Acceso usuarios
A diverse set of national and international bodies is increasingly commenting upon other organizations� compliance with �global administrative law� norms, creating a complex network of interaction and review. Although many forms of interaction can be identified and observed, horizontal review between international organizations appears to be relatively rare. This article examines one instance in which review did emerge: the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's criticisms of the transparency and accountability of the World Health Organization (WHO) during the H1N1 pandemic. Two key questions arise from the case study. First, what structural or institutional features allowed inter-institutional review to take place? And, secondly, why would two institutions have such divergent views of an international organization's accountability and transparency? The analysis suggests that a key factor in allowing horizontal review to occur is diversity in institutional composition � in terms either of membership, distribution of power between members, or interests represented by members. In this case study, the Parliamentary Assembly represented the interests of states� legislative branches, whereas the WHO representatives reflect the interests of states� executive branches. Variations in baseline assumptions regarding the WHO's function in regulating infectious disease response and to whom it should be accountable may partially explain the substantive divergence of opinion.
