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
