著者

蓮生 郁代

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2016, no.185, pp.185_126-185_140, 2016

---

<p>This paper aims to deal with the issue of how to limit abuses of power in global politics where there exists no <i>global</i> centralized accountability mechanism. In order to explore recent developments in pragmatic plural accountability mechanisms in global politics, this article examines the demand for accountability of the United Nations Security Council (hereafter, the Council) and its related reform initiatives.</p><p>It attempts to identify the historical transformation of sub-concepts of accountability demanded of the Council through its reform initiatives. In doing so, it will focus on the following two aspects: One is the transformation of actors involved who have demanded accountability of the Council, and the other is the transition of pragmatic plural accountability mechanisms envisaged by each actor to limit abuses of power by the Council.</p><p>The findings of this article are centered on the following three: Firstly, in the theoretical arena, in addition to the seven accountability mechanisms proposed by Robert O. Keohane and Ruth W. Grant in 2005, this article identifies three new pragmatic accountability mechanisms. These operate respectively to limit abuses of power by the Council, <i>that is to say</i>, a "procedural mechanism," a "troop contributing mechanism,"and a "transparency mechanism." Secondly, as far as the delegation model of accountability is concerned, no signs of improvement in accountability have been seen through the supervisory mechanism, although it is the most traditional and mainstream, since 1965 despite repeated reform challenges. On the other hand, in the delegation model of accountability, more innovative approaches such as the procedural mechanism and the troop contributing mechanism have succeeded in contributing to improving accountability since the 1990s. Thirdly, as it concerns the participation model of accountability, introduction of Arria Formula briefing was epoch-making from the point of view of establishing a relationship between the Council and civil society actors (to be classified as the public reputation mechanism). Such relationship has been further tightened by the efforts made by think tanks and NGOs active in disclosing information on Council activities to the wider public (to be named the transparency mechanism). It was even accelerated by a number of lawsuits claiming the unlawfulness of the targeted sanctions related to the 1267 sanction regime (called the law mechanism).</p><p>The author acknowledges that the demand for accountability of the Council is more and more <i>not</i> confined to the composition of the membership of the Council but rather extends to the construction of pragmatic plural accountability mechanisms. This quest is not only identified in the participation model but also even in the delegation model of accountability of the Council.</p>