Looking at the World Bank’s safeguard reform through the lens of deliberative democracy

Abstract

The sheer amount of non-state participation in the creation of the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) is surely noteworthy. The aim of the Bank’s consultation was to get ‘global’ input and feedback, and with over 8,000 stakeholders from over 63 countries taking part, it is laudable. The extent of the participation challenges the positivist approach to international law-making, which views only states as having the power to make law and raises questions about how to legitimize such international soft-law making. Legitimacy is entangled with democracy, as scholars debate whether democracy is the required benchmark for decision-making processes at international organizations. This article uses deliberative democracy to analyse the ESF consultation process. Whilst, democratic legitimacy has been interpreted to mean inclusivity and participation, deliberative democracy raises a series of hard questions about equality and power that scholarship on global governance needs to grapple with. Although this participatory process at the World Bank challenges traditional narratives in international law, analysing it through a lens of deliberative democracy exposes the work that still needs to be done to discuss democracy in international decision-making.

Environment and Social Framework: Compromise of Interest as Social Conflicts Resolution in Infrastructure Projects

“…As a global concept, the framework proposed by the World Bank should be relevant and supported by the domestic legal conditions of each country that will implement it. Evaluation and feedback on the World Bank framework is needed as a reflection and a parameter of the legitimacy of countries as stakeholders in the context of environmental and social protection [35][36][37]. The World Bank's framework is structured in 10 safeguard clauses which include ( Collaboration is needed to develop and test the effectiveness of the framework based on the domestic legal system in Indonesia.…”

The Routledge Handbook on Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations

“…Generally, IFIs do not consider their activities to be directly bound by international human rights law, as explained above (Killinger 2003). However, pressure from states and NGOs has pushed IFIs to self-regulate their activities regarding human rights and sustainable development obligations (Park 2005;Houghton 2019). This has been done through conditionality, both regarding the selection of the project and then regarding its implementation.…”