Assessing the Theory and Practice of IO Emergency Powers
The concluding chapter revisits the proportionality theory and assesses its explanatory power relative to the theoretical competitors by way of an aggregated cross-case comparison. It finds that the theory fares exceptionally well in both explaining single case outcomes and accounting for variance across cases. The model holds across a variety of institutional designs, levels of authority, issue areas, and crisis types. Second, this chapter turns to the question of how to normatively evaluate IO exceptionalism. It proposes to distinguish three different questions about the normative legitimacy of (a) the adoption and exercise of emergency powers by IOs, (b) the process of constitutional change after IO exceptionalism, and (c) the post-exceptionalist political order of IOs. While the preliminary assessments of the cases on these dimensions are not uniform, overall they warrant skepticism regarding the normative legitimacy of mostly unregulated emergency politics at the global level.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.