Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:17:05.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Looking at the World Bank’s safeguard reform through the lens of deliberative democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2019

Ruth Houghton
Ruth Houghton*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, 21–24 Windsor Terrace Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU England, UK
*
Email: ruth.houghton@newcastle.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sheer amount of non-state participation in the creation of the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) is surely noteworthy. The aim of the Bank’s consultation was to get ‘global’ input and feedback, and with over 8,000 stakeholders from over 63 countries taking part, it is laudable. The extent of the participation challenges the positivist approach to international law-making, which views only states as having the power to make law and raises questions about how to legitimize such international soft-law making. Legitimacy is entangled with democracy, as scholars debate whether democracy is the required benchmark for decision-making processes at international organizations. This article uses deliberative democracy to analyse the ESF consultation process. Whilst, democratic legitimacy has been interpreted to mean inclusivity and participation, deliberative democracy raises a series of hard questions about equality and power that scholarship on global governance needs to grapple with. Although this participatory process at the World Bank challenges traditional narratives in international law, analysing it through a lens of deliberative democracy exposes the work that still needs to be done to discuss democracy in international decision-making.

Keywords

consultation processdeliberative democracyEnvironmental and Social Frameworkinternational organizationsWorld Bank
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 465 - 482
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thank you to Durham Law School and the Global Policy Institute at Durham University for providing funding for the symposium workshop. Thank you to Dr Matthew Nicholson, Dr Giedre Jokubauskaite and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments on this piece.

References

1 World Bank, ‘World Bank Board Approves New Environmental and Social Framework’, 4 August 2016, available at www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2016/08/04/world-bank-board-approves-new-environmental-and-social-framework.

2 For example, World Bank Live, ‘Global Live Chat: Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies’, 8 March 2016. For civil society examples, Human Rights Watch, ‘World Bank: Dangerous Rollback in Environmental, Social Protection: New Framework Undermines President Kim’s Commitment to “No Dilution”’, 4 August 2015, available at www.hrw.org/news/2015/08/04/world-bank-dangerous-rollback-environmental-social-protections; U. Khatri, ‘World Bank’s New Environmental and Social Framework is a Huge Step Backward for Human Rights’, Earth Rights International, 17 August 2016, available at www.earthrights.org/blog/world-banks-new-environmental-and-social-framework-huge-step-backward-human-rights; D. Hill, ‘The UK Must Fight For Better World Bank Environment Policy’, Guardian, 19 February 2015, available at www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/feb/19/uk-must-fight-better-world-bank-environment-policy.

3 World Bank, ‘The World Bank’s Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper’, 10 October 2012, available at siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSAFEPOL/Resources/584434-1306431390058/SafeguardsReviewApproachPaper.pdf, para. 45.

4 See, for example, T. Kleinlein, ‘Non-State Actors from an International Constitutionalism Perspective: Participation Matters!’, in J. d’Aspremont (ed.), Participation in the International Legal System: Multiple Perspectives on Non-State Actors in International Law (2011), 40. For an alternative discussion on legitimacy see F. Ebert and M. V. Cabrera Ormaza, ‘The World Bank, human rights, and organizational legitimacy strategies: The case of the 2016 Environmental and Social Framework’, in this issue (doi:10.1017/S0922156519000268).

5 See, for example, Buchanan, A., ‘Political Legitimacy and Democracy’, (2002) 112 Ethics 689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buchanan, A. and Keohane, R. O., ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’, (2006) 20 Ethics and International Affairs 405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 World Bank, ‘The World Bank Environmental and Social Policy for Investment Project Financing’, in World Bank, The Environmental and Social Framework (2017), 1.

7 World Bank, ‘The Environmental and Social Standards’, ibid., at 38.

8 World Bank, The Environmental and Social Framework (2017), ix.

9 For example, Human Rights Watch, supra note 2; Khatri, supra note 2. Ebert and Cabrera Ormaza, supra note 4.

10 For a discussion on whether it is just law, soft law or other norms that require legitimacy see Besson, S., ‘Theorizing the Sources of International Law’, in Besson, S. and Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law (2010), 163, at 173 Google Scholar; Goldmann, M., ‘We Need to Cut Off the Head of the King: Past, Present and Future Approaches to International Soft Law’, (2012) 25 Leiden Journal of International Law 335, 364–5. For a discussion on the legal status of the ESF see Jokubauskaite, G., ‘The Legal Nature of the World Bank Safeguards’, (2018) 51(1) Law and Politics in Asia, Africa and Latin America 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Peters, A., ‘Dual Democracy’, in Klabbers, J., Peters, A. and Ulfstein, G. (eds.), The Constitutionalization of International Law (2009), 263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trachtman, J. P., ‘Constitutional Economics of the World Trade Organization’, in Dunoff, J. L. and Trachtman, J. (eds.), Ruling the World?: Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (2009), 206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O’Donoghue, A., Constitutionalism in Global Constitutionalisation (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 For example, M. Kumm, ‘The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship Between Constitutionalism In and Beyond the State’, in Dunoff and Trachtman, supra note 11, at 260; Buchanan and Keohane, supra note 5.

13 J. S. Dryzek (with S. Niemeyer), Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance (2013), 177. See also Higgott, R. and Erman, E., ‘Deliberative Global Governance and the Question of Legitimacy: What Can We Learn From the WTO?’, (2010) 36 Review of International Studies 449, 454 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stevenson, H. and Dryzek, J. S., ‘The Legitimacy of Multilateral Climate Governance: A Deliberative Democratic Approach’, (2012) 6 Critical Policy Studies 1, 2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Fishkin, J. S., When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy & Public Consultation (2011), 33–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Martens, W., wan der Linden, B. and Wörsdörfer, M., ‘How to Assess the Democratic Qualities of a Multi-stakeholder Initiative from a Habermasian Perspective? Deliberative Democracy and the Equator Principles Framework’, (2017) Journal of Business Ethics 1 Google Scholar.

15 J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (1996), 375. Cf. J. S. Dryzek, Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World (2006), at 47.

16 I. M. Young, Inclusion and Democracy (2000), 81, 108; A. Phillips, Feminism and Politics (2009), 143.

17 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies’, available at www.consultations.worldbank.org/consultation/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies.

18 For example, there is often no documentation for meetings with development partners in Phase 1 and sometimes documentation for government meetings in Phase 1 are missing. Some participant lists are missing from consultations with civil society and multi-stakeholder meetings in Phase 2.

19 For example, see the instrumental and functional approach adopted by Buchanan and Keohane, supra note 5.

20 See E. Hey, ‘International and the Anthropocene’, (2016) 5 ESIL 1, 4. See also R. Mares, ‘Securing human rights through risk-management methods: Breakthrough or misalignment?’, in this issue (doi: 10.1017/S0922156519000244); M. Brunori, ‘Protecting the access to land for indigenous and non-indigenous communities: A new page for the World Bank’, in this issue (doi:10.1017/S0922156519000232).

21 Alamgir, M. et al., ‘Economic, Socio-Political and Environmental Risks of Road Development in the Tropics’, (2017) 27 Current Biology Review 1130, 1134 Google ScholarPubMed; Sovacool, B., ‘Cooperative or Inoperative? Accountability and Transparency at the World Bank’s Inspection Panel’, (2017) 1 Case Studies in the Environment 1, 6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Sovacool, ibid., at 6.

23 World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, Safeguards and Sustainability Policies in a Changing World: An Independent Evaluation of World Bank Group Experience (2010).

24 World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies, supra note 17.

25 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (Tokyo, Japan)’, 2 February 2016, available at consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-template/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies/pt/meetings/final_feedback_summary_for_phase_3_consultation_with_jica_february_2_2016.pdf.

26 P. Dann and M. Riegner, ‘World Bank Group Safeguard Review: A New Gold Standard for Global Environment and Social Protection?’ (forthcoming).

27 Sinani, N., ‘World Bank Must Prioritize Genuine Citizen Engagement’, Huffington Post, 8 December 2016, available at www.huffingtonpost.com/nezir-sinani/world-bank-must-prioritiz_b_11400318.html Google Scholar.

28 World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, Independent Evaluation, supra note 23.

29 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper, supra note 3, para. 35.

30 Ibid.

31 The Terms of Reference for Indigenous Peoples outlines that the Bank held ‘pre-dialogue meetings with Indigenous Peoples to gather their input and ideas on best ways for engagement on the safeguards review’. World Bank, ‘World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies Review and Update: Regional Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples: Terms of Reference’, 2013, available at consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/safeguards_review_terms_of_reference_for_ip_regional_dialogue_2013.pdf.

32 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper, supra note 3, Ann. A, 17.

33 Ibid., para. 35.

34 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Consultation Plan’, 22 December 2012, available at: consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-template/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies/en/phases/safeguardsreview_consultationplan.pdf.

35 World Bank, Approach Paper, supra note 3.

36 World Bank ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Environmental and Social Framework (Proposed Third Draft)’, 4 August 2016, available at consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-template/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies/en/materials/board_paper_for_es_framework_third_draft_for_disclosure_august_4_2016.pdf, at 9.

37 World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies, supra note 17.

38 World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Environmental and Social Framework (Proposed Third Draft), supra note 36. However, there are only 58 submissions clearly identified as submissions and made available online.

39 Where an ‘event’ might include more than one meeting.

40 World Bank, ‘Environmental and Social Framework: Setting Standards for Sustainable Development: First Draft for Consultation’, 30 July 2014, available at consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-template/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies/en/phases/first_draft_framework_july_30_2014.pdf.

41 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies. Plan for Consultations with External Stakeholders for Phase 2 of the Policy Review and Update’, 2 August 2014, available at consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-template/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies/en/phases/safeguards_review_consultation_plan_august_2014_2.pdf, at 2.

42 Ibid., at 3.

43 World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies, supra note 17.

44 World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Environmental and Social Framework (Proposed Third Draft), supra note 36, 11.

45 Ibid.

46 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper, supra note 3, at 14.

47 See World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Environmental and Social Framework (Proposed Third Draft), supra note 36, at 11, 19, 22, 30, 36

48 Ibid., at 37.

49 Ibid., at 19.

50 McCarthy, T., ‘Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue’, (1994) 195 Ethics 44, 55 Google Scholar.

51 See Cohen, J., ‘Reflections on Habermas on Democracy’, (1999) 12 Ratio Juris 385, 399–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Habermas, supra note 15, at 352; Fraser, N., ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’, (1990) 25/26 Social Text 56, 75 Google Scholar.

53 Habermas, supra note 15, at 375; Fraser, supra note 52, at 75.

54 Fraser, N., Scales of Justice: Reimaging Political Space in a Globalizing World (2010), 64 Google Scholar.

55 Näsström, S., ‘The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle’, (2011) 59 Political Studies 166, 117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Fraser, supra note 54, at 65. See also Valentini, L., ‘No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique’, (2014) 12 Perspectives on Politics 789, 792 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Näsström, supra note 55, at 117, 123.

58 Valentini, supra note 56, at 793.

59 Wheatley, S., The Democratic Legitimacy of International Law (2010), 325 Google Scholar.

60 See Goodin, R. E., ‘Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives’, (2007) 35 Philosophy & Public Affairs 40, 51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 See Gould, C., ‘Self-Determination beyond Sovereignty: Relating Transnational Democracy to Local Authority’, (2006) 37 Journal of Social Philosophy 44, 54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Scholte, J. A., ‘Global Governance, accountability and civil society’, in Scholte, J. A. (ed.), Building Global Democracy? Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance, (2011), 8, 22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Ibid., 22.

64 Dryzek, supra note 15, at 24.

65 Wheatley, supra note 59, at 106.

66 See Fraser, supra note 52, at 62.

67 Ibid., 63.

68 Young, supra note 16, at 54–5.

69 Chambers, S., ‘Discourse and democratic practices’, in White, S. K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas (1995), 233, 239 Google Scholar.

70 Kleinlein, supra note 4, at 41, 44.

71 A. Kuper, Democracy Beyond Borders: Justice and Representation in Global Institutions (2006), 166.

72 G. Teubner, Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization (2014), 122.

73 Habermas, supra note 15, 167; Wheatley, supra note 59, at 104.

74 Habermas, supra note 15, at 166.

75 Fraser, supra note 54, at 93.

76 Young, supra note 16, at 54–5.

77 Ibid.; Phillips, supra note 16, at 143.

78 Habermas, supra note 15, at 167.

79 Wheatley, supra note 59, at 103.

80 Phillips, supra note 16, at 147.

81 Levy, R., ‘The “Elite Problem” in Deliberative Constitutionalism’, in Levyet, R. al. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism (2018), 351, 352–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 World Bank, The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework, supra note 8, at 4–5, 55.

83 Human rights violations via Bank financed projects are documented. See, for example, Heupel, M., ‘Human Rights Protection in World Bank Lending: Following the lead of the US Congress’, in Heupel, M. and Zürn, M. (eds.), Protecting the Individual from International Authority (2017), 241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 World Bank, The Environmental and Social Standards, supra note 7, at 5.

85 Valentini, supra note 56, at 793.

86 Wheatley, supra note 59, at 325.

87 For a discussion on possibility in the demos see Goodin, supra note 60.

88 World Bank ‘Preliminary Report Out on Phase 1 of the Safeguards Review Consultations (Washington, DC)’, 20 April 2013, 67.

89 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper, supra note 3, para. 35.

90 della Porta criticizes deliberative processes that focus on experts, rather than citizens; D. della Porta, Can Democracy be Saved? (2013), 174.

91 World Bank, ‘World Bank Safeguard Policies Review and Update: Summary of Phase 2 Consultations and Bank Management Responses’, 1 July 2015, 1.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid.

94 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Dakar, Senegal)’, 18 November 2014; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Brussels, Belgium)’, 10 November 2014, 1; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (Mexico City, Mexico)’, 8 December 2015, 7.

95 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Brasília, Brazil)’, 16 December 2014, 1–2; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Asunción, Paraguay)’, 25 November 2015, 2; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Manila, Philippines)’, 23 October 2014, 1; World Bank, ‘Safeguard Policies Review – Multi-Stakeholder Consultation (Washington, DC)’, 11 October 2014, 24. Though in contrast, the Bank was praised for circulating education in advance: World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Consultations – Feedback Summary (Beirut, Lebanon)’, 3 November 2014, 1.

96 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies Multi-stakeholder Consultation Meeting: Feedback Summary (Bengaluru)’, 8 April 2013, 3; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (New Delhi India)’, 5 November 2015, 1.

97 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Meeting: Feedback Summary (Bhubaneswar)’, 10 April 2013; World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Manila, Philippines), supra note 95; World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (New Delhi India), supra note 96. In contrast, in Egypt participants praised the Bank for holding the consultation in Arabic and for translating documentation: World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Consultations – Feedback Summary (Beirut, Lebanon), supra note 96, at 1.

98 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies Consultation Meeting with Civil Society Organizations, (Buenos Aires, Argentina)’, 12 March 2013, 3.

99 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Consultations – Feedback Summary (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania)’, 4 November 2014, 1.

100 World Bank, ‘Safeguard Policies Review – Consultation Meeting (Washington, DC)’, 15 November 2012.

101 World Bank, Preliminary Report Out on Phase 1 of the Safeguards Review Consultations (Washington, DC), supra note 88, at 30.

102 Ibid.

103 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Ottawa, Canada)’, 7 January 2015, 1.

104 World Bank, Preliminary Report Out on Phase 1 of the Safeguards Review Consultations (Washington, DC), supra note 88, at 69.

105 World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Phase II Feedback Summary (Asunción, Paraguay), supra note 95.

106 See also, World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Brasília, Brazil), supra note 95 (suggests that there were several civil society movements missing from consultations); World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (New Delhi India), supra note 96 (suggests people were not invited to the consultation).

107 Young, supra note 16, at 81, 108.

108 Habermas, supra note 15, at 167.

109 See text at note 92.

110 Inclusion alone is akin to transparency. See Buchanan and Keohane, supra note 5. Cf. T. D. Zweifel, International Organizations & Democracy (2006), 91–2.

111 World Bank, ‘The World Bank Review and Update of World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies Consultation Meeting with Civil Society Representatives (Guatemala City, Guatemala)’, 10 April 2013; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Kathmandu, Nepal)’, 28 November 2014; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Consultations – Feedback Summary (Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt)’, 28 October 2014, 1.

112 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Review – Consultation Meeting (Washington, DC), supra note 100; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (Abuja, Nigeria)’, 18 December 2015, 11; World Bank, Preliminary Report Out on Phase 1 of the Safeguards Review Consultations (Washington, DC), supra note 88, at 30; World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Phase II Feedback Summary (Asunción, Paraguay), supra note 95; World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Brussels, Belgium), supra note 94; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (Nairobi, Kenya)’, 2 February 2016, 1.

113 World Bank, ‘The World Bank Review and Update of World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies Consultation Meeting with Civil Society Representatives (Guatemala City, Guatemala)’, 10 April 2013; World Bank, Review and Update of the World Bank Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Brasília, Brazil), supra note 95; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Brussels, Belgium)’, supra note 94.

114 World Bank, ‘Safeguard Policies Review – Multi-Stakeholder Consultation (Washington, DC)’, supra note 95, at 33–5.

115 World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 3 Feedback Summary (Abuja, Nigeria)’, 18 December 2015, 10.

116 World Bank, Preliminary Report Out on Phase 1 of the Safeguards Review Consultations (Washington, DC), supra note 88, at 20–1.

117 World Bank, Review and Update of The World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Environmental and Social Framework (Proposed Third Draft), supra note 36, at 1.

118 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper, supra note 3, at 12.

119 World Bank, Review and Update of The World Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Environmental and Social Framework (Proposed Third Draft), supra note 36, at 23, 33.

120 Ibid., at 21.

121 Ibid., at 33.

122 Ibid., at 19.

123 Ibid.

124 Ibid.

125 World Bank, ‘World Bank National Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples in Nepal (Kathamandu)’, 20–21 March 2014, 7; World Bank, ‘World Bank Regional Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples (Guna Yala, Panama)’, 30–31 January 2014, 2; World Bank, ‘World Bank Regional Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples in Africa (Cape Town)’, 4–6 December 2013, at 4; World Bank, ‘The World Bank Review and Update of World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards Policies Dialogue Meeting with the Abya Yala Technical Committee (Latin American and the Caribbean Indigenous Network) (Washington DC, USA)’, 25–27 November, 2013, 2; World Bank, ‘World Bank Regional Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia (Manila)’, 6–7 November 2013, 2; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Manila, Philippines)’, 5–6 February 2015, 2; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Consultation with Indigenous Peoples Representatives. Draft Feedback Summary (Johannesburg, South Africa)’, 21 November 2014, 2; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies: Phase 2 Feedback Summary (Hanoi, Vietnam)’, 27 October 2014, 2; World Bank, ‘Review and Update of the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguard Policies Phase 2 Consultations – Feedback Summary (New York, USA)’, 24 September 2014, 1.

126 Wheatley, supra note 59, at 103.

127 World Bank, Safeguard Policies Proposed Review and Update: Approach Paper, supra note 3, at 12.

128 World Bank, ‘Summary of Phase 3 Consultations and Bank Management Responses’, August 2015, 8.

129 Human Rights Watch, ‘Human Rights Watch Submission: World Bank’s Draft Environmental and Social Framework’, 7 April 2015, available at www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/07/human-rights-watch-submission-world-banks-draft-environmental-and-social-framework.

130 Alston, P., ‘The World Bank as a Human Rights-Free Zone’ (2017), in Lafontaine, F. and Larocque, F. (eds.), Doing Peace the Rights Way: Essays in International Law and Relations in Honour of Louise Arbour (Forthcoming), available at ssrn.com/abstract=3079899 Google Scholar.

131 Habermas, supra note 15, at 166.

132 International Monetary Fund, ‘The IMF and the World Bank’, 20 October 2017, available at www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/07/27/15/31/IMF-World-Bank.

133 Zweifel, supra note 110, at 87. See International Development Association, ‘Articles of Agreement (effective 24 September 1960)’, available at http://www.pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/341581541440486864/IDAArticlesofAgreementEnglish.pdf, Preamble and Art. 1.

134 See J. M. M. Pereira, ‘Recycling and Expansion: An Analysis of the World Bank Agenda (1989 - 2014)’, (2016) 37 Third World Quarterly 818, 834.

135 Ibid., at 819; Hey, supra note 20, at 4.

136 T. Erkkliä and O. Piironen, ‘(De)politicizing Good Governance: The World Bank Institute, the OECD and the Politics of Governance Indicators’, (2014) 37 Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 344, 347; Sovacool, supra note 21, at 6.

137 della Porta has highlighted the ‘missing links between the consultation, deliberation, decision and monitoring phases …’ in deliberative processes; della Porta, supra note 90, at 174.

138 Habermas, supra note 15, at 166.

139 J. Steiner, The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications (2012), 139.

140 della Porta, supra note 90, at 67.

141 Heupel, supra note 83, at 261.

142 Ibid., at 261.

143 Fraser, supra note 54, at 93.

144 Wheatley, supra note 59, at 103.