Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.0 Introduction
In this paper, I will attempt to give a short definition of What the World Bank
Inspection Panel is all about? , I will equally engage with the
constitutionalism and Global Administrative law in the composition, process
and elements of Procedure of the Inspection Panel. The accountability of the
Inspection Panel shall equally be examined focusing on its management and
operations. The Legitimacy of the Inspection Panel in relation to its fairness,
efficiency and justness shall equally be examined. I will also have a close
look on guarantees as to the independence of the Panel and its members. A
conclusion and bibliography will seal off this discussion. However, this
chronology will not be followed.
The World Bank Inspection Panel was created in 1993 by a resolution of the
Bank’s Executive Directors1 as an independent body within the Bank’s
structure. This was in response to the World Bank inadequacies to meet the
standards as reflected in its policies and procedures2. This criticism came
both from within the Bank (Lewis T. Preston) and from without (Non
Governmental Organizations and civil society) base on the inadequacies of
the old control mechanism of the Bank at the time3. The World Bank was
perceived both from within and without to be less accountable and less
transparent in its decision4. The Narmada dam project in India which shall
not form part of this discussion set out a precedent that led to a review of
the Bank’s activities5. Stamping out old tradition which says ‘you have to
break a few eggs to get an omelet’6, the World Bank through the Inspection
1
Resolution 93-10 of IBRD and 93-6 of IDA
2
The Inspection Panel of the World Bank: A different Complaints Procedure; pages 7-9 and
16, edited by Gudmundur Alfredsson and Rolf Ring.
3
Ibid, 4-8.
4
The World Bank Inspection Panel: In Practice; pages 1 and 2 by Ibrahim F.I. Shihata.
5
Ibid, 9-10.
6
Demanding Accountability: a civil society claims and the World Bank Inspection Panel
edited by Dana Clark, Jonathan Fox and Kay Treakle; Understanding the World Bank
2 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam
Analyze the accountability and legitimacy 201
processes of the World Bank Inspection 0
Panel
Panel was setting a precedent constituting “a progressive step in the
development of both the law of international organization and the
international law of human rights” where individuals can submit their
complaints and see them addressed at the international level7.
The resolution that established the Inspection panel explicitly in its last
paragraph says that the scope of the Inspection Panel covers the activities of
both the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and
the International Development Association (IDA)8.
This means the Panel provides some degree of legitimacy and is accountable
in the eyes of both the Board of directors and to those whom the Inspection
Panel serves or affect11. The panel provides a forum or link between the
World Bank Group and people who believe that they have been or are likely
to be adversely harmed by the Bank’s projects or programmes to have their
concerns heard by the Bank’s Board of Directors.
World Bank Resolution 93-10 adopted by the Bank’s Board of Directors and
the Inspection Panel Operating Procedures set forth the basic procedures for
the Panel. They define the composition of the Panel, the criteria for eligibility
and the necessary components of a claim, and provide guidance for how the
process should work12.
3.1.1 Composition
The Inspection Panel was established to investigate charges that official Bank
policies were not followed in the design and implementation of projects.16
There must be an established claimed that the project in question has caused
or is likely to cause adverse harm to the applicants for inspection. Request
for Inspection to the Panel shall be in writing and must explain the steps
already taken to resolve the issue and also the nature of the action or
omission and the action taken to bring the issue to the notice of Bank’s
management.17
The chairperson of the Panel shall informed the Executive Directors of the
Bank of which they have 21 days to provide the Panel with evidence of
compliance or intention to comply with Bank’s policies and procedure18. If it
requires investigation, the chairperson of the panel will discharge inspectors
with the responsibility in conducting the inspection and the report of the
Panel shall be submit its report to the Executive Directors and the President
who in turn must react within six week indicating its recommendation19. The
decision of the Panel on procedural matters and its report shall be reached
by consensus and in the absence; the majority and minority views shall be
stated20. The decision shall be made public.
http://www.accountabilityproject.org/article.php?id=227 .
14
Accountability in Global Governance. A global Administrative Law Project Workshop of the
University of Institute for International Law and Justice page 13; New York University School
of Law chaired by Kingsbury Benedict and Richard Stewart.
15
Accountability in Global Governance. A global Administrative Law Project Workshop of the
University of Institute for International Law and Justice page 13; New York University School
of Law chaired by Kingsbury Benedict and Richard Stewart.
16
Center for Global, International and Regional Studies; UC Santa Cruz, page 8.
17
The World Bank Inspection Panel: In Practice; page 274, 275 and 2276 by Ibrahim F.I.
Shihata.
18
Ibid, 276.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid, 277.
5 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam
Analyze the accountability and legitimacy 201
processes of the World Bank Inspection 0
Panel
4.0 Accountability of the Inspection Panel (Input Legitimacy)
21
Envisioning Reform: Enhancing UN Accountability in the Twenty-First Century edited by
Sumihiro Kuyama and Michael Ross Fowler: Conceptual analysis of accountability: The
structure of accountability in the process of responsibility page 73 by Hirohide Takikawa.
22
Envisioning Reform: Enhancing UN Accountability in the Twenty-First Century edited by
Sumihiro Kuyama and Michael Ross Fowler: Conceptual analysis of accountability: The
structure of accountability in the process of responsibility page 73 -74 by Hirohide Takikawa.
23
Center for Global, International and Regional Studies; UC Santa Cruz, page 8.
24
Accountability and the Rule of Law at the International Level, page 10 by André
Nollkaemper, Jan Wouters and Nicolas Hachez.
25
Ibid.
6 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam
Analyze the accountability and legitimacy 201
processes of the World Bank Inspection 0
Panel
In Global Administrative Law, Kingsbury et all raised six questions aimed at
input legitimacy in necessitating accountability of International organizations
like the World Bank Inspection Panel. To them, this exemplifies the different
structures of Global regulations in relation to legal and political accountability
which stresses much on transparency.26 Though I will not engage in giving
some answers to these questions, it helps us however better understand the
importance and center stage this discussion on accountability and legitimacy
has gained over the years.
Kingsbury and Stewart say since the political form of accountability backed
by elections is absence at the International level, there is greater need for
consent and deliberative processes that must result in concrete normative
expressions on the ideals to be achieved.29 Jacob Katz Cogen did also
emphasize on the relative normatively of international law in making
international institutions as the Inspection Panel accountable when he said.
26
Accountability in Global Governance; A Global Administrative Law Project Workshop:
November 17, 2006 by Benedict Kingsbury and Richard Stewart page 2.
27
Ibid, 2.
28
Ibid, 2.
29
Ibid, 3
7 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam
Analyze the accountability and legitimacy 201
processes of the World Bank Inspection 0
Panel
creating gaps between aspiration and authority, procedure and
policy”30
The Bank’s Resolution 93-10 (IBRD) and 93-6 (IDA) of September 22, 199332
emphasized on the independence of the Panel and its members aimed at
guaranteeing impartiality and integrity. In line with the Panel’s resolution:
The Resolution provides that “the Panel has the power to receive requests
and investigate claims where the Bank has failed to comply with its
operational policies and procedures –which consist of the Bank’s Operational
Policies (OPs), Bank Procedures (BPs), and Operational Directives (ODs), and
similar documents, but excludes Guidelines and Best Practices and similar
documents or statement”33
1. Executive Directors, alternates, advisers and staff members of the
World Bank Group shall not serve on the Panel until after a period of 2
years since the end of their last service with the World Bank,
6.0 Conclusion
Though the Inspection panel operates an open door policy and its procedure,
process and reports are usually made available on the internet for public
consumption, there still exist gaps which create doubts and at times
confusion and fear to those they are out to protect. These worries which at
times are legitimate, exposes it as an arm of the Bank than an independent
inspector working for the people and the Bank. The reasons are:
The persons who have or are to be affected by Bank’s projects have little or
no information about the Panel and its pro-accountability mechanism. There
may also be a lack of a clear cut distinction between Bank’s project and state
projects since they are many a times interwoven. This usually leaves the
blame solely on the government who are exploiting Bank’s projects as
government projects for political gains.36
Also, the Panel’s policy to take decision base on consensus than qualified
majority vote is somehow political in character. This means legitimate
decisions at times may become stifled because someone does not agree on
something which is of great significance to improving on the Panel and its
activities40.
The Panel’s inability to exercise competence on all matters linking the Bank
in its activities with member countries becomes a matter of frustration and
some sort of duplication of functions as these have been left in the hands of
the Arbitration Body of the Bank which performs similar and related duties
like the Panel.
Also the Panel’s inability to review on issues which it had earlier made
recommendations on is somehow frustrating as this blocks all avenues for
the Panel to revisit areas where it may have faltered as a result of lack of
inadequate information or lack of information or a complete
misrepresentation. This gives the affected victims of the Panel’s decision no
room for redress since there is no appeals body to handle such cases41.
38
World Bank Inspection Panel; A tool for accountability, page 32 by Yvonne Wong.
39
Ibid.
40
www.worldbank.org .
41
Ibid.
10 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam
Analyze the accountability and legitimacy 201
processes of the World Bank Inspection 0
Panel
Despite the above short comings as seen by complainants, the Panel has for
the last years received more than 43 requests for inspection which is a sign
of its workability and acceptance by the public.42 The Banks compliance on
most of the Panel’s recommendations makes the Panel a credible and
effective body and guarantees its independence from Bank interference.
7.0 Bibliography
42
World Bank Inspection Panel; A tool for accountability by Yvonne Wong.
11 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam
Analyze the accountability and legitimacy 201
processes of the World Bank Inspection 0
Panel
8. The Concept of “Law” in Global Administrative Law by Benedict
Kingsbury; EJIL (2009), Vol. 20 No. 1, 23-57 of the European Journal
of International Law Vol. 20 No 1.
11. The World Bank Inspection Panel and Quasi Judicial Oversight: In
Search of the “Judicial Spirit” in Public International Law, by Dr. Andria
Naudé of Erasmus University Rotterdam
12. www.worldbank.org
13. www.catalogue.nla.gov.au/records/511195
12 The Rule of Law Assignment II- Julius Che | Erasmus School of Law
Rotterdam