Abstract
The need to hold International Institutions (IIs) accountable is well documented. In response to such clamours, there has been effort to implement some level of scrutiny of institutional actions either through an internal process or through some form of external review. It is contended that efforts so far made are inadequate as; first, the present level of scrutiny is often focused on institutional forms and procedures with scant or no visible scrutiny of the substantive actions of IIs. Secondly, even if substantive actions were to be scrutinised, many IIs (particularly international economic institutions) would escape scrutiny because of the somewhat blanket assumption that their acts are not authoritative. This paper seeks to establish the need to hold international institutions accountable for their substantive actions and in particular to broaden the scope of scrutiny to include seemingly innocuous “soft” measures through the adoption of “effect-perspective” in characterising an institution’s modus operandi.
Highlights
The unique nature of governance at the international stage springs up numerous debates
Whilst there are often divergent opinions on many of the issues raised, one of the few issues for which there appears to be some form of consensus is regarding the dire need to subject public authority to scrutiny even at the international level
Scholars have been complacent in their treatment of International Economic Institutions (IEIs) especially those ones that appear not to engage in obvious governance activities. When they provide some level of evaluation, they tend to focus on institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), EU and so on because of their more visible exercise of authority
Summary
The unique nature of governance at the international stage springs up numerous debates. In the GAR 2008, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was recognised as the highest scoring intergovernmental organisation after assessing its public information policy, external stakeholder engagement, membership control amongst others Though these indicators provide quality information on the value of EBRD’s governance, they do not give full indication of the true value and impact of their policies and operations. Scholars have been complacent in their treatment of IEIs especially those ones that appear not to engage in obvious governance activities When they provide some level of evaluation, they tend to focus on institutions such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), EU and so on because of their more visible exercise of authority.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
