, CommDH(2002)11, Strasbourg (16 October 2002); Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System (March 2002–April 2003), Protection of Witnesses in the Criminal Justice System’ (Mission in Kosovo Department of Human Rights and Rule of Law, 2003). After 2005, officially no detainees were held at Camp Bondsteel any longer (Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo, ‘Quarterly Information Sheet’ (Pristina 2005), p. 18).

78 Amnesty International, ‘Document – Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Kosovo): Amnesty International Calls for an End to Executive Orders of Detention’, AI Index EUR 70/017/2001 (3 August 2001); Amnesty International, ‘The Apparent lack of Accountability’; Council of Europe, ‘Kosovo’; David Marshall and Shelley Inglis, ‘The disempowerment of human rights-based justice in the United Nations Mission in Kosovo’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16 (2003), pp. 95–146.

79 United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolution 1244’, para. 9, 11j.

80 United Nations Secretary-General, UN doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, ‘Secretary-General’s Bulletin on the Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law’ (6 August 1999).

81 United Nations Secretary-General, UN doc. S/1999/779, ‘Report on UNMIK’ (12 July 1999), para. 46; United Nations Mission in Kosovo, UN doc. UNMIK/REG/2000/47, ‘UNMIK Regulation on the Status, Privileges and Immunities of KFOR and UNMIK and their Personnel in Kosovo’ (18 August 2000).

82 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, PC.DEC/305, ‘Decision No. 305, PC Journal No. 237, Agenda item 2’, Permanent Council (1 July 1999); United Nations Secretary-General, ‘Report on UNMIK’, para. 87.

83 United Nations Mission in Kosovo, ‘UNMIK Regulation 47’.

84 Hoffmann, Florian and Mégret, Frédéric, ‘Fostering human rights accountability: an ombudsperson for the United Nations?’, Global Governance, 11:1 (2005), pp. 43–63 Google Scholar.

85 Marshall and Inglis, ‘The disempowerment’, p. 138.

86 Council of Europe, CM/Inf(99)48, ‘Council of Europe’s Contribution to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo’, Committee of Ministers (23 July 1999); United Nations Mission in Kosovo, ‘UNMIK Regulation 38’; United Nations Secretary-General, ‘Report on UNMIK’, para. 90.

87 Momirov, Aleksander, ‘Local impact of “UN accountability” under international law: the rise and fall of UNMIK’s Human Rights Advisory Panel’, International Peacekeeping, 19:1 (2012), pp. 3–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Visoka, Gezim, ‘The “Kafkaesque accountability” of international governance in Kosovo’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 6:2 (2012), pp. 189–212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘First Review of the Criminal Justice System February 2000–July 2000’ (Legal System Monitoring Section: Pristina, 2000), p. 5.

90 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘Extension of Custody Time Limits and the Rights of Detainees: the Unlawfulness of Regulation 1999/26’, Report No. 6 (29 April 2000) (Legal System Monitoring Section: Pristina, 2000); Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘First Review’.

91 Baldwin, Clive, ‘Implementation through cooperation? Human rights officers and the military in Kosovo, 1999–2002’, International Peacekeeping, 13:4 (2006), pp. 489–501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marshall and Inglis, ‘The disempowerment’, p. 141.

92 Author’s telephone interview with the former Ombudsperson Marek Nowicki, 28 November 2012.

93 Chesterman, Simon, Justice Under International Administration: Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan (New York: International Peace Academy, 2002), p. 5 Google Scholar.

94 Author’s telephone interview with the former Ombudsperson Marek Nowicki, 28 November 2012.

95 United Nations Secretary-General, UN doc. S/2004/348, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (30 April 2004).

96 Council of Europe, ‘Kosovo’, paras 97–101; Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System’ (Mission in Kosovo Department of Human Rights and Rule of Law, October 2001); OSCE, ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System’.

97 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System’, p. 39.

98 OSCE, ‘Review of the Criminal Justice System’, p. 34.

99 COMKFOR directive, Section 2e, as quoted by Amnesty International, ‘The Apparent lack of Accountability’, p. 21.

100 See the press releases by KFOR in 2002, available at: {http://www.nato.int/kfor/docu/pr/2002/08/34-08.htm} accessed 31 January 2015, and 2004, available at: {http://www.nato.int/kfor/docu/pr/2004/05/28.htm} accessed 31 January 2015.

101 Brand, Marcus G., ‘Institution-building and human rights protection in Kosovo in the light of UNMIK legislation’, Nordic Journal of International Law, 70:4 (2001), pp. 461–488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Council of Europe, ‘17th General Report on the CPT’s Activities Covering the Period 1 August 2006 to 31 July 2007’, Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) (Strasbourg, 14 September 2007).

102 Heupel and Michael Zürn (eds), Protecting the Individual from International Authority.

103 Hawkins et al. (eds), Delegation and Agency; Martin, Lisa L. and Simmons, Beth A., ‘Theories and empirical studies of international institutions’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 729–757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 Patricia Nanz and Klaus Dingwerth, ‘Participation’, in Cogan, Hurd, and Johnstone (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Organizations, ch. 53; Jetschke, Anja and Lenz, Tobias, ‘Does regionalism diffuse? A new research agenda for the study of regional organizations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10:20 (2013), pp. 626–637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Tallberg et al., The Opening Up.

106 Scholte, Jan Aart, ‘Towards greater legitimacy in global governance’, Review of International Political Economy, 18:1 (2011), pp. 110–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zaum, Dominik (ed.), Legitimating International Organisations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael Zürn, ‘Autorität und Legitimität in der postnationalen Konstellation’, Leviathan, 40:Sonderband 27 (2012), pp. 41–62.