On 14 April, Harvard professor and former UN Special Representative for Business & Human Rights John Ruggie has published his long awaited report on FIFA and human rights. The report formulates a set of expectations in light of which FIFA will be evaluated in the future. Ruggie calls upon FIFA to use its leverage to improve workers’ rights in Qatar, but his analysis of the organization’s human rights risks also addresses less discussed topics like the trafficking of young players, gender equality in association football or sexual exploitation linked to the influx of tens of thousands of football fans in World Cup host cities.
For FIFA the report means a lot of work. Given the current pressures it faces, it seems unlikely that FIFA will completely ignore the Ruggie report. But taking the report seriously will require more than merely cosmetic changes. A particularly tough challenge will be Ruggie’s demand to move ‘from constitution to culture’ – a culture that has until now been linked more to bribery and corruption than to human rights.
Yet the report is also a chance for FIFA to regain some of the credibility it has lost over the past years. If, under pressure from sponsors, advocacy groups and the public, FIFA manages to turn its statutory commitment into a convincing human rights policy, to match that policy with adequate structures, resources and competences, and to make it gradually guide the activities of the organization in its commercial and sports-related activities, it could make a difference. FIFA could add a grain of reality to some of its more lofty goals – the Ruggie report takes up the slogan “For the Game, For the World” and in its CSR commitments, FIFA portrays itself as a “force for global change” – and show that it can be a leader on a topic that matters to people. The pressure on other sports associations and the International Olympic Committee to take similar steps would be strong.
This comment is based on our German op-ed in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 15 April 2016. The full Ruggie report is available here. There is also a (not overly encouraging) press statement from FIFA in response to the report.
Some days ago, I handed in my dissertation “Participation and Transparency in Intergovernmental Security Organizations. Resource and Norm Driven Opening in the IAEA and OPCW” at the University of Bremen. In the study, I show how the IAEA and OPCW have become more open to non-state participation and how they have become more transparent since their founding years. Both is remarkable given the high sovereignty costs that the organizations’ inspection activities have for their member states. Further, participation and transparency compete with strong norms of confidentiality in both organizations. In addition, I show that participation and transparency increase in a wide range of the organizations’ output. Both in their talk, decisions and actions, the IAEA and OPCW become more open.
Looking at explanations, I find that increasing participation is best explained by a resource based logic. Both organizations allow more non-state access for functional reasons, especially to gain expertise and advice for their inspections and verification activities. Increasing transparency, however, is best told as a norm based story. Rhetoric references to transparency and related changes in the organizations’ rules and action are strongest since a global norm of appropriate, transparent global governance has spread. In a short time, both the IAEA and OPCW have not only acknowledged that transparency should be an important principle for governance in their institutions, but also that new media strategies and investments in transparency towards the general public are required.
I will prepare a shorter version of the dissertation in the coming months. If you are already interested in the data I have collected on the organizational openness of the IAEA and OPCW, it is already available here: https://github.com/tobiasweise/igo_openness_iaea_opcw
Global democracy cannot work without a minimum level of global justice, Klaus Dingwerth argues in a new op-ed for HSG Focus. Rather than establishing parliamentary assemblies at the UN, the WTO or elsewhere, global democrats should therefore advocate investments in subsistence, health and education. The op-ed builds on a longer argument published in Vol. 20, No. 4 of the European Journal of International Relations.