Politics and Practice of Fact-Finding by International Organisations

Inter­national organi­zations (IOs) respond to alleged norm violations in a variety of ways, including monitoring, peer reviews, expert reports, and con­demnatory reso­lutions and sanc­tions. While this repertoire of naming and shaming strategies is well studied, inter­national fact-finding missions have received less attention in inter­national relations scholar­ship. This is surprising given the increasing use of fact-finding missions by IOs over the past two decades, most notably by the UN Human Rights Council. Inter­national fact-finding missions are groups of experts mandated by IOs to investi­gate a conflict situation, ideally on the ground, by establishing credible facts and ascertaining allegations of norm violations. They are intended to strengthen the authority of IOs and to induce compliance by establishing neutral and objec­tive facts. However, they operate in a context of increasing politici­zation of IOs and are often them­selves highly con­tested. Drawing on principal-agent theories, construc­tivist approaches to the study of IOs, and critical (legal) theories, this project examines why and to what effect IOs dispatch fact-finding missions and similar ad hoc inquiry mecha­nisms. The project contri­butes to three overarching questions relevant to both inter­national relations and inter­national law: First, by focusing on ad hoc delegation to external actors, it contributes to the scholar­ship on the responsive­ness of IOs to policy issues and their crisis manage­ment tools. Second, the project studies how experts gain recognition for their expertise and how IOs translate this into authority. Third, the project contri­butes to inter­national relations scholar­ship on the (soft) enforce­ment of inter­national norms and to the existing research on fact-finding in inter­national law. The project studies the role of IO fact-finding across issue areas, including human rights, global health, arms control, and sustaina­bility.