Policy-makers, national administrations, and regulators engage in making laws without the formalities associated with treaties or customary law. This book analyses this informal international lawmaking and its impact on contemporary trends in international interaction, looking at the questions of accountability and effectiveness it raises.

Informal International Lawmaking: Case Studies compiles case studies on instances of informal international lawmaking (IN-LAW) in diverse policy areas, including finance, investment, competition, pharmaceuticals and medical device regulation, food regulation, human rights, disaster management, and trade in diamonds. The term 'informal' international lawmaking is used in contrast and opposition to 'traditional' international lawmaking. More concretely, IN-LAW is informal in the sense that it dispenses with certain formalities traditionally linked to international law. These formalities may have to do with the process, actors and output involved. The literature has mostly criticized IN-LAW for its 'accountability deficits'. The chapters in this book, hence, do not simply give a descriptive overview of the case studies, but approach them from an accountability perspective. In this context, different questions are raised, such as: Is IN-LAW subject to any accountability measures? How accountable are IN-LAW participants to their constituents? How accountable are they towards those affected by their decisions? Are the accountability measures available at the international or at the domestic level? The book also examines how IN-LAW is elaborated and subsequently received in domestic legal systems, using the Netherlands and Brazil as case studies.

An increasing number of fora and networks have been recognised to play a role in international or transnational normative processes. While lawmaking by formal, intergovernmental international organizations received abundant attention over the past years, we know less about a phenomenon that this paper refers to as 'informal international lawmaking' (IN-LAW). Lawyers struggle with the new and extensive normative output in global governance. We nevertheless use the term 'law' to connote the exercise of public authority, as opposed to what is often referred to more broadly as 'regulation' (covering both public and private regulation). IN-LAW, as we define it, can include private actor participation, but excludes cooperation that only involves private actors. The present paper thus purports to introduce the concept of 'informal international lawmaking' and it will present some findings based on case studies in the IN-LAW project related to the reasons for actors to opt for informal lawmaking. We also analyse whether - and to what extent - IN-LAW bodies are subject to some form of accountability and, if so, in what form and at what level. Finally, we will look at some consequences of informal international lawmaking, in particular in relation to the changing role of law in global governance.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is in a state of some turbulence, as a result of, among other things, non-international armed conflicts, terrorist threats and the rise of new technologies. This incisive book observes that while states appear to be reluctant to act as agents of change, informal methods of law-making are flourishing. Illustrating that not only courts, but various non-state actors, push for legal developments, this timely work offers an insight into the causes of this somewhat ambivalent state of IHL by focusing attention on both the legitimacy of law-making processes and the actors involved.

This book explores law-making in international affairs and is compiled to celebrate the 50th birthday of Professor Jan Klabbers, a leading international law and international relations scholar who has made significant contributions to the understanding of the sources of international legal obligations and the idea of constitutionalism in international law. Inspired by Professor Klabbers’ wide-ranging interests in international law and his interdisciplinary approach, the book examines law-making through a variety of perspectives and seeks to breaks new ground in exploring what it means to think and write about law and its creation. While examining the substance of international law, these contributors raise more general concerns, such as the relationship between law-making and the application of law, the role and conflict between various institutions, and the characteristics of the formal sources of international law. The book will be of great interest to students and academics of legal theory, international relations, and international law.

In recent years, G20 has emerged as a relatively new, yet influential actor on the world stage which brings together the leaders of the twenty systemically most important economies. Its informality and flexible character warrant the use of the term 'Informal International Lawmaking' with regard to this global network. 'Informal International Lawmaking' (or “IN-LAW”) comprises of networks of global cooperation that are distinct from 'traditional' international law as they display less formal characteristics; the actors are not necessarily diplomats or heads of state, the process is not necessarily structured by formal proceedings and the output is not (always) an internationally binding legal instrument. G20 displays many of these characteristics and, as a result, there are concerns as regards the legitimacy and accountability of the network as an actor in Global Governance. The authors argue that as G20 was never intended to produce international legally binding outcomes, its informality results in a setting where world leaders can discuss global issues without having to fear to be immediately bound by legal commitments. This does, however, not mean that we should disregard the concerns raised as regards the accountability and legitimacy of G20. The authors support the proposed initiatives to create a more structured dialogue between G20 and its Members (the internal stakeholders) and those excluded from the network (the external stakeholders).