New Methods and Shifting Accountability Jurisdictions

  • Anne Marie Goetz
  • Rob Jenkins
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

That actors in accountability relationships are assuming new roles implies the emergence of new methods. For instance, direct citizen involvement in auditing government expenditure, discussed in Chapter 4, catalysed a novel means for detecting and exposing malpractice: the public hearing. This chapter examines new methods that have emerged as a result not merely of there being a greater number of actors in the accountability business, but as a consequence of the changing nature of boundaries in an era of globalization. It thus focusses on the relationship between how accountability is being sought and where it is being sought. The use of new methods for monitoring the actions of power-holders, and the recourse to (or the effort to legitimize) alternative accountability jurisdictions — literally from the local to the global — has generated new expectations about (and therefore new standards of) accountability, the subject of Chapter 6.

Keywords

Carbide Mercury Petroleum Ozone Dementia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Marguerite Feitlowitz, ‘The Pinochet Prosecution: The Genocide Controversy’, Crimes of War Project (May 2001), http://www.crimesofwar.org/archive/archive-format.html.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    The sources for this case study are: Marguerite Feitlowitz, ‘The Pinochet Prosecution …’; R. Lagos and M. Munoz, ‘The Pinochet Dilemma’, Foreign Policy, vol. 114 (1999).Google Scholar
  3. R.J. Wilson, ‘Prosecuting Pinochet: International Crimes in Spanish Domestic Law’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 4 (1999).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Claims from as far afield as Paraguay have been filed in the United States — under America’s eighteenth-century Alien Torts Act — seeking to bring tyrants to justice. This has created tensions within the US government. See Dolly Filartiga ‘American Courts, Global Justice’, New York Times, 30 March 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    D. Woodhouse, ‘The Law and Politics: More Power to the Judges — and to the People?’ Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 54 (2001), pp. 223–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    Daniel Shek, quoted in ‘Belgian Court Rejects Suit against Sharon’, International Herald Tribune, 27 June 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Mary McClymont and Stephen Golub, Many Roads to Justice (New York: The Ford Foundation, 2000), pp. 293–4.Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    K.P. Prakash, ‘International Criminal Court: A Review’, Economic and Political Weekly, 5 October 2002, p. 4115.Google Scholar
  9. 16.
    CEDAW, ‘Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women’ (New York: United Nations, 1999), Article 4.Google Scholar
  10. 19.
    Press release issued by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 22 December 2000, http://www.unhcr.ch, cited in Francine Pickup with Suzanne Williams and Caroline Sweetman, Ending Violence Against Women (Oxford: Oxfam, 2001), p. 195.Google Scholar
  11. 20.
    F. Kathree, ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimmination Against Women’, South African Journal on Human Rights, vol. 11, no. 3 (1995).Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    UNCTAD, ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Challenge of Development’, World Investment Report (Geneva: United Nations, 1999).Google Scholar
  13. 22.
    OECD, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Paris, 1997), http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/bribery/20 novle.htm.Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    Halina Ward, ‘Securing Transnational Corporate Accountability through National Courts: Implications and Policy Options’, Hastings Comparative and International Law Review, vol. 24, no. 2 (2001), pp. 451–74.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    In the Bhopal case, the decision of the lower court in the United States was that the United States was not the appropriate legal forum and the case was sent back to Indian courts. See Upendra Baxi and Amita Dhanda, Valiant Victims and Lethal Litigation: The Bhopal Case (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Pvt Ltd, 1990).Google Scholar
  16. 31.
    Decentralization enthusiasts do worry that local control over resources will translate in practice into local elites cornering an undue share of public funds. Specific pitfalls related to both equity and efficiency are highlighted in World Bank, World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World (Washington, DC, 1997), pp. 124–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. See also Remy Prud’homme, ‘The Dangers of Decentralization’, World Bank Research Observer, vol. 10, no. 2 (1997), pp. 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard Crook and Alan Sverrisson, ‘To What Extent Can Decentralized Forms of Governance Enhance the Development of Pro-Poor Policies and Improve Poverty-Alleviation Outcomes?’ IDS Working Paper 129 (Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 1999).Google Scholar
  19. 32.
    Mauro Cappelletti, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes within the Framework of the World-Wide Access to Justice Movement’, Modem Law Review, vol. 56, no. 3 (1993), pp. 282–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 34.
    International Crisis Group, ‘International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Justice Delayed’, ICG Africa Report no. 30 (7 June 2001), http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=1649&1=1.Google Scholar
  21. 36.
    Mahmood Mamdani, Citizenship and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 110.Google Scholar
  22. 37.
    James Blackburn and Jeremy Holland, Whose Voice?: Participatory Research and Policy Change (London: Intermediate Technology, 1998).Google Scholar
  23. 43.
    See Remy Prud’homme, ‘The Dangers of Decentralization’. For a review of the dangers of localism and the liabilities of small-group deliberation, see John Gastill, Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision-Making, and Communication (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1993).Google Scholar
  24. 44.
    John Harriss, ‘The Dialectics of Decentralization’, Frontline (Chennai, India), vol. 17, no. 13, 24 June-7 July 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 45.
    Archon Fung, ‘Accountable Autonomy: Toward Empowered Deliberation in Chicago Schools and Policing’, Politics and Society, vol. 29, no. 1 (March 2001), pp. 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 47.
    T. Beierle and S. Cahill, ‘Electronic Democracy and Environmental Governance: A Survey of the States’, Discussion Paper 00–42 (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, October 2000), http://www.rff.org/CFDOCS/disc_papers/PDF_files/0042.pdf.Google Scholar
  27. 51.
    Allen Hammond and Jonathan Lash, ‘Cyber-Activism: The Rise of Civil Accountability and Its Consequences for Governance’, Information Impact (May 2000), http://www.cisp.org/imp/may_2000/05_00hammond.htm.Google Scholar
  28. 52.
    David Ignatius, ‘A Global Marketplace Means Global Vulnerability’, Washington Post, 21 June 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 56.
    Colm Allan, ‘Civil Society and Public Accountability: The Need for Active Monitoring’, presentation to the 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference, 10–15 October 1999, Durban.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anne Marie Goetz and Rob Jenkins 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Marie Goetz
  • Rob Jenkins

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations