With its 188 members, Interpol is the second largest global entity after the United Nations. It is not a treaty-based organization and it is not entrusted with any traditional police powers. However, Interpol issues “red notices”, i.e. warrants to seek the arrest of (suspect) criminals for extradition purposes that are published and circulated worldwide through a sophisticated communication network. From a public law standpoint, red notices are elusive administrative measures: albeit “soft” (non binding), they de facto impinge upon the fundamental right to personal freedom. How to treat such an atypical international power? How appropriate is to put it under the reach of the rule of law? I argue that the answer depends on the kind of legal lenses employed. Those who shape their quest for a public international law in a strictly positivist fashion risk either to overlook “soft” administrative powers (because they lack a legal basis) or, at the opposite, to armor them into an ill-suited legal cage (commanded by the imperative to re-establish accountability to states). Global administrative law, by contrast, seems better equipped both to capture the various degrees of “softness” pertaining to international powers and to accommodate the functional needs of global governance with the normative concerns related to the protection of individual rights.
- Global Administrative Law,
- Public International Law,
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/mario_savino/1/