两个世界最好的还是两个世界最坏的?多边开发银行、豁免和对权利持有人的问责

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Pub Date : 2020-04-06 DOI:10.1007/s40803-020-00143-1
Gamze Erdem Türkelli
{"title":"两个世界最好的还是两个世界最坏的?多边开发银行、豁免和对权利持有人的问责","authors":"Gamze Erdem Türkelli","doi":"10.1007/s40803-020-00143-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are accorded immunities and privileges as agents of their member states as justified by functionalist arguments. They are also operationally hybrid: they are actors in their own right in addition to being functional agents. Navigating the functionalist imagery and relying on the argument that they are delegated purely economic pursuits (i.e. financing economic development), MDBs are able to eschew accountability to rights-holders that are affected by their decisions and operations. Although administrative law approaches have succeeded in increasing transparency, instilling self-regulatory frameworks and providing for independent review, the absence of external oversight of such review mechanisms and the broad immunities to suit enjoyed by MDBs have impeded true accountability to rights-holders. This article argues that, in so far as they engage in private sector financing operations, MDBs and their constituent arms share the form, function and relationships of an economic corporation to a large extent. Consequently, their immunities should be limited to render them bound—like ordinary corporations- by the domestic norms with respect to rule of law and human rights of the home and host countries in which they operate in order to make them accountable to rights-holders and to provide recourse for wrongdoings.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Best of Both Worlds or the Worst of Both Worlds? Multilateral Development Banks, Immunities and Accountability to Rights-Holders\",\"authors\":\"Gamze Erdem Türkelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40803-020-00143-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are accorded immunities and privileges as agents of their member states as justified by functionalist arguments. They are also operationally hybrid: they are actors in their own right in addition to being functional agents. Navigating the functionalist imagery and relying on the argument that they are delegated purely economic pursuits (i.e. financing economic development), MDBs are able to eschew accountability to rights-holders that are affected by their decisions and operations. Although administrative law approaches have succeeded in increasing transparency, instilling self-regulatory frameworks and providing for independent review, the absence of external oversight of such review mechanisms and the broad immunities to suit enjoyed by MDBs have impeded true accountability to rights-holders. This article argues that, in so far as they engage in private sector financing operations, MDBs and their constituent arms share the form, function and relationships of an economic corporation to a large extent. Consequently, their immunities should be limited to render them bound—like ordinary corporations- by the domestic norms with respect to rule of law and human rights of the home and host countries in which they operate in order to make them accountable to rights-holders and to provide recourse for wrongdoings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00143-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-020-00143-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

作为成员国的代理人,多边开发银行(mdb)被赋予豁免权和特权,这是功能主义论点所证明的。它们在操作上也是混合的:除了是功能代理之外,它们本身就是参与者。在功能主义的表象下,多边开发银行依靠纯粹的经济追求(即为经济发展融资)这一论点,能够逃避对受其决策和运营影响的权利人的责任。虽然行政法办法成功地提高了透明度,建立了自我监管框架,并提供了独立审查,但缺乏对这种审查机制的外部监督,多边开发银行享有广泛的诉讼豁免,阻碍了对权利持有人的真正问责。本文认为,就多边开发银行从事私营部门融资业务而言,它们及其组成部门在很大程度上具有经济公司的形式、功能和关系。因此,它们的豁免应受到限制,使它们像普通公司一样受到其业务所在国和东道国有关法治和人权的国内规范的约束,以便使它们对权利持有人负责,并为不法行为提供追索权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Best of Both Worlds or the Worst of Both Worlds? Multilateral Development Banks, Immunities and Accountability to Rights-Holders

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are accorded immunities and privileges as agents of their member states as justified by functionalist arguments. They are also operationally hybrid: they are actors in their own right in addition to being functional agents. Navigating the functionalist imagery and relying on the argument that they are delegated purely economic pursuits (i.e. financing economic development), MDBs are able to eschew accountability to rights-holders that are affected by their decisions and operations. Although administrative law approaches have succeeded in increasing transparency, instilling self-regulatory frameworks and providing for independent review, the absence of external oversight of such review mechanisms and the broad immunities to suit enjoyed by MDBs have impeded true accountability to rights-holders. This article argues that, in so far as they engage in private sector financing operations, MDBs and their constituent arms share the form, function and relationships of an economic corporation to a large extent. Consequently, their immunities should be limited to render them bound—like ordinary corporations- by the domestic norms with respect to rule of law and human rights of the home and host countries in which they operate in order to make them accountable to rights-holders and to provide recourse for wrongdoings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
18.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Rule-of-Law Violations in a State of Emergency? Towards a General Analytical Framework The Shifting Landscape of Judicial Independence Criteria Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure: A Comment on the CJEU’s Recent Case Law and the Trajectory of Article 267 TFEU The Rule of Law and Corporate Actors: Measuring Influence EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’ Confused Constitutionalism in Hungary—New Assessment Criteria for Recognising a Populist Constitutional Court
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1