The internationalisation of political authority elongates the chain of delegation between the citizen and elected representatives. It increases executive dominance while weakening parliamentary control. International Parliamentary Institutions (IPIs), parliamentary assemblies affiliated with international organisations, could potentially mitigate the ‘parliamentary deficit’ of global governance but are commonly criticised for their weak authority. This paper revisits this critical perspective and argues that IPIs provide access to information circumventing the privileged access of governments. Thereby, IPIs strengthen national parliaments’ capability to control the executive. This benefit explains the motivation of national MPs to attend IPIs. The study is based on novel data on the attendance of parliamentarians to the sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly from 2007 to 2015. The results speak in favour of intertwined parliamentary arenas, as attributes of national parliaments drive attendance. For one, parliaments with higher scrutiny capacity participate more in delegations to IPIs. Moreover, the composition of delegations is related to control incentives, causing a difference in attendance patterns of government and opposition parties.
CampbellRLovenduskiJ (2015) What should MPs do? Public and parliamentarians’ views compared. Parliamentary Affairs68(4): 690–708.
2.
CofeliceA (2019) Parliamentary Institutions in Regional and International Governance: Functions and Powers. London: Routledge.
3.
CostaODriCStavridisS (eds) (2013) Parliamentary Dimensions of Regionalization and Globalization: The Role of Inter-Parliamentary Institutions. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
CutlerR (2006) The OSCE’s parliamentary diplomacy in Central Asia and the South Caucasus in comparative perspective. Studia Diplomatica59(2): 79–93.
5.
De PuigLM (2004) International parliamentarism: an introduction to its history. Parliaments, Estates and Representation24(1): 13–62.
6.
DingwerthK (2014) Global democracy and the democratic minimum: why a procedural account alone is insufficient. European Journal of International Relations20(4): 1124–1147.
7.
FinkeDDannwolfT (2013) Domestic scrutiny of European Union politics: between whistle blowing and opposition control. European Journal of Political Research52(6): 715–746.
8.
FøllesdalAHixS (2006) Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: a response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies44(3): 533–562.
9.
GarritzmannJL (2017) How much power do oppositions have? Comparing the opportunity structures of parliamentary oppositions in 21 democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies23(1): 1–30.
10.
HabeggerB (2005) Parlamentarismus in der internationalen Politik: Europarat, OSZE und Interparlamentarische Union. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
11.
HabeggerB (2010) Democratic accountability of international organizations: parliamentary control within the council of Europe and the OSCE and the prospects for the United Nations. Cooperation and Conflict45(2): 186–204.
12.
HerbelA (2016) Parliamentary scrutiny of the EU’s common foreign and security policy. West European Politics40(1): 161–182.
13.
KeohaneRO (2006) Accountability in world politics. Scandinavian Political Studies29(2): 75–87.
14.
KeohaneROMacedoSMoravcsikA (2009) Democracy-enhancing multilateralism. International Organization63(1): 1–31.
15.
Koenig-ArchibugiM (2004) International governance as new raison D’État? The case of the EU common foreign and security policy. European Journal of International Relations10(2): 147–188.
16.
Kraft-KasackC (2008) Transnational parliamentary assemblies: a remedy for the democratic deficit of international governance?Western European Politics31(3): 534–557.
17.
KrajewskiM (2010) Legitimizing global economic governance through transnational parliamentarization: The parliamentary dimensions of the WTO and the World Bank. TranState Working Papers, 136. Bremen: Sfb 597 “Staatlichkeit im Wandel”, ISSN 1861-1176.
18.
LeviL (ed.) (2014) The Democratization of International Institutions: First International Democracy Report. London: Routledge.
19.
MalamudAde SousaL (2010) Regional parliaments in Europe and Latin America: between empowerment and irrelevance. In: Ribeiro HoffmannAvan der VleutenA (eds) Closing or Widening the Gap? Legitimacy and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations. Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 85–102.
20.
MalamudAStavridisS (2011) Parliaments and parliamentarians as international actors. In: ReinaldaB (ed.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors. Farnham: Ashgate, 101–115.
21.
MalangT (2019) Why national parliamentarians join international organizations. The Review of International Organizations14(3): 407–430.
22.
MarschallS (2005) Transnationale Repräsentation in parlamentarischen Versammlungen: Demokratie und Parlamentarismus jenseits des Nationalstaates. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
23.
MarschallS (2008) Transnational parliamentary assemblies and European security policy. In: PetersDWagnerWDeitelhoffN (eds) The Parliamentary Control of European Security Policy. ARENA Report No 7/08. Oslo: ARENA Centre for European Studies, 109–133.
24.
MartinS (2013) Is all politics local? The role-orientation of Irish parliamentarians towards foreign policy. Irish Political Studies28(1): 114–129.
25.
MoravcsikA (2004) Is there a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in world politics? A framework for analysis. Government and Opposition39(2): 336–363.
26.
NortonP (2008) Making sense of opposition. The Journal of Legislative Studies14(1–2): 236–250.
27.
NothelleA (2006) The OSCE parliamentary assembly – driving reform. In: Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (ed.) OSCE Yearbook 2006. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 347–373.
28.
NyeJS (2001) Globalization’s democratic deficit: how to make international institutions more accountable. Foreign Affairs80: 2–6.
29.
PorterWDColemanT (2000) International institutions, globalisation and democracy: assessing the challenges. Global Society14(3): 377–398.
30.
RaunioTWagnerW (2017) Towards parliamentarisation of foreign and security policy?West European Politics40(1): 1–19.
31.
ReinaldaB (ed.) (2011) The Ashgate Research Companion to Non-State Actors. Farnham: Ashgate.
32.
Ribeiro HoffmannAvan der VleutenA (eds) (2010) Closing or Widening the Gap?: Legitimacy and Democracy in Regional Integration Organizations. Aldershot, England and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
33.
RittbergerB (2003) The creation and empowerment of the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies41(2): 203–225.
34.
RocabertJSchimmelfennigFCrasnicL, et al. (2019) The rise of international parliamentary institutions: purpose and legitimation. The Review of International Organizations14(4): 607–631.
35.
ŠabičZ (2008) Building democratic and responsible global governance: the role of international parliamentary institutions. Parliamentary Affairs61(2): 255–271.
36.
ŠabičZ (2014) Democracy across borders: parliamentarians and international public spheres. Javnost - The Public15(3): 75–88.
37.
SenningerR (2016) Issue expansion and selective scrutiny - how opposition parties used parliamentary questions about the European Union in the national arena from 1973 to 2013. European Union Politics15(5): 1–24.
38.
ShafferGC (2003) Parliamentary oversight of WTO rule-making: the political, normative, and practical contexts. Journal of International Economic Law7(3): 629–654.
39.
SlaughterAM (2004) A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
SquarcialupiV (2000) Parliamentary diplomacy: the role of international assemblies (Document A/1685). Assembly of WEU.
41.
SteinE (2001) International integration and democracy: no love at first sight. The American Journal of International Law95(3): 489–534.
42.
TallbergJSommererTSquatritoT, et al. (2013) The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
WagnerW (2013) Who is coming? Attendance patterns in the NATO and WEU parliamentary assemblies. In: CrumBFossumJE (eds) Practices of Interparliamentary Coordination in International Politics: The European Union and Beyond. Colchester: ECPR Press, 195–211.
44.
WesselsB (2005) Roles and orientations of members of arliament in the EU context: congruence or difference? Europeanisation or not?The Journal of Legislative Studies11(3–4): 446–465.
45.
WinzenT (2012) European integration and national parliamentary oversight institutions. European Union Politics14(2): 297–323.
46.
WinzenT (2017) Constitutional Preferences and Parliamentary Reform: Explaining National Parliaments’ Adaptation to European Integration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
ZürnM (2000) Democratic governance beyond the nation-state: the EU and other international institutions. European Journal of International Relations6(2): 183–221.
48.
ZürnM (2003) Global governance in der legitimationskrise? In: OffeC (ed.) Demokratisierung der Demokratie: Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 232–256.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
