International organizations and other global governance bodies often make rules and decisions without input from many of the individuals, groups, firms, and governments that are affected by them. The standards of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, for instance, developed by a small number of states, govern financial markets and the safety of bank deposits in over a hundred jurisdictions. Historically, the interests of developing countries, as well as non-commercial and diffuse interests within countries, have been excluded or disregarded in global governance. Scholars and practitioners have criticised this democratic deficit and called for greater participation of such marginalized stakeholders. Against this background, international institutions have introduced a variety of reforms with the goal of increasing and facilitating the participation of these excluded stakeholders. This book brings together an expert group of scholars and practitioners to investigate the consequences of stakeholder participation reforms in the global governance of health and finance: What reforms have been introduced? Have these reforms given previously marginalized stakeholders a voice in global governance bodies? What effect have these reforms had on the legitimacy and effectiveness of global governance? To answer these questions, the book examines treaty-based intergovernmental organizations alongside newer forms of global governance such as trans-governmental regulatory networks, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and private standard setting bodies. Through a series of paired comparative analyses, the book provides insights into the experiences of large emerging and smaller or lower income developing countries (Brazil v. Argentina, China v. Vietnam, India v. the Philippines) in a diverse set of organizations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the International Accounting Standards Board, Codex Alimentarius Commission and more.

Investment treaties are said to improve the rule of law in the states which enter into them. Fearing claims, governments will internalise international investment obligations into their decision-making processes, resulting in positive spill-over effects on the rule of law. Such arguments have never been backed by empirical research. This book presents an analytical framework for thinking about the internalisation of international commitments in governmental decision making that takes account of the complexities of governance. In so doing, it provides a typology of processes whereby international treaty obligations may be internalised by governments and identifies factors which may affect whether and to what extent international commitments are internalised in governmental decision making. This framework serves as the background for the main body of the book in which empirical case studies address whether and how a select group of governments in Asia internalise international investment treaty obligations in their decision-making.