The authority of peer reviews among states in the global governance of corruption

References

• Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world: International organizations in global politics. New York: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, M. W., & Ege, J. (2016). Bureaucratic autonomy of International Organizations’ Secretariats. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 1019–1037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in Intergovernmental and Non-State Global Governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonucci, N. (2014). Article 12. Monitoring and follow-up. In M. Pieth, L. Low, & N. Bonucci (Eds.), The OECD convention on bribery: A commentary (2nd ed., pp. 534–576). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bossong, R. (2012). Peer reviews in the fight against terrorism: A hidden dimension of European security governance. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(4), 519–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busch, P.-O., & Liese, A. (2017). The Authority of International Public Administrations. In M. W. Bauer, C. Knill, & S. Eckhard (Eds.), International bureaucracy: Challenges and lessons for public administration research (pp. 97–122). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Carraro, V. (2017). The United Nations treaty bodies and universal periodic review: Advancing human rights by preventing politicization? Human Rights Quarterly, 39(4), 943–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carraro, V., & Jongen, H. (2018). Leaving the doors open or keeping them closed? The impact of transparency on the authority of peer reviews in international organizations. Global Governance, 24(4), forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Checkel, J. T. (2001). Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. International Organization, 55(3), 553–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conzelmann, T., & Jongen, H. (2014). Beyond Impact: Measuring the Authority of Peer Reviews among States. Conference paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Salamanca, 10–15 April 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin, B., & Hurd, I. (2008a). Introduction. In B. Cronin & I. Hurd (Eds.), The UN Security Council and the Politics of International Authority (pp. 3–22). London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cronin, B., & Hurd, I. (Eds.). (2008b). The UN Security Council and the Politics of International Authority. London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. C. (1999). Location ‘authority’ in the global political economy. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 59–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (Eds.). (1999). Private authority and international affairs. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Ruiter, R. (2010). EU soft law and the functioning of representative democracy: The use of methods of open co-ordination by Dutch and British Parliamentarians. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 874–890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ruiter, R. (2013). Full disclosure? The open method of coordination, Parliamentary debates and media coverage. European Union Politics, 14(1), 95–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dellmuth, L. M., & Tallberg, J. (2015). The social legitimacy of international organisations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations. Review of International Studies, 41(03), 451–475.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, J. (1981). Recent trends in UN human rights activity: Description and Polemic. International Organization, 35(04), 633–655.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, M. S. (2009). Public support for the international economic organizations: Evidence from developing countries. The Review of International Organizations, 4(2), 185–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, R. (2011). New mechanisms of the UN human rights council. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(3), 289–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grande, E., & Pauly, L. W. (2005). Complex sovereignty and the emergence of transnational authority. In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstituting political authority in the twenty-first century (pp. 285–299). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guilmette, J.-H. (2004). Peer Pressure Power: Development Cooperation and Networks - Making Use of Methods and Know-How from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the International Research Development Centre (IDRC). Retrieved from https://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/25923/1/119954.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gutterman, E. (2014). The legitimacy of transantional NGOs: Lessons from the experience of transparency international in Germany and France. Review of International Studies, 40(02), 391–418.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(01), 1–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, R. B., & Biersteker, T. J. (Eds.). (2002). The emergence of private authority in global governance (Vol. 85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, H. K. (2011). Managing corruption risks. Review of International Political Economy, 18(2), 251–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, H. K., & Salskov-Iversen, D. (Eds.). (2008). Critical perspectives on private authority in global politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Delegation and pooling in international organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 10(3), 305–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, T. (2011). Guilt by association: The link between states’ influence and the legitimacy of intergovernmental organizations. The Review of International Organizations, 6(1), 57–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, A. (2001). Treating international institutions as social environments. International Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 487–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joutsen, M., & Graycar, A. (2012). When experts and diplomats agree: Negotiating peer review of the UN convention against corruption. Global Governance, 18(4), 425–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. O. (2006). The Contingent Legitimacy of Multilateralism. GARNET Working Paper: No: 09/06.
   Google Scholar
• Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake, D. (2009). Relational authority and legitimacy in international relations. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 331–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lake, D. (2010). Rightful rules: Authority, order and the foundations of global governance. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 587–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, M. (2005). OECD environmental performance review programme: Accountability for Learning? Evaluation, 11(2), 169–188.
   Google Scholar
• López-Santana, M. (2006). The domestic implications of European soft law: Framing and transmitting change in employment policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(4), 481–499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcussen, M. (2004). The OECD as ideational artist and arbitrator: Reality or dream? In B. Reinalda & B. Verbeek (Eds.), Decision making within international organizations (pp. 90–105). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, C. (2004). The hard side of soft policy co-ordination in EMU: The impact of peer pressure on publicized opinion in the cases of Germany and Ireland. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(5), 814–831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagani, F. (2002). Peer review as a tool for cooperation and change. African Security Review, 11(4), 15–24.
   Google Scholar
• Pieth, M. (2013). From talk to action: The OECD experience. In S. Rose-Ackerman & P. Carrington (Eds.), Anti-corruption policy: Can international actors play a constructive role? (pp. 151–158). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, T., & Webb, M. (2007). The role of the OECD in the orchestration of global knowledge networks. Presented at the Canadian Political Science Association annual meetings, Saskatoon, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2008). Europeanization, policy learning, and new modes of governance. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 10(3), 239–254.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C. M. (2009). Measuring policy learning: Regulatory impact assessment in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(8), 1145–1164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose, C. (2015). International anti-corruption norms: Their creation and influence on domestic legal systems (1st ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, A. (2004). Beyond the community method: Why the open method of co-ordination was introduced to EU policy-making. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 8(13).
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, A. (2006). A new form of governance? Comparing the open method of coordination to multilateral surveillance by the IMF and the OECD. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(1), 70–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholte, J. A. (2011). Towards greater legitimacy in global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 110–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thygesen, N. (2008). Comparative aspects of peer review: OECD, IMF, and the European Union. In K. Tanaka (Ed.), Shaping policy reform and peer review in Southeast Asia: Integrating economies amid diversity (pp. 135–148). Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Voeten, E. (2008). Delegation and the Nature of Security Council Authority. In The UN security council and the politics of international authority (pp. 43–56). London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, H., & Rosenau, J. (2001). Transparency international and corruption as an issue of global governance. Global Governance, 7(1), 25–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory, 4(01), 69–106.
   Google Scholar