Leaving the Doors Open or Keeping Them Closed? The Impact of Transparency on the Authority of Peer Reviews in International Organizations

Carraro, Valentina; Jongen, Hortense

doi:10.1163/19426720-02404008

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Looking at the literature on the UNCAC and specifically cooperationwe find, "comparative" (Carr, 2007) and "critical" (Babu, 2006;Brunelle-Quraishi, 2011;Rose, 2015) evaluations of its provisions, literature examining the ineffectiveness of its "peer-review process" (Weilert, 2015;Carraro and Jongen, 2018) or "compliance" to its provisions arising from normative underpinnings (Webb, 2005). However, Webb does not go on to analyse whether the UNCAC serves a coordination or cooperation game (Webb, 2005).…”

Section: Corruption Cooperation and The United Nations Convention Against Corruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So withholding of information without an MLAT would not be illegal. Also, as the UNCAC cannot name or shame, its review mechanisms (Pagani, 2002) can only limitedly force States to share information (Carraro and Jongen, 2018). The large number of signatories' to the UNCAC, however, shows that the values inhering in it are supported by them and yet its limited enforceability is a likely pointer to the differing interests (Abbott and Snidal, 2002).…”

Section: Enforcing Information Sharing Via United Nations Convention Against Corruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

UNCAC aided information sharing (cooperation): an Indian experience

Kumar¹

2021

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to investigate the obstacles to the sharing of information, as envisaged in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), and therefore, its accessibility to developing countries. The findings of this paper could help States to limit corruption in interstate interactions and civil society groups calling for measures that can help assess potential corruption. Design/methodology/approach This research is based on qualitative analysis – usual normative analysis was undertaken in law and economics. For this purpose, an analysis of the literature on cooperation generated by the UNCAC and State practice within defence deals was undertaken. Findings It is found that States where defence manufacturers reside can prevent information sharing and thereby hinder investigations against corruption. It is found that defence importing States can overcome the limitations of the UNCAC, to enforce information sharing, by including guarantees into their contracts. Originality/value As research on information sharing practices of States are scarce or non-existent, this paper contributes to the literature on this aspect of cooperation envisaged in the UNCAC. Further, this paper elaborates on what States could do to limit non-cooperation in the sharing of information.

show abstract

Section: Corruption Cooperation and The United Nations Convention Against Corruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Enforcing Information Sharing Via United Nations Convention Against Corruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UNCAC aided information sharing (cooperation): an Indian experience

Kumar¹

2021

JFC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Transparency can also be increased by webcasting review sessions, as in the UPR. We expect that transparent reviews will attract more public attention, and will be more likely to trigger public pressure (see Carraro and Jongen, 2018). Thirdly, is there a possibility during reviews to assess whether states have implemented recommendations from the previous round?…”

Section: Institutional Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Transparency to the outside world. The UPR is definitely the most transparent peer review among our cases (Carraro and Jongen, 2018). All review-related documents are available on the UN website, review sessions are webcast and interested individuals are allowed to attend as members of the public.…”

Section: Specificity Of Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fears of peers? Explaining peer and public shaming in global governance

Carraro¹,

Conzelmann²,

Jongen³

2019

Cooperation and Conflict

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article conducts a comparative analysis of peer and public pressure in peer reviews among states. Arguing that such pressure is one increasingly important form of shaming in global politics, we seek to understand the extent to which five different peer reviews exert peer and public pressure and how possible variation among them can be explained. Our findings are based on responses to an original survey and semi-structured interviews among participants in the reviews. We find that peer and public pressure exist to different degrees in the peer reviews under study. Such differences cannot be explained by the policy area under review or the international organization in which peer reviews are organized. Likewise, the expertise of the actors involved in a peer review or perceptions of the legitimacy of peer review as a monitoring instrument do not explain the variation. Instead, we find that institutional factors and the acceptance of peer and public pressure among the participants in a peer review offer the best explanations.

show abstract

“…applied that is discussed more extensively in the author's previous work (Carraro & Jongen, 2018;Conzelmann & Jongen, 2014), and which is summarized in Table 2. The different dimensions and subdimensions of authority reported in this table are informed by an exploratory study (Conzelmann & Jongen, 2014) an analysis of the mission statements of the three peer reviews, and the existing literature on peer reviews (i.e.…”

Section: Studying the Authority Of Peer Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The authority of peer reviews among states in the global governance of corruption

Jongen

2018

Review of International Political Economy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article researches the instrument of peer review among states, which is widely used by international organizations to monitor state compliance with international anticorruption norms. Despite their widespread use, little is known about the conditions under which peer reviews bear significance in the global fight against corruption. This article seeks to shed light on this by considering the authority that three major, yet hitherto understudied, peer reviews carry: the OECD Working Group on Bribery, the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption, and the Implementation Review Mechanism of the UN Convention against Corruption. Authority is conceptualized as a social relation between the institution carrying authority (the peer review) and the intended audience (mostly states). Drawing upon original survey data and expert interviews, the findings reveal that the three peer reviews have different degrees of authority. The article subsequently explains the observed variation in authority, by looking at the membership sizes and compositions of the peer reviews, their institutional designs, and the types of officials that are involved in the review process.

show abstract

Leaving the Doors Open or Keeping Them Closed? The Impact of Transparency on the Authority of Peer Reviews in International Organizations

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

UNCAC aided information sharing (cooperation): an Indian experience

UNCAC aided information sharing (cooperation): an Indian experience

Fears of peers? Explaining peer and public shaming in global governance

The authority of peer reviews among states in the global governance of corruption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About