States as Intermediaries
Since nonstate actors in current international law are understood to fall under the jurisdiction
of states, it is states that have the authority to spell out rules and to bind both themselves and
these subordinate actors. If states want international law to apply directly to nonstate actors
such as citizens or businesses, they may commit to creating common obligations within their
respective jurisdictions; they may also establish international rules and designate bodies to
deal directly with nonstate actors.
For the most part
3 states have not created obligations that bind nonstate actors at the international level. Instead, states have been intermediaries between citizens and the international
system.
Trend toward Disintermediation
A certain disintermediation may be taking place as international bodies are increasingly dealing directly with citizens. As discussed in some depth here, the primary international treaty
addressing civil and political rights carries with it an optional instrument that states may sign
onto if they wish to allow private parties to bring complaints to an international body. In addition to that avenue, the Internet may be ushering in a new trend whereby individuals enjoy recognition at the international level. Just as the Internet has reduced the role of middlemen in
many areas of e-commerce, so it may be allowing citizens of the world’s diverse jurisdictions
to interact directly with international institutions. For example, the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) has established an Arbitration and Mediation Center
4 to resolve Internet
domain name disputes. Here, individuals are recognized as having standing, or the right to
bring a case to the tribunal, and so do not have to rely on national governments to do so.
5
By providing a similar type of process that an agency at the national level would, mechanisms
for Internet governance are spurring international integration.
Reflecting changing attitudes toward the role of nonstate actors in the global Information
Society, forums have been established under the United Nations to foster dialogue among a
full range of ‘‘stakeholders’’ on issues relating to the Information Society. The World Summit
on the Information Society represented an extensive effort along this line, bringing together
thousands of stakeholders for meetings in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005).
6 As a result of
the Geneva meeting, the U.N.’s Secretary-General convened a Working Group on Internet
Governance to feed analysis into the Tunis meeting.
7 While the Working Group was composed of a limited number of individuals from government, the private sector, and civil society,
it held open consultations to hear views from a full range of stakeholders. Among issues
studied by this group were the roles of all actors in the Information Society.
Continuing in this vein, the U.N.’s Internet Governance Forum, a product of the Tunis meeting, now takes submissions from any contributor and offers an open forum for multistakeholder discussion on matters relating to Internet governance. While this body has not been
endowed with decision-making power, it nonetheless can be seen as representing new attempts to factor views of nonstate actors directly into international policy–making.
74
Mary Rundle and Malcolm Birdling
Since nonstate actors in current international law are understood to fall under the jurisdiction
of states, it is states that have the authority to spell out rules and to bind both themselves and
these subordinate actors. If states want international law to apply directly to nonstate actors
such as citizens or businesses, they may commit to creating common obligations within their
respective jurisdictions; they may also establish international rules and designate bodies to
deal directly with nonstate actors.
For the most part
3 states have not created obligations that bind nonstate actors at the international level. Instead, states have been intermediaries between citizens and the international
system.
Trend toward Disintermediation
A certain disintermediation may be taking place as international bodies are increasingly dealing directly with citizens. As discussed in some depth here, the primary international treaty
addressing civil and political rights carries with it an optional instrument that states may sign
onto if they wish to allow private parties to bring complaints to an international body. In addition to that avenue, the Internet may be ushering in a new trend whereby individuals enjoy recognition at the international level. Just as the Internet has reduced the role of middlemen in
many areas of e-commerce, so it may be allowing citizens of the world’s diverse jurisdictions
to interact directly with international institutions. For example, the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) has established an Arbitration and Mediation Center
4 to resolve Internet
domain name disputes. Here, individuals are recognized as having standing, or the right to
bring a case to the tribunal, and so do not have to rely on national governments to do so.
5
By providing a similar type of process that an agency at the national level would, mechanisms
for Internet governance are spurring international integration.
Reflecting changing attitudes toward the role of nonstate actors in the global Information
Society, forums have been established under the United Nations to foster dialogue among a
full range of ‘‘stakeholders’’ on issues relating to the Information Society. The World Summit
on the Information Society represented an extensive effort along this line, bringing together
thousands of stakeholders for meetings in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005).
6 As a result of
the Geneva meeting, the U.N.’s Secretary-General convened a Working Group on Internet
Governance to feed analysis into the Tunis meeting.
7 While the Working Group was composed of a limited number of individuals from government, the private sector, and civil society,
it held open consultations to hear views from a full range of stakeholders. Among issues
studied by this group were the roles of all actors in the Information Society.
Continuing in this vein, the U.N.’s Internet Governance Forum, a product of the Tunis meeting, now takes submissions from any contributor and offers an open forum for multistakeholder discussion on matters relating to Internet governance. While this body has not been
endowed with decision-making power, it nonetheless can be seen as representing new attempts to factor views of nonstate actors directly into international policy–making.
74
Mary Rundle and Malcolm Birdling