The contestation and construction of global governance authorities: A study from the global business and human rights regime

Abstract

The contestation of global governance institutions can strengthen or weaken, as well as transform, them. This article analyses the productive potential of contestation and justification of global governance institutions by examining the multiple authorities that are invoked as auxiliaries in the process. It studies the (re-)construction of these authorities by dissecting authority into three components: power, legitimacy and connection to public interests. Empirically, the article focuses on the issue area of business and human rights, examining the highly contested process of drafting a binding instrument in the United Nations Treaty Process. The analysis shows that the success of the Treaty Process not only hinges on its direct reaction to contestation, but also on its ability to (re-)construct the multiple related authorities. Ultimately, the article argues that the contestation of global governance institutions involves (re-)constructing multiple authorities. This demonstrates how contestation can also affect global governance institutions, actors and norms beyond the specific field of deliberation.

Norm contestation and the weakening of migrant fisher protection in Thailand

“…1 As opposed to broad prescriptive or fundamental norms such as human rights, rules and procedures reconstituted to implement global standards are narrower and specific to the context of re-enactment 2 . Hence, contestation can be expected from relevant stakeholders who have to implement these rules and procedures (Mende 2021).…”

Private actors, NGOs and civil society in multilevel governance

“…Hence, governance authority comprises three components: power, legitimacy and the connection to public interests. Each component shapes and mutually influences the others, which allows us to explain their extent and their effects on an actor's authority (Mende 2021a). Each component is briefly discussed to demonstrate its resonance with MLG studies.…”

“…Issue-specific interest groups that engage in functional coordination tend to be better equipped to operate on (and switch between) multiple governance levels than territorially bound actors (see Hooghe and Marks, Chapter 1, this volume). Civil society organizations that cooperate on a certain issue area make use of this advantage, such as the Treaty Alliance, a worldwide coalition of civil society actors that contributes decisively to the discussion about a binding UN instrument on business and human rights (Mende 2021a). At the same time, developing the capabilities to adapt and cooperate requires resources.…”

“…A second area is the question of a normative yardstick indicating what counts as public interests and to what extent. While defining public interests is a matter of deliberation and controversy (Scharpf 1998), societal and political developments do provide viable yardsticks, such as human rights (Mende 2021a), each of which allows pluralist readings. Hence, future research can pursue both empirical and normative readings of public interests, as long as the latter remain open to contestation (being incomplete) and openly transparent (being reflexive) (Mende 2021b: 50).…”

Norm convergence and collision in regime overlaps. Business and human rights in the UN and the EU

“…The latest draft reconciles this issue by addressing all companies with a particular focus on transnational activities (cf. in detail Mende, 2021b). 'This is a huge step towards the EU […] and the EU cannot use this as a counter-argument anymore' (INT 7/NHRI/February 2020, § 25).…”