Legitimacy of International Law and the Exercise of Administrative Functions: The Example of the International Seabed Authority, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Fisheries Organizations

Abstract

It is possible to speak of international administration only if an international entity is truly exercising functions equivalent to those of States. While such cases are rare, as Joseph Weiler emphasized in a different context, they do exist. One such case is the International Seabed Authority, which exercises legislative as well as executive functions in respect of the international seabed (the “Area”) and its resources. Furthermore, the legal regime relating to the international seabed comprises a fully elaborated system for the settlement of disputes that is available to public and private actors involved in the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in the Area. The functions assigned to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and some fisheries organizations have not quite reached this level. Nevertheless, one can observe that these organizations, too, prescribe binding rules, at least de facto. However, they lack the jurisdiction to enforce such rules directly; in that respect they are relying on States acting in different capacities – such as flag States or port States – to enforce such rules. One may consider these legal regimes as belonging to a multilevel system (Mehrebenensystem), where the prescriptive and executive functions are vested in different levels.