Delegation of Authority to Administrative Agencies Can you explain the role that international civil servants play in the framework of international law? When it comes to the establishment of the legal norms and institutions that govern governments, how much do they contribute? What is the degree to which the law both supports and limits their authority? These significant and challenging concerns are brought up, both directly and indirectly, by a number of recent works that investigate the life and legacy of Dag Hammarskjold, who served as the second Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) and is often considered to have been the most influential among his predecessors. Hammarskjold was intimately involved in the formulation of several legal innovations that have since become staples of United Nations activity, including preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping, while serving in that capacity during the crucial years of 1953– 1961. These years were at the height of the Cold War and decolonization, and they were perhaps the most formative period in the history of the United Nations. On the other hand, he has been accused of strengthening the power of his own position to the cost of democratic governance, both during his lifetime and more lately. This accusation has been made for both of these reasons. When it comes to Hammarskjold's experiences and accomplishments as SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, the books that are being reviewed provide a wide range of insightful perspectives. In his huge new biography, Hammarskjold: A Life (hence referred to simply as A Life), Roger Lipsey focuses mostly on the connection that exists between Hammarskjold's inner spiritual life and the experiences he had while serving as an international diplomat. Peace Diplomacy, Global Justice and International Agency (hereafter referred to as "Peace Diplomacy") promises to "examine Hammarskjold's approach towards international civil service, agency, and value-based leadership" from a variety of disciplinary perspectives.3 In International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect (hereafter referred to as "International Authority"), Anne Orford portrays Hammarskjold as a pivotal figure in the transformation of the office of Secretary-General and the rise of international executive rule in the "decolonized world," with a particular emphasis on the catastrophic peacekeeping mission that the United Nations undertook in the Congo in the early 1960s. Last but not least, the monograph that Lise Namikas created on the Cold War in the Congo, which is titled Battleground Africa: Cold War in the Congo, 1960 1965 (hence referred to as Battleground Africa), assists in situating Hammarskjold's participation in that encounter within a more comprehensive framework of international politics. When taken as a whole, these works ought to urge international lawyers to reevaluate the unclear connection that exists between international civil servants and international law, both in terms of theory and practice. On the other hand, contemporary legal theory has paid relatively little attention to the office holders of international organizations as a distinct class of actors. This is because the theory has primarily focused on the role that non-governmental organizations, networks of government officials, and public and private regulatory bodies play in the formation of law at the global level. The significance of such authorities in the formulation and implementation of international law has been acknowledged by academics for a considerable amount of time. Furthermore, recent theories of international relations have proposed the possibility of concentrating on the work of international civil servants as "global governors." This is because they "create issues, set agendas, establish and implement rules or programs," and in a variety of other ways, they "exercise power across borders for the purposes of affecting policy." A tendency that has been seen often over the last several decades is the judicialization of international law via the establishment of specialized courts. For some, judicialization just heightens concerns about fragmentation, while for others, it gives rise to the optimism that international law, in its own right, may at long last experience the institutional thickness that it has historically lacked when it was tied to diplomatic or political arrangements. One would anticipate that the judicialization of international law would be a reflection of the increased legitimacy and dynamic evolution of substantive norms, as well as the political and diplomatic processes that generate them. This is the story that Ruti Teitel tells in Humanity's Law with regard to human rights and the law of war, and it is a story that is compelling. A counter-narrative that is presented by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is one that is different and, at first look, may seem to be surprising. During the height of neoliberalism or the Washington consensus, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was conceived. Nevertheless, by the time the Uruguay Round was finished and the World Trade Organization was established, the climate had shifted. The validity of the 'deep integration' agreement that was reached during the Uruguay Round of talks and represented in the WTO treaties was called into doubt practically as soon as the ink was dry, so to speak. The World Trade Organization (WTO) got a household brand as a result of the riots that occurred in Seattle. Additionally, the WTO became famous or infamous as a target for the antiglobalization movement. But the violence that took place outside was just a portion of the narrative. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was already experiencing a crisis of legitimacy, as developing countries were experiencing buyer's remorse as a result of the outcome of the Uruguay Round. In areas such as trade in services and intellectual property rights, these countries had made significant concessions, but they received little concrete action in return. This was a feeling that was becoming increasingly prevalent among some developing nations. The discussions were eventually abandoned at the end of the Nairobi WTO Ministerial in late 2015, after multiple efforts had been made to finish a new round of negotiations. These negotiations had entailed the commencement of the Doha Round of development under the shadow of the 9/11 attacks. The official acknowledgment of the breakdown of the Doha Round marked nearly twenty years of political stasis, according to common knowledge. This is despite the fact that agreements were reached on information technology and trade facilitation (customs formalities). On the other hand, if we shift our focus from the political and diplomatic context to the dispute resolution system of the World Trade Organization (WTO), we get a glimpse of a judicial branch that has been in full development during the whole of this time period, hearing hundreds of claims and developing a large body of jurisprudential knowledge. Despite the fact that there is a significant amount of disagreement among members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the future of the multilateral trading system, the persistent presence of criticisms of economic globalization, the numerous other events that could be considered as destabilizing the international economic order (for example, the financial crisis that occurred between 2007 and 2011), the sensitive issues that are frequently involved in WTO legal disputes (environment, animal welfare, preferences for developing countries, subsidies for renewable energy, and the management of scarce natural resources), and the major challenges to binding dispute settlement in other areas of international economic law (investor–state arbitration), the WTO judicial system has been largely spared attacks on its legitimacy. The question of what it is that makes an international judicial system effective, successful, or legitimate is related to the contentious issues that have been discussed regarding the meaning of "compliance" in international law, the relationship between empirical or factual legitimacy and normative legitimacy, and, ultimately, the interaction of politics and law in international relations. The achievement or success of the World Trade Organization (WTO) judicial system over the past two decades has excited admiration and even envy among international legal scholars and practitioners. For the time being, without prejudging what answers are satisfactory or satisfying in these respects at the level of general theory, one can speak in a common sense manner about the accomplishments or successes of the WTO judicial system. To realize that perceived'success' and legitimacy do have some considerable positive link, one does not need to be Donald Trump in order to recognize this. The relative lack of instances in which members have, upon losing a ruling, explicitly chosen not to implement it (ultimately on pain of retaliatory sanctions) is something that can be pointed out. This is in addition to the sheer number of disputes that the states parties (Members) have been prepared to submit to judicialized dispute settlement, which is becoming increasingly a sign at least of empirical legitimacy within the organization. Although defeating parties and sometimes other members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have voiced their disapproval of specific decisions, including those made by the Appellate Body, these criticisms have seldom called into question the general authority or validity of the WTO judicial procedure. In the early years of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) judicial system, there were some critics who came from academic institutions and policy institutions that were similar to think tanks. These critics questioned whether, in light of what appeared to be judicial activism by the Appellate Body, some kind of political or diplomatic control needed to be re-established over judicialized dispute settlement. However, these calls never gained traction among WTO Members that became permanent. Lastly, as was mentioned earlier, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) judicial system has been largely successful in avoiding becoming a target of anti-globalization activists or constituencies more generally concerned with non-trade values that could easily be seen to be in conflict with what insiders would consider to be the central, liberalizing, if not neo-liberal mission of the WTO. This is the case in cases that involve sensitive issues of policy space, such as disputes involving trade and the environment. The United States of America, which is a member of the World Trade Organization, has just lately begun a continuous offensive that threatens the independence of the Appellate Body. It has attempted to politicize the process of appointment and reappointment of Appellate Body Members, as well as having attacked the judgments of the Appellate Body on a matter that appears to be very technical but is actually quite sensitive. This matter is known as "zeroing," and it pertains to the application of WTO legal disciplines on a form of unilateral trade action, antidumping duties. There has been a rise in the number of instances that involve the administration of territory by inter-national actors after the end of the Cold War. These examples have included high-profile United Nations interim administration missions in Kosovo and East Timor. Ad holism is commonly connected with these cases. However, critical analysis of this phenomenon has frequently tended to concentrate on strategic and tactical issues rather than providing a reflective examination of the nature of international administration itself. This is despite the fact that international administrators themselves have been accused of acting in a responsive and piecemeal manner. There is little doubt that a quick look at the expanding body of literature on international administration finds both acclaim and criticism, which speaks to the larger implications of having foreign actors execute responsibilities that would ordinarily come within the jurisdiction of domestic political agencies. For instance, international administration has been portrayed in a variety of different ways, such as a humanitarian answer to the issue of "failed states" and as a colonialism redux carried out by foreign players who are not responsible for their actions. However, what is often lacking is a comprehensive understanding of international administration, including its connections to other types of governance that are carried out by third parties, as well as the legal and normative concerns that are associated with its use. Given the fact that the employment of international actors to manage territory involves concerns that are of immense consequence for international relations and international law, this presents a difficulty. Taking the concept of state sovereignty as an example, what are the consequences of this circumstance? How is it possible to reconcile the concept that there is an expanding right to democratic governance with the fact that international officials who are not elected to their positions are in charge of global governance? In addition, even if one acknowledges that governance of this kind could be acceptable in theory, the question remains: how does one determine when it is appropriate to use it, as well as how it ought to be organized and guided by regulations? Against this backdrop, recent publications by Ralph Wilde, Bernhard Knoll, Carsten Stahn, Hans Fabian Kiderlen, and Gregory Fox are welcome. Each of these authors attempts to struggle with basic, first order concerns of this kind, and their work is welcome because of this. In general, these works are of an exceptionally high quality, and they have a great deal to offer both academics and professionals in the field. A searching analysis of the involvement of international actors in the administration of territory, as well as the purposes of such involvement, is presented in Wilde's International Territorial Administration: How Trusteeship and the Civilizing Mission Never Went Away. This book builds on the author's earlier, ground-breaking work by providing a comprehensive examination of the subject matter. In addition, Wilde investigates the connection between contemporary instances of foreign engagement in territory administration and actions such as colonialism, mandate and trust relationships, and occupation. As a result, he raises doubts about the validity of such instances. In a similar manner, Knoll's Legal Status of Territories Subject to Administration by International Organizations, which is a combination of theoretical and empirical approaches and draws in part on the author's experience working in the Office of the Chef de Cabinet of the OSCE mission resident in Kosovo, is concerned with conceptualizing international administration and evaluating its connections to other instances of territorial administration, including those that fall under the mandate/trusteeship systems.3 Knoll pays a significant amount of attention to the relationship between international administration and the international legal personality of administered territories. Knoll's willingness to put up strong, sometimes contentious, legal arguments is mostly responsible for the book's difficult nature, which eventually results in the book's rewarding nature. The passages in the book that attempt to shed light on the nature of international administration by means of an investigation into the political and legal issues that have surfaced in Kosovo are extremely rich. The fact that these passages tend to refer to documents that are not widely known and are frequently not widely available is especially helpful for those who are interested in international administration. At the same time, the sheer fact that there are challenges associated with gaining access to papers that are created by international administrations ought to be a catalyst for more conversation on the lack of openness that exists inside these organizations. With over 700 pages (excluding the bibliography) and a correspondingly broad scope, Stahn's The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration is likely to become a standard reference work on the subject.4 It examines the first experiments with internationalization in the 19th century, as well as the mandate and trusteeship systems, and occupation. It also details the historical evolution of international involvement in territorial administration and the multi-faceted nature of the territorial administration profession. Protectionist governments, condos, and protectorates are some of the institutions that are taken into consideration. Stahn makes advantage of this background information as a jumping off point for a more comprehensive consideration of the legal and normative concerns that arise in connection with territorial administration by international entities. Because Stahn's work covers such a broad range of topics, it is impossible for him to address all of the concerns that he brings up in great depth. Despite this limitation, his arguments are lucid and convincing. In addition to this, Stahn offers a number of intriguing suggestions for enhancing the standard of international administration. In a great number of large theoretical drawings, judicial decisions are the ideal representation of sovereign authority. How is it possible to justify such judicial authority in the modern day? A great number of domestic courts make judgments in the name of the people, and as a result, they claim the power of the democratic sovereign at the very beginning of their verdicts. On the other hand, international courts do not specify in whose name they are speaking when they interpret the law. The absence of this information gives rise to our first inquiry, which is as follows: how is the authority of international courts relate to the democratic principle? To put it another way, how can the rule of international courts be justified in conformity with the fundamental principles of democratic theory? The establishment of international courts is a component of institutional designs that are aimed at assisting in the resolution of some of the most serious issues that are now facing the world. These strategies are a component of those that strive to achieve common objectives, work toward overcoming impediments to collaboration, and attempt to rectify the shortcomings of collective action. Similar to a small number of other organizations, they are in the service of the promise that international law would contribute to the advancement of global justice. However, every new institution brings along new challenges that need to be addressed. In particular, we are interested in conducting an investigation of their democratic rationale, and we are concerned by the possibility that international tribunals may become victims of their own success. The legitimacy of international courts is a more comprehensive topic, which this investigation does not cover in depth. First and first, it is important to point out that the international legal system is far from ideal. However, there are situations in which judicial action, even if it does not completely adhere to democratic values, is preferable to taking no action at all. At other times, it may be able to give what everyone wants but is unable to do via other methods. But the question continues to be a concern. In order to illustrate this concept, let's take a look at an example from the dynamic business of international investment arbitration. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are one of the foundations upon which international investment protection is built. These treaties, which include ambiguous duties, are not only used by arbitral courts in specific instances, but they are also artistically produced and nurtured in the process of adjudication. As a matter of fact, this is not only a byproduct of the operations of the court system; rather, it was a part of a premeditated design from the very beginning. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) can be traced back to the political advocacy of Aron Broches, who was the General Counsel of the World Bank at the time. Broches, who was confronted with unsuccessful international negotiations regarding the applicable material law, advanced the pro grammatic formula of "procedure before substance." According to his argument, the substance would come about as a result of the practice of adjudication. That is exactly what happened, since it was a legislation that was established by a court and was heavily infused with the functional logic that permeates the investment protection system. Argentina experienced a harsh squeeze as a result of its economic problems, and it was forced to come to terms with the fact that its space for maneuver had become very limited in order to preserve public order without running the danger of having to pay major damages to foreign investors. Also, Germany would be required to spend 1.4 billion Euros for the elections that will take place in Hamburg, which is a city state. At the very least, this is the sum that the Swedish energy corporation Vattenfall asserted as compensation for the losses that it has incurred as a result of the higher ecological requirements that the newly elected administration fought for throughout the election campaign. There is a cost associated with democracy in the city state. The provision of water services in urban areas is an important service that offers a fundamental benefit that is necessary to the operation of a living organism. Natural monopolies that need a significant amount of capital are also common in urban water systems. Because of these and other factors, they have traditionally been supplied by the state, at least since the beginning of industrialization. Even in the present day, around 95 percent of water service supply is still in the hands of the public, and it is institutionalized within the nation-state setting. In recent years, however, the supply of urban water services has gained a cross-border component, and the concept of "global governance" is beginning to make its way into the industry. This is a phenomenon that seems to be less plausible when compared to the provision of more untethered commodities, such as coffee or banking services. An heightened realization of the boundaries of state duty in regard to the pro vision of basic commodities and necessary services has been re-injected as a result of the global features of legal and regulatory politics in respect to water. Urban water services are an interesting case study for studying the possible scope of what academics have provocatively referred to as "global administrative law." This is because the private sector participates in the supply of fundamental commodities from outside of national boundaries. One of the key threads of administrative law that has historically been recognized is the topic of involvement in decision-making processes that impact critical person interests. The political and legal conflict that is taking place over this expanding tendency involves this specific aspect of administrative law. If one were to interpret the term "global administrative law" by analogy with the understandings of its national sister, it would conjure up visions of a world state and the legal norms that regulate the exercise of power by the bureaucrats of that state. The supply of water services in metropolitan areas, on the other hand, conjures up whole new images: hybrid mixtures of public and private players connected in routines of both official and informal engagement at many levels of governance. The purpose of these four brief vignettes, which are sketched in this preamble, is to capture the concrete dynamics of urban water service delivery in a manner that will assist in linking them to the abstractions of global administrative law. These images are essential to an understanding of the emergence of global administrative law as well as its limits. In the first scenario, residents of the province of Tucumán in Argentina have seen an increase in their prices as a result of a private concession deal with the French multinational corporation Vivendi that is for a period of thirty years. As a means of defending their stance, they stop paying their bills and file administrative dispute documents. It is ultimately decided by Vivendi that they will not be shut off, but they do dispute the issue to the regulatory body and the provincial government, and they finally file a lawsuit with an international tribunal. However, political conflicts persist over whether or not to provide power to the water corporation to disconnect water services, despite the fact that the water distribution system in the province has been returned to public control after eight years. The second scenario depicts a situation in which inhabitants of a township in Durban, South Africa, are cut off from their water supplies due to the fact that they have not paid their bills for a number of years. At midnight, "Moonlight plumbers" reconnect them, constitutional challenges are made in court, and there is a widespread presence of direct protest on the streets. It is a local public operator that has been praised for its creative approach to combining financial honesty with social responsibility. The firm in question has garnered honors for this method. In the third scenario, Bolivian residents in and around the town of Cochabamba discover meters affixed to lengthy pre-existing wells by a private concessionaire located in the United States. This concessionaire has signed a 20-year deal with the local government to manage and administer their water services. It is now necessary to pay for the water that is pulled from the well, since the meters are used to assess their water use. It is not the law that the people turn to, but rather the streets, in such great numbers that they cause riots, and within a period of six months, the government has canceled the concession. Within these three vignettes, the social activists are aware of the other tales and derive inspiration from the co-existence of those who are in circumstances that are comparable to their own. The international firms that are engaged in this predicament have also accumulated equivalent and analogous experiences. For example, at least one of them organizes an annual gathering for all of its worldwide subsidiaries to discuss and share techniques for dealing with circumstances like this. In Chile, where water services are totally privatized, the rates of disconnection are modest, and social opposition is also limited. This is shown in the fourth vignette, which offers a different picture. An employee of a trade union makes a sardonic observation in response to this scenario, saying, "Here, it's not like in Argentina, where people are burning things in the streets because the electricity is cut off." Candles and lamps are the most common items that people in Chile purchase these days. It is possible to infer three important conclusions from this condensed analysis of the juxtaposition. First, a global politico-administrative space of a type is produced by these interconnecting events and players. This is true in regard to the presence of foreign investors participating in the supply of essential services as well as via the links that activists have with one another. Secondly, in this context, the disconnection from water services has an impact on the rights and entitlements of residents to a fundamental service in ways that raise traditional administrative law problems of the limitations of governmental authority. This is the case regardless of whether the providers in question are public or private. Thirdly, the space is not just made up of legal replies, but also of political protests; it is crucial to note that there is often very little or no political protests. There is no clear answer to the question of whether or not this area falls within the category of "global administrative law," and the parties concerned have not addressed the issue in those specific words. To a certain extent, the answer is contingent upon the implications of the third argument, which is the degree to which law is more important than politics. In addition, the significance of law is contingent upon the degree to which it can be convincingly characterized as being of a "global" nature. The legal aspects that are emphasized by the second argument may be wholly concerned with domestic matters. The structure of international law is undergoing a metamorphosis as a result of globalization and the emergence of global governance. However, a significant portion of this transformation is taking place behind the scenes of the international legal system and is sometimes overlooked throughout this process. Global governance may still appear to be nothing more than a quantitative increase in international legal instruments, sometimes accompanied by stronger enforcement mechanisms and accompanied by some changes in the procedures of treaty-making. This is because global governance is viewed from the perspective of classical, inter-state, consent-based international law. The distinction between domestic and international law is becoming increasingly precarious, soft forms of rule making are becoming ever more widespread, the sovereign equality of states is gradually undermined, and the basis of legitimacy of international law is becoming increasingly in doubt. However, from a classical point of view, the central pillars of the international legal order are seen as being increasingly challenged. This particular edition of the symposium is centered on global administrative law, which takes a specific approach to cognate trends. It begins with the observation that a significant portion of global governance can be understood as regulation and administration, and that we are currently witnessing the emergence of a "global administrative space." This term refers to a space in which the strict dichotomy between domestic and international has largely broken down, in which administrative functions are performed in often complex interplays between officials and institutions on different levels, and in which regulation may be highly effective despite the fact that it is predominantly non-binding. In actuality, the growing exercise of public authority within these frameworks has resulted in the emergence of significant concerns over legitimacy and accountability, which in turn has prompted patterns of responses to those concerns in a variety of domains of global governance. Greater transparency, notice-and-comment procedures in rule-making, and new avenues of judicial and administrative review are some of the ways that accountability issues are addressed in a wide variety of different domains. Some examples of these domains include global banking regulation, the administration of sanctions by the Security Council, the international administration of refugees, and the domestic regulation of transboundary environmental issues. To investigate the challenges that this set of issues poses to both domestic administrative law and international law, global administrative law proposes bringing together these disparate practices and understanding them as part of a common, growing trend toward administrative-law type mechanisms for holding global regulatory governance accountable. Additionally, Global Administrative Law seeks to understand how these practices are a part of a larger trend toward administrative law. The building of a comprehensive worldwide system of forestry management is now underway, despite the fact that trees seem to be among the few objects that dominate the local landscape. Despite the fact that governments and international organizations periodically carry out significant responsibilities, they are not the primary builders of this system. The major designers of developing global forestry institutions have been transnational environmental organizations, in conjunction with a small but rising number of commercial, labor, social justice, landowner, and professional groups. These organizations have been working together to create these institutions. In addition to frequently engaging in reciprocal observation, communication, lobbying, and policy adjustment with governmental and intergovernmental organizations, these groups have developed alliances that are mutually interested in working together and competing with one another in a variety of complicated and dynamic ways. As a result, the overall system of forestry regulation is a multi-centered private/public one that functions in a manner that is not well coordinated and is occasionally disconnected. One may thus legally call it a governance system, given that it articulates and adapts guiding standards via a system of shared authority; alternatively, it could be labeled a regime, given that it incorporates many institutions acting in terms of similar principles, rules, procedures, and programs. Both of these names are valid. This study, on the other hand, approaches the system as one of regulation, and in fact, regulatory law-making, in order to bring attention to the principles and norms that govern these activities. This approach seems to be valid as an empirical matter as well, given that a significant portion of the system is focused on the formulation of general rules and the implementation of those laws to various categories of businesses by specialized authorities who depend on normative reasons and background threats of punishment. On the surface, it would seem that an informal coordination process of the latter kind is too far away from the self-conscious application of legal processes to be considered an example of a legal process. A key component of the Bologna process is the management of convergence. The relevant actions, on the other hand, are not specifically constituted by administrative law; rather, they are constituted by the broader legal background conditions of human life. It is possible that it can be considered administration, in the broadest sense of the word, which is to say that it is cooperative conduct engaged in by state administrations in order to get things done. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why they are important to administrative law if they do not result in the passage of administrative actions that are legally enforceable. Coordination processes are often simply cases of transnational management – an observation which could be extended to include the operation of the world’s core financial institutions.13 The problem that arises for the GAL project is that owing to its practical ambition it is inclined to describe processes which do not give rise to legally binding acts as though they were constituted by administrative law, while these very same processes can equally plausibly also be described as mere instances of permissible conduct. There is a possibility that any distinction between administrative acts, on the one hand, and generally permissible conduct, on the other hand, is influenced by a domestic example, which must not be slavishly followed in the global context.15 Aside from the apparent lack of coolness that is associated with relying on domestic analogies, it is difficult to comprehend why the Global Administrative Law (GAL) should ignore the significant conceptual lessons that can be learned from the evolution of its domestic predecessor. It is not possible to conceptualize an alternative to such learning. The idea of a worldwide administrative law raises a variety of concerns that are both challenging and contentious in their implications. Is the implementation of such a system genuinely taking place? In that case, do we want it? In the context of globalization, should it be allowed to grow on its own, maybe exposed to a process of cross-pollination that cannot be avoided? Should it be allowed to evolve, as national systems of administrative law have, for the most part, been free to do? An other question is whether or not it is necessary to make deliberate attempts to foster a process of harmonization. Have we reached the point where it is time to implement a program that will codify universal principles? In the event that this is the case, should the key players be inter-national bureaucrats, courts, which carry with them the risk of governing by gerontocracy, or even academics, some of whom are currently actively promoting either the internationalization of constitutional law or the constitutionalization of international law? And is there any material on which to work, or, to put it another way, are there concepts that are widely acknowledged and may legally serve as the foundation for such a project? These are the questions that need to be answered. Lastly, what exactly is the appropriate area of jurisdiction for global administrative law? Does it have the potential to become a kind of cosmopolitan law, and if so, whether or not it should be active solely in global space? In the same way that human rights attorneys typically urge for the principles to enter national legal and constitutional space, should these principles be encouraged to do so? And, if that is the case, how can they be mandated? Since the late 1960s, and particularly in the 1990s, states have given their approval to an international regime that allows foreign investors (also known as multinational corporations) to have the ability to file and enforce international claims against states in cases where disputes arise as a result of the state's regulation of investor assets. The arrangements that have been made in order to pursue these claims are, in a number of significant aspects, exceptional. There should be a particular emphasis placed on four aspects. The first thing to note is that these kinds of claims are often not subject to the usual constraints that are imposed on individual claims under other kinds of treaties. These limitations include the obligation of a person to exhaust local remedies, which is known as the principle of individualization. Second, according to the damages principle, according to investment treaties, investors have the ability to immediately submit claims for damages, which are given as a public law remedy. Lastly, due to the fact that investment treaties incorporate the procedural framework and enforcement structure of international commercial arbitration, investors have the ability to directly seek enforcement of the awards of arbitration tribunals before the domestic courts of a large number of countries, with limited judicial supervision by domestic courts (this is referred to as the principle of direct enforceability). In conclusion, investment treaties make it easier for investors to pick the forum in which they want to conduct their business. This is accomplished by allowing investors to selectively form holding companies, which in turn broadens the scope of investment arbitration as an international mechanism for adjudicative review (the forum-shopping concept). The impact of this combination of characteristics, which is only seen in investment arbitration, is to submit the regulatory behavior of governments to control via forced international adjudication to a level that is not typical. Investment arbitration should be seen as a powerful species of global administrative law. This is exactly due to the fact that these adjudicative norms and processes that are established on a worldwide scale have the ability to have a significant disciplinary impact on programmes that are administered on a domestic level.