Expounding the Place of Legal Doctrinal Methods in Legal-Interdisciplinary Research

There is a distinct place for legal doctrinal methods in legal- interdisciplinary research methodologies, but there is value to be had in expounding that place – in developing a deeper understanding, for instance, of what legal doctrinal analysis has to offer, wherein lies its limitations, and how it could work in concert with methods and theories from disciplinary areas other than law. This article offers such perspectives, based on experiences with an ‘advanced’ legal-interdiscipli- nary methodology, which facilitates a long-term study of the growing body of practice generated by citizen-driven, independent accountability mechanisms (IAMs) that are institutionally affiliated with multilateral development banks. The article demonstrates how legal doctrinal methods have contributed towards the design and development of a multi- purpose IAM-practice database. This database constitutes the analytical platform of the research project and also facili- tates the integration of various types of research questions, methods and theories

Vertical Comparative Law Methods: Tools for Conceptualising the International Rule of Law

International institutions are increasingly engaged in the exercise of public power – traditionally exercised by states – that might adversely affect individuals. Consequently, calls have arisen for checks and balances in order to provide affected individuals with adequate avenues for recourse and redress. Developing the ‘rule of law’ concept at the international level is one way in which this issue has been addressed, although only to a limited extent. This article explores the potential of comparative law methodology as a means to further this conceptualisation. It is argued that ‘vertical, bottom-up’ comparative law methods (as expounded by this article) can assist lawyers inspired by certain concepts within national legal systems (such as the rule of law) to apply these concepts – or the ideas behind them – at the international level. Furthermore, it is argued that employing comparative law methodology in this manner is increasingly justifi ed by the emergence of a ‘common zone of impact’ – i.e., the area of overlap between national and international law, where individuals are adversely affected by the exercise of public power by states and international institutions alike. The authors propose a comparative law typology and discuss what risks might typically be involved in employing comparative law methods in general, as well as ways in which these risks could potentially be mitigated. Specifi cally, the article sets out a particular vertical, bottom-up comparative law method, as employed in the context of two separate doctoral research projects, both focusing on ways to enhance the accountability of international institutions: one in the context of international territorial administrations, and the other in the context of the World Bank and its Inspection Panel

Introduction: Public Values and Public Participation in Decision-Making in Times of Privatisation

__Abstract__ Privatisation poses challenges to the manner in which public values, such as accessibility, affordability, reliability, safety and sustainability, can be secured. In liberal societies the state, legitimised through democratic elections (input legitimacy) and the rule of law upheld by courts (output legitimacy), was traditionally regarded as the entity responsible for securing such values – although these values were perceived rather thinly. During the second half of the 20th century, with the role of the state expanding and public values conceived more thickly, the perception emerged that democratic elections and courts upholding the rule of law were not sufficient for legitimising the exercise of public power by states and that concerned members of the public should play a direct role in securing public values. As a result, public participation in the national context – here defined as consisting of the following elements: transparency (including access to information), public participation in decision-making, and access to courts or court-like institutions – emerged as a tool for securing public values, as well as checking, and thereby legitimising (input legitimacy), the exercise of public power by the state