The Institutionalization of a Process

The Development of the Kimberley Process towards an International Organization

in International Organizations Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The Kimberley Process represents a new method of international cooperation between subjects of international law. It was named by its creators as a process, setting it apart from international organizations, and leading too to its consideration as informal international law-making or soft law. In this study we shall analyze the extent to which the Kimberley Process falls into these categories. Our main task, however, is to compare it to formal international organizations, with a view to establishing whether what really has been created is an institutionalization process that is like an international organization, but with a different name. To do this, we will analyze with reference to the Kimberley Process the various respective fields of international organizations, such as founding agreement, membership, structure, decision-making process and legal order.

The Institutionalization of a Process

The Development of the Kimberley Process towards an International Organization

in International Organizations Law Review

Sections

References

5

Vidalsupra note 3 p. 507.

15

Sheltonsupra note 14 p. 15.

17

Pauwelynsupra note 14 p. 19.

25

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 132; Eibe Riedel ‘The Development of International Law: Alternatives to Treaty-Making? International Organizations and Non-State Actors’ in R. Wolfrum and V. Röben (eds.) Developments of International Law in Treaty Making (Springer Berlin 2005) pp. 301–318; Carlos Teijo García Organisaciones Internacionales No gubernamentales y Derecho Internacional (Madrid Dilex 2005) pp. 155–176 Pérez-prat Durbán supra note 18 pp. 158–172.

28

Chardonsupra note 2 p. 480.

30

Bierisupra note 26 p. 110.

33

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 131; Jan Klabbers An Introduction to International Institutional Law (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2002) p. 112; Pérez Prat Durbán supra note 18 pp. 184–194.

37

Chardonsupra note 2 p. 480. However recently there has been criticism from ngos for “stifling swift and decisive actions by the kp against non-compliant countries”: Bieri supra note 26 p. 112.

38

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 141.

48

Chardonsupra note 2 p. 478.

50

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 238.

54

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 pp. 290–300.

56

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 240.

61

Chardonsupra note 2 p. 478.

63

Klabberssupra note 33 p. 174.

64

Amerasinghesupra note 45 p. 154.

65

Klabberssupra note 33 p. 175.

66

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 315.

67

Amerasinghesupra note 45 p. 154.

69

Chardonsupra note 2 pp. 478–479.

74

Fernández Arribassupra note 2 p. 16.

81

Berman and Wesselsupra note 51 p. 43.

86

Chardonsupra note 2 p. 478.

88

Bierisupra note 26 p. 111.

89

Chardonsupra note 2 p. 479.

93

Smilliesupra note 2 pp. 3–4.

94

Pauwelyn Wessel and Wouterssupra note 6 p. 738.

97

Klabberssupra note 95 p. 157; Prosper Weil ‘Towards relative normativity in international Law?’ (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law pp. 413–442.

99

Klabberssupra note 95 p. 105.

103

Wrightsupra note 2 p. 699.

104

Klabberssupra note 95 p. 155.

106

Curtissupra note 73 p. 12. Tracey Michelle Price ‘The Kimberley Process: Conflict Diamonds wto Obligations and the Universality Debate’ (2003) 12 Minnesota Journal of International Law p. 66.

109

Austsupra note 96 pp. 52–53.

110

Boylesupra note 96 at. 124–125. Boyle also mentions non-treaty form but soft law can also have the form of a treaty without being considered a binding instrument. See Christine M. Chinkin ‘The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law’ (1989) 38 International and Comparative Law Quarterly p. 851.

111

Dinah L. Sheltonsupra note 14 p. 74; Chinkin supra note 110 p. 859.

113

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 531.

114

Klabberssupra note 33 p. 229.

126

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 752–830.

130

Schermers and Blokkersupra note 21 p. 780.

135

Sheltonsupra note 14 p. 70.

137

Klabberssupra note 8 p. 410.

138

Austsupra note 96 p. 32.

140

Austsupra note 96 p. 45.

141

Curtissupra note 73 p. 12; Price supra note 106 p. 66.

143

Bierisupra note 26 p. 103.

144

Ruiter and Wesselsupra note 6 p. 165.

146

Neuholdsupra note 96 p. 51.

150

Klabberssupra note 8 p. 414.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 11 11 8
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0