Due to the emergence of an ever increasing number of transnational rules – an idea captured in the notion of a ‘legalization of world politics’ – and their increasingly important role in shaping the expectations and behaviour of various actors, the democratic legitimacy of the processes by which these rules come into being has become an additional pressing issue.
The question how the perceived ‘legitimacy gap’ of global governance can be closed has given rise to a variety of answers. However, while the public debate is lively and controversial, as a research area both the functioning of various forms of decision-making and their democratic legitimacy are still underdeveloped.
By developing a coherent theoretical framework to address the democratic legitimacy of different types of transnational rule-making and by subsequently comparing intergovernmental negotiation processes with the more flexible and recent forms of public-private and private rule-making, this research aimed to bridge this gap. Its ultimate objective was to find an answer to the question how various types of transnational environmental rule making differ in terms of their democratic legitimacy.
Empirical observation was derived from case studies on the World Commission on Dams’ (WCD), the ISO 14000 process, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), and a number of intergovernmental negotiation processes.
Results are published in:
Dingwerth, Klaus (2007): The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy. By Klaus Dingwerth. Read more >>