2. Strengthening the Implementation of International Instruments
This chapter describes the role international organisations play in supporting the implementation of their instruments. It outlines the variety of mechanisms through which international organisations can do so, primarily through the provision of assistance, advocacy initiatives, compliance procedures, and monitoring tools. A set of key principles establish how to enhance implementation through these activities. The precise selection and composition of implementation mechanisms will depend on the level of ambition and normative strength characterising the instrument used, as well as the capacity of the IO secretariat concerned. Finally, the chapter gives an overview of trends in existing implementation practices. The core challenges faced by IOs involve the decentralisation of responsibilities, and information bottlenecks that may result from this. IOs are confronting these, particularly in the context of COVID-19, by tapping into emerging technologies, innovative methods, and comprehensive implementation approaches.
For international instruments to have a concrete effect for their members and for citizens at large, they have to be implemented. Unimplemented instruments are not an efficient use of resources; they also affect the reputation of IOs individually and the credibility of the international system as a whole. However, conceptualising implementation of international instruments is particularly difficult. Broadly speaking, international instruments developed by international organisations aim to spur economic and social development in the broadest sense of the term and over a long period of time. While some have an aspirational dimension, they still need to be applied domestically to have a legal or practical effect. In practice, the ways in which this is pursued depends on each country’s constitutional and legal systems. In addition, the mostly voluntary nature of international instruments grants domestic regulatory authorities a certain degree of leeway in interpreting and adapting the international text to the domestic context.
Going beyond the particularities of the jurisdictions implementing international instruments, a broad notion of “implementation” of international instruments has two main components: i) their de jure incorporation and application in domestic legislation, and ii) their de facto use, such as in the inspection and enforcement practices or by private companies in their production process (Combacau and Sur, 2016[1]). The responsibility to implement instruments frequently falls largely or solely to those members and non-members which have adhered or committed to the instrument (OECD, 2019[2]). In some cases, end-users, whether businesses, non-governmental organisations or IO partners, apply instruments directly. However, there are a range of mechanisms through which IOs can support the wider and more effective implementation of their instruments, thereby helping their members and constituencies to better leverage the landscape of international normative instruments.
The primary objective of this section of the Compendium is to set out the mechanisms and practices through which IOs can advance the implementation of their instruments, and share experiences on their use. It is designed to provide a systematic toolkit to IOs, as well as a guide to members regarding available modes of support.
Broadly speaking, international instruments aim to improve the well-being of people worldwide by offering policy solutions in a range of different areas. And yet, to have a real impact on people’s everyday lives, they need to be made use of, applied, implemented. The implementation of international instruments should in principle generate the key benefits of international regulatory co-operation (IRC), such as inter alia: 1) greater effectiveness at a global level in cases where collective action is needed to achieve the policy and societal objectives, 2) administrative efficiency at the national level through the pooling of knowledge and expertise of the IO membership, and 3) economic efficiency by reducing the costs for businesses and citizens through standardisation of approaches, and the provision of legal predictability and greater certainty.
Implementation is thus an early step in the long causal chain that leads from IO instruments to successful problem-solving. Without effective implementation, the issue that international instruments sought to address in the first place remains unresolved. Their failed or uneven implementation risks casting doubt on the capacity of the international organisation to achieve its mandate and deliver high-quality instruments. More generally, by association, it could risk undermining the credibility of the international system and of collective action.
While the development of international instruments falls to IOs, the responsibility for their implementation is most often shared between IO secretariats and their members and constituencies (OECD, 2019[2]). Although IOs do not retain the key national and local implementation levers, they have an important responsibility in driving implementation by indirectly facilitating co-ordination among actors such as national regulators, business, or NGOs – rather than governing these actors directly. This responsibility is two-fold. On the one hand, in developing the international instruments IOs must ensure that they are sufficiently evidence-based and relevant to be fit for purpose and earn the trust of their members. On the other hand, IOs also have a key role in providing the relevant “accompanying infrastructure” to foster implementation, in terms of knowledge-sharing, guidance, advocacy, capacity building and support. Tracking the use of their instruments is also a sine qua non condition to assessing implementation challenges and improving their action over time.
With greater information on implementation, IOs can inform their rulemaking and strive for ever more relevant instruments. Indeed, with precise information on the use of international instruments, IOs can identify the improvements necessary for specific instruments and embed these lessons in revising them or in developing new ones (OECD, 2020[3]). This information can also support a more refined understanding on the uptake of instruments in different jurisdictions, sectors or policy communities. The information arising from tracking implementation also provides essential knowledge to design targeted support programmes for those constituencies struggling to implement the instrument. Ultimately, this should promote a wider uptake of IO normative instruments.
IOs have developed a variety of mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of international instruments. These mechanisms can be grouped into four categories (Figure 2.1): i) assistance mechanisms, to provide support to members in the implementation of international instruments; ii) compliance mechanisms, to verify the implementation of international instruments and support conformity; iii) advocacy mechanisms, to foster ownership by members and enhance visibility; and iv) monitoring mechanisms to track the use of International instruments. IOs can develop several of these complementary options to increase the uptake of their instruments.
The implementation phases in the life cycle of an international instrument can be characterised as follows (Figure 2.3):
1. Clarifying the process of implementation and allocating roles between IOs and members. The distribution of implementation competences between IOs and their members underscores the importance of co-ordinated action in this area.
2. Disseminating IOs instruments to members and end-users and advocating their use.
3. Providing support to members and end-users to encourage implementation.
4. Promoting compliance for both binding and non-binding instruments.
5. Monitoring implementation to track the use of IOs instruments.
6. Learning lessons arising from monitoring implementation to enhance the normative activities of the IO overall.
The selection of implementation mechanisms should be tailored to the nature of the instrument, the subject matter under consideration, and the collective issue it seeks to address. A comprehensive approach which draws upon a combination of mechanisms is central to advancing implementation. The lessons arising from the implementation of instruments should feed back into the rulemaking process.
The following factors are considered important to select the appropriate implementation mechanisms:
Level of ambition – or expected scope of change. International instruments designed to promote prosperity, social justice, people’s well-being, or protection of environment require a high level of ambition, political ownership and awareness by diverse stakeholders. In this case, the choice of the implementation mechanism will depend on the ability to involve all stakeholders up to the highest political level in order to produce “significant” and complex change of global policies. In other case, IOs instruments require “simple” technical reforms and implementation mechanisms involving stakeholders with appropriate expertise.
Normative strength – the level of binding and non-binding characteristics of International instruments. Legally binding instruments require the use of formal implementation mechanisms to supervise implementation and typically provide for remedies and dispute settlement procedures. Conversely, the implementation of non-legally binding instruments is generally accompanied by soft tools with positive incentives.
Capacity of IO Secretariat – the human resources, expertise, IT infrastructure and funding available to support implementation. For some IOs, developing implementation mechanisms may require seeking extra-budgetary funding from institutional or private donors.
Based on the processes described above, the following key principles can contribute to enhance implementation through the mechanisms identified in the typology.
Clarify the process of implementation and allocate roles between IOs and members
IOs are usually not directly in charge of implementing the instruments that they help develop, which is left to their members. However, IOs can develop the necessary mechanisms to support implementation. Implementation is therefore a shared responsibility between IOs and members. An explicit clarification of respective roles is central to encouraging similar approaches across the membership, and can be embedded either in the instruments themselves, the IO’s founding document or an implementation action plan. To be clear and explicit on the implementation process, IOs may in particular:
Provide a description of the process to follow for the instrument’s implementation (acknowledging the respective roles of IOs, members and end-users).
Map the implementation process and the related mechanisms identified in the typology that exist in the organisation.
Develop a comprehensive implementation plan, which can be based on a theory of change, explaining linkages between the process of implementation of the international instrument, the mechanisms supporting implementation and the expected outputs and outcomes.
Provide technical means for members and any other relevant actors to report actions related to the implementation of international instruments.
Disseminate and advocate
Promoting and advocating for international instruments is different from developing them, but still forms an important part of a normative process. By convincing members and end-users about the value and merit of the solutions proposed by international instruments, IO secretariats can play an important role in promoting implementation - namely as follows:
Define a dissemination plan for international instruments: outlining how (e.g. online, printed copies) and to whom (target groups) this will take place.
Plan advocacy activities and carry out follow-up to measure efficiency and impact.
Define the relevant roles in dissemination and advocacy of IO headquarters, regional offices, national contact points and IO Partners.
Develop communication strategies that directly target stakeholders and the general public, and mobilise adherents to international instruments in their disseminating/ promoting, (e.g. by providing translations, promoting the instruments on IO websites, etc.).
Support implementation through assistance mechanisms
IO secretariats play an important role in supporting their constituencies in the implementation of international instruments through various assistance mechanisms. This can take different forms, and involve supplying technical or financial assistance. To provide valuable support to their members, IO secretariats can:
Map the instruments and related assistance mechanisms available at the organisational level.
Identify the most appropriate assistance mechanisms to encourage the wider implementation of each category of instruments.
Facilitate co-ordination and information-sharing between the national bodies tasked with instrument development and implementation support in the same field.
Promote co-ordination and information sharing between different IOs when they operate in the same fields, produce similar instruments, and share (a part of) their membership (see Chapter 5).
Promote compliance, where relevant
Compliance with international instruments can occur in three distinct phases: first, by adopting national legal measures; second, by enforcing them; and third, by reporting on implementation measures. To promote compliance, IO Secretariats can consider various factors, in particular:
Compliance can be promoted and supported through the use of appropriate tools such as guidance, toolkits and checklists.
“Gap analysis” can help members understand how far they are away from full implementation and compliance.
The frequency of compliance actions and the resources employed should be proportional to the level of risk, and actions should aim at reducing the actual risks posed by non-compliance.
Monitor implementation
Monitoring implementation is a regular and ongoing process to gain information on the use of international instruments from a variety of sources and may have different objectives, namely assistance purposes, compliance assessment, advocacy or evaluation. Monitoring mechanisms depend on the availability of data and information on implementation results (for instance, on adaptation, incorporation, and changes in practice) to evaluate progress and non-compliance. This data can be gathered either directly by the IO secretariat, via regular reporting by members (i.e. information sharing between members and the IO), on the basis of adversarial procedures (i.e. one member or several members alleging non-observance of a norm by another member of the IO) or via procedures external to the IO but with information on the use of international instruments. To favour availability of data and monitor implementation effectively, IOs may in particular:
Encourage regular data-sharing across relevant entities within the IO and ensure that information about implementation is easy to look up.
As much as possible, keep track of national information sources on the use of international instruments that may complement secretariat efforts.
When relevant, make use of information collected by external sources (other IOs, civil society, academia), through a stakeholder engagement strategy (see chapters 4 and 5). In particular, it is very common that other IOs may retain critical information on the implementation of the instruments of another.
Tap into capacity building exercises to keep track of and address implementation challenges.
Develop a data management approach and a data strategy, including use of emerging technologies.
Learn lessons arising from monitoring of implementation to enhance the normative activities of the IO
Analysing the data collected through monitoring mechanisms contributes to understanding how the IOs instruments are implemented, to what degree, and for what outcomes and impact. Using monitoring results can assist IOs in advancing understanding of implementation challenges, and to evaluate the relevance and efficiency of International instruments (see Chapter 3). In addition, this contributes to the development of a virtuous cycle: providing information on the use of international instruments constitutes a positive incentive to encourage use by members which have not yet implemented them.
Use monitoring results for tailoring assistance mechanisms to identified needs.
Use monitoring results for evaluation of instruments to sustain relevance of existing norms and enhance the normative activities of the IO overall (see Chapter 3).
Encourage frequent and effective dialogue and data sharing between different entities within the IO – those with information about implementation and those responsible for rulemaking – to ensure lessons are being drawn to improve the relevance and quality of instruments.
Encourage dialogue between IOs and their members on implementation results to identify structural issues in the drafting of international instruments that could be improved (see Chapter 1).
How implementation is organised between IOs and their constituency
International instruments need to be transposed or used domestically to have practical effect. The ways in which this is pursued depends on the type of international instrument, the targeted users (national regulators, businesses, non-governmental organisations or IO partners) and the subject matter covered.
The process of implementation is often undertaken without any involvement of IOs. However, IOs may provide useful guidance or assistance to support their constituencies in the implementation of their instruments. From this perspective, most IOs consider implementation as a shared responsibility of the Secretariat and its members (23 IOs responding to 2018 IO Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]).
Some IOs provide guidance to describe the steps for their members to follow in implementing their instruments, thus facilitating the process for their members and ensuring a coherent approach to implementation across their constituency. This is most often embedded in the instruments themselves (22 IOs responding to 2018 IO Survey) (see Chapter 1). Some organisations also provide for implementation in their founding documents (15 IOs responding to 2018 IO Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]).
For certain organisations, particularly intergovernmental organisations, the implementation of international instruments involves adoption or modification of national legal frameworks (18 IOs responding to 2018 IO Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]). Depending on each country’s constitutional systems, this may require changing national legislation in line with the IO instrument (which is the case for legally binding instruments), or to provide changes in legislative frameworks to facilitate the implementation of international instruments (which is the case for voluntary instruments).
For other organisations, particularly international private standard-setting organisations, implementation means the uptake of international technical standards directly by end-users such as businesses.
Example of implementing legally binding instruments
International Labour Organisations (ILO)
Once ratified, ILO Conventions must be given effect. Most ILO Conventions are accompanied by recommendations which provide detailed guidance on their implementation. Sometimes the Convention will lay out a range of accepted implementation instruments – typically laws, collective agreements, judicial decisions or arbitration awards (e.g. C158 on Termination of Employment). Sometimes a Convention will call for a national law to be adopted through the Member State’s internal system, whether through the publication of the relevant law in the Gazette (e.g. C. 29 calls specifically for adequate criminal penalties for forced labour). Alternatively, a Convention will specifically call for the law that is not in compliance to be repealed while more generally calling for a national policy to be developed and leaving it to the Member State to decide on the role and appropriateness of any new legislation (e.g. C. 111 on the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment in Employment and Occupation).
Example of implementing international technical standards
ASTM International
ASTM standards are used by individuals, companies and other institutions around the world. Purchasers and sellers incorporate standards into contracts; scientists and engineers use them in their laboratories and offices; architects and designers use them in their plans; government agencies around the world reference them in codes, regulations and laws; and many others refer to them for guidance.
What mechanisms are most frequently used by IOs to enhance implementation
IOs are attentive to the implementation of their normative instruments and invest in related supporting mechanisms. This is most frequently done via soft tools, including assistance mechanisms and advocacy mechanisms that provide positive incentives for implementation.
IOs are most active in providing support to their members in the implementation of international instruments, via assistance mechanisms (36 respondents to 2018 Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]). This support is a natural continuation of their rulemaking role and technical expertise. The forms of assistance are manifold and require more or less significant human and financial resources, which can range from the provision of a toolbox, a public database or capacity-building activities in the countries concerned (Box 2.2).
Well-adapted assistance mechanisms can help members assess their own capacity to target improvements (e.g. IFRC OCAC), or leverage IO tools effectively in crisis situations (e.g. IEA ERE). Some organisations have an organisation-wide overview of assistance activities by theme and country, ensuring that technical assistance is well distributed across members and the IO’s instruments (e.g. WIPO).
Most IOs have specific advocacy mechanisms to actively disseminate and communicate about their instruments, fostering implementation through raising awareness and promotional activities (27 respondents to 2018 Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]). Communication strategy is an important part of these advocacy mechanisms. Some IOs invest significant efforts into their website, newsletters and social media to increase the visibility of their instruments. Certain IOs have specific departments to support these activities (e.g. ASTM; ICN; ISO) (Box 2.3).
Annual events are also used to raise visibility about lesser-known areas to the wider public (OECD, 2019[2]). Various organisations hold specific days on their main area of work, including World Metrology Day, World Accreditation day, or World Telecommunications and Information Society Day (Box 2.3).
Because of the flexible and open nature of advocacy mechanisms, they can be organised around a thematic focus rather than the strict limits of a single organisation’s mandate. They can thus be an opportunity for several IOs to co-ordinate in their advocacy efforts and jointly promote knowledge about and use of their respective instruments (Box 2.5).
The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer (CBKT) Programme (BIPM, 2016[4]) encompasses a range of activities designed to help the worldwide metrology community obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities needed to fulfil its missions and objectives. The principal aim is to increase the effectiveness with which Member States and Associates engage in the worldwide co-ordinated metrological system. Participation is open to all National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) of Member States and Associates, which can engage either as beneficiaries to learn from CBKT initiatives or contribute directly to their delivery. The CBKT Programme involves three core sets of activity, including capacity building initiatives (covering areas of vital importance to Member States), topic-based initiatives (relying on external sponsorship and focussed on specific areas), and knowledge-transfer initiatives (carried out by BIPM staff, visiting scientists from NMIs/DIs, as well as groups assembled from around the world and focussed on laboratory-based projects). These are delivered through dedicated workshops, laboratory placements, and remote-learning online training exercises.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) Emergency Response Exercise (ERE) (IEA, 1976[5]) takes place every two years, and is designed to train delegates on the IEA’s co-ordinated emergency response system in order to ensure that participants are capable of implementing the system quickly and effectively in the event of a major global oil supply disruption. The primary objective of the ERE is to familiarise participants with the IEA emergency response system as well as the key trends and risk factors impacting the global oil market, by making use of hypothetical disruption scenarios. The modern formulation of the ERE consists of two exercises with each designed to test a specific aspect of the emergency response system. The exercise in capitals (EXCAP) is conducted entirely via email and tests the communications and emergency data collection capabilities of participating countries. The Main Exercise (EXMAIN) is conducted in Paris and is designed to train delegates in key aspects of global oil market functioning and the process of implementation of an Initial Contingency Response Plan.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Organisational Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC) (IFRC, 2011[6]) for National Societies enables members to assess their own organisational capacity, performance and relevance in their country to determine opportunities for self-development. This functions to ensure that all National Societies commit and comply with a comprehensive set of organisational minimal standards, and to protect and improve the performance of the overall Federation network.
Through its Approach to Advancing Accountancy Education at the Global Level (IFAC, 2019[7]), IFAC assists professional accountancy organisations and other key stakeholders in creating future-ready professional accountants. This leverages the organisation’s comparative advantages as a facilitator, intermediary, and knowledge-sharing platform (which illustrate the added value of international organisations’ rulemaking activities in general), to equip accountants to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities. This brings together and is informed by an International Panel on Accountancy Education, representing key stakeholders and the major regions of the world and contributing advice, access and advocacy. This assistance mechanism is designed primarily to support the implementation of the International Education Standards (IES), through capacity-building, providing thought leadership, commissioning research, and advocacy of quality accountancy education. These activities culminated in the 2020 Global Summit, The Anticipatory Accountant: Global Trends Transforming Learning & Development – a virtual conference organised around three core pillars: technology, environment, and society.
The UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 2019[8]) has spearheaded a number of initiatives to build capacity among Parties and non-Party stakeholders on law and governance approaches towards implementing the provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This involves a suite of outreach efforts including side-events, workshops, e-learning modules, webinars and publications. This has resulted in consistent and topical engagement, the identification of gaps and sectoral spaces in which interventions can be effectively mobilised to support the implementation of instruments. Provisions underpinning these activities are embedded in Article 6 of the UNFCCC, Article 10(e)(b) of the Kyoto Protocol, and Article 12 of the Paris Agreement.
With the WCO Mercator Programme (WCO, 2014[9]) WCO offers technical assistance and capacity building to its members to help them implementing the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) expeditiously and in a harmonized manner by using core WCO instruments and tools. It is designed to support its Members in the implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). This programme proceeds through two tracks: First, the overall track focuses on overall requirements of Members in implementing the TFA (including development of guidance tools). This involves the development of tools to support TFA implementation under the WCO Working Group on the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFAWG), the Permanent Technical Committee and other WCO working bodies in collaboration with relevant international organisations; participation in the WTO Trade Facilitation Committee (TFC) that monitors implementation of the TFA at international level; the organisation of regional workshops and other initiatives; and regular meetings with other international organisations to update each other on the work carried out in the Members, for the purpose of avoiding duplication and identifying areas of synergy and collaboration. Second, a tailor-made track focuses on individual requirements of Members or sub-regions where Members work together on TFA implementation (primarily technical assistance and capacity building). Within this track, the WCO provides experts for technical assistance and capacity-building missions, contributes to the WTO TFA Grant Programme, collaborates with development partners and donors in designing projects for TFA implementation, and undertakes joint projects with other IOs to support the implementation of the TFA.
WIPO’s Technical Assistance for Member States (WIPO, 2020[10]) encompasses the full spectrum of IP rights and includes developing national IP strategies, providing policy and legislative advice, and offering business solutions for national IP offices to enable them to participate in the global IP system. The framework of the WIPO Development Agenda facilitates and encourages implementation in a broader sense, such as the National IP Academies which enable Member States to create their own self-sustaining IP training infrastructure. The organisation’s technical assistance webpage provides a comprehensive overview of the range of technical assistance activities by theme and country, with a roster of the consultants leading such assistance and access to relevant studies. The formal basis for the performance of this function is set out in Article 4(v) of the WIPO Convention, which grants the organisation the responsibility to carry out “legal-technical assistance in the field of intellectual property”.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on IO practice templates and 2018 IO survey.
ASTM International’s Corporate Communication Department (CCD) (ASTM International, 2005[11]) develops and implements information policies, tools and campaigns that help raise awareness of ASTM standards in the marketplace. These include newsletters and social media campaigns. Each technical committee is responsible for developing its own communication campaign aimed at attracting stakeholders and raising awareness on its standards portfolio, which it may elect to pursue with the support of the CCD.
The BIPM and OIML jointly organise World Metrology Day (BIPM/OIML, 2021[12]), an annual celebration of the signature of the Metre Convention on 20 May 1875 by the representatives of seventeen countries. Each year, World Metrology Day invites the participation of national metrology institutes and regional metrology organisations, and is used to promote the value of the work advanced by the metrology community worldwide. The theme “Measurement for Health” for World Metrology Day 2021 was chosen to draw attention to the importance of measurement to support the protection of health. It comes at a time when the experience and capabilities invested in metrology organisations around the world have been turned at short notice to address new national health challenges.
The International Competition Network (ICN)’s Advocacy Working Group (ICN, 2018[13]) aims to undertake projects, develop practical tools and guidance, and facilitate experience-sharing among ICN member agencies, in order to support members in advocating the dissemination of competition principles and to promote the development of a competition culture. This is advanced through the cultivation of a competitive environment by means of non-enforcement mechanisms, building relationships across government entities involved in the formation of competition policy, and raising public awareness with regard to the benefits of competition.
ILAC develops and maintains a suite of promotional brochures (ILAC, 2020[14]) to promote awareness and forge understanding of accreditation, and to support the implementation of its instruments. These outreach materials encompass the role of accreditation in supporting food safety and clean water, delivering energy, supporting health and social care, facilitating trade, and adding value to supply chains. The organisation also publishes documents underscoring the benefits of its core instrument, the ILAC Mutual Recognition Agreement (ILAC MRA), as well as an annual report summarising its primary activities undertaken.
The ISO Central Secretariat has a Communications Department that frequently runs campaigns to promote the use of standards on specific topics and in specific sectors. This is often to promote the release of a high-profile standard. Campaigns involve articles in the ISO magazine (ISO Focus), websites (example on services), videos, and social media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter). The materials are shared with ISO members so that they can pursue similar advocacy at the national level. In support of its standard-setting activities, the organisation has also developed a Media Kit (ISO, 2020[15]), which includes annual reports, key achievements in figures, a brief introduction to the ISO ecosystem, and a range of publications on the benefits ISO standards can provide to SMEs, the UN SDGs, trade, health, energy and innovation. The Kit also contains the ISO Code of Ethics (ISO, 2004[16]), a dedicated principles framework to guide the organisation’s activities.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on 2018 IO survey and subsequent inputs from IOs.
Different advocacy mechanisms, including outreach and visibility events but also alliances among IOs, can enhance implementation and can take place among several IOs with normative activities in similar areas.
For example, World Metrology Day is jointly organised by BIPM and OIML, World Accreditation day was established jointly by the initiative of ILAC and IAF, and each year, the members of IEC, ISO and ITU celebrate World Standards Day.
The UN Alliance of Climate Change (FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNDPI, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFCCC, UNICEF, UNITAR, UN Women, UNU-IAS, WHO, WMO) aims to promote meaningful, result-oriented and effective international co-operation in support of action on climate change education, training, public awareness, public participation and access to information. Since 2013, the UNFCCC secretariat has been organising examination of options and opportunities to enhance climate change ambition and the Global Climate Agenda through engagement with Parties and non-Party stakeholders. These activities aim at identifying best practices in climate policy action, and replicating and scaling up these practices.
Source: (UNFCCC, 2012[17]), 2018 IO Survey.
Roughly half of IOs develop compliance mechanisms to promote conformity with, and adherence to, their instruments (19 respondents to the 2018 IO Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]). Such assessments can be part of the international instrument itself (e.g. WADA’s World Anti-Doping Code) (see Chapter 1). The IO assess conformity with international instruments for different purposes: accession to the IO, multilateral recognition of conformity, and certification/accreditation procedure (Box 2.5).
More formal mechanisms such as sanctions, dispute settlement or mandatory peer reviews are less commonly used and mostly tied to legally binding instruments. These compliance mechanisms entail a more binding legal framework and likely a more developed institutional framework. In cases of non-compliance, IOs most frequently provide recommendations to the non-compliant member, and some require national action plans for ensuring implementation. Non-compliance can also be an indicator for providing assistance on implementation.
The Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/s) runs a Compliance Programme (PIC/S, 2020[18]) which encompasses both the assessment of Applicants for accession and the periodical review of existing Members. This involves a gap analysis as well as a review of the GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) inspection system against PIC/S requirements, undertaken by a dedicated assessment team under the monitoring of the PIC/S Subcommittee on Compliance (SCC). The gap analysis and review is done according to standardised procedures and tools, which include a qualitative review of the documentation and an on-site assessment visit of the country to ensure that policies and procedures, as prescribed by PIC/S, are effectively applied. Compliance is verified against 78 indicators (critical, very important and important). To be considered as equivalent, Members and Applicants must comply with all indicators. The primary objective is to ensure initial and continued compliance of potential and current Members with PIC/s requirements. This bolsters mutual trust and reliance, maximises inspectional resources and improves public health by ensuring the quality and safety of pharmaceutical products.
One of the core activities of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is to operate a Compliance Programme (WADA, 2020[19]), which monitors and aims to ensure the adherence of Signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code (the principal instrument of the organisation) and its supporting International Standards. WADA’s Signatories include International Federations (IFs), National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs), Major Event Organizations (MEOs) and National Olympic Committees (NOCs), among others. If a non-conformity with the Code is identified and not corrected throughout the process set out by the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS), WADA can assert non-compliance of the relevant Anti-Doping Organization (ADO) and impose sanctions. The ADO can dispute the assertion in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Since 2017, over 10 000 corrective actions have been identified by WADA through its compliance programme and more than 6 000 of them have been implemented by ADOs to date. In 2019, 44 compliance enforcement procedures were opened. 15 Signatories were referred to the independent Compliance Review Committee (CRC); however, in 13 cases, the issues were resolved prior to the CRC meeting.
The ILO’s Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (CAS) (ILO, 1926[20]) is a permanent tripartite (governments, workers and employers) body of the International Labour Conference and an essential component of the ILO supervisory system. Following the technical and independent examination of government reports carried out by a legal body, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the CAS procedure offers the representatives of governments, employers and workers the opportunity to undertake a joint examination of the manner in which ILO Members States comply with their obligations deriving from the ILO Conventions they have ratified. The CAS is thus responsible for determining the extent to which international labour standards are given effect at the national level and to report to the annual ILO International Labour Conference. The CAS is an institutional body with a long-standing practice, having been established in 1926 following a resolution of the International Labour Conference.
Pursuant to Legal Resolution No. 170-2006 (COMIECO-XLIX), SIECA manages the Central American Trade Dispute Settlement Mechanism (MSC) (SIECA, 2006[21]), to support a rules-based approach through a dispute settlement mechanism based on that of WTO and various FTAs. The Secretariat’s role is mainly administrative, assisting diplomatic and arbitration phases of the process. The process has an optional, diplomatic phase in addition to consultations and arbitration, where the dispute is submitted to the Council of Ministers for Economic Integration of Central America (COMIECO) (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica & Panama). This promotes a general assessment of the implementation and compliance with specific provisions of economic community law. SIECA also provides technical assistance in support of the MSC, and co-ordinates stakeholder participation.
OZONE’s Implementation Committee under the Non-Compliance Procedure for the Montreal Protocol (OZONE, 1990[22]) represents an example of a body which reviews non-compliance with the core instrument of the organisation. This occurs in particular through receiving, considering, and reporting on any submission by parties in connection with the preparation of reports on the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances, and acting on any other information received and forwarded by the Secretariat concerning compliance with the provisions of the Protocol.
The UNFCCC process comprises a Compliance Committee under the Kyoto Protocol as well as The Paris Agreement's committee to facilitate implementation and promote compliance. The Kyoto Protocol Compliance Committee is made up of two branches: a facilitative branch and an enforcement branch. The facilitative branch aims to provide advice and assistance to Parties in order to promote compliance, whereas the enforcement branch has the responsibility to determine consequences for Parties not meeting their commitments. The Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) was established under Article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Paris Agreement. Further detail was included in decision 1/CP.21 paragraphs 102 and 103. Its modalities and procedures were adopted in decision 20/CMA.1 at Katowice. Its role is to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of the Paris Agreement. It is guided by principles in Article 15 and paragraphs 1 to 4 of the annex to decision 20/CMA.1, including that it shall function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive and paying attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of Parties. The Committee is currently drafting recommendations on its rules of procedure for adoption by CMA 3 in Glasgow in 2021 (UNFCCC, 2020[23]).
Source: Author’s elaboration based on IO practice templates.
A large share of IOs also conduct monitoring of implementation (31 respondents to 2018 Survey) (Box 2.6) (OECD, 2019[2]). Thanks to the platforms IOs provide for sharing information, the direct relation with all of their members as well as the technical expertise of secretariat staff, they are well-placed to collect data, review and analyse the implementation of their instruments.
IOs collect a mix of qualitative and quantitative information on the implementation of their normative instruments, through a range of different reporting mechanisms. IO secretariats play a strong role in data collection and analysis. IOs most frequently collect qualitative information on laws and policies, as well as on relevant projects and activities. 23 respondents to the 2018 Survey of IOs also gather quantitative information, both on scientific and technical data as well as performance indicators (OECD, 2019[2]). In most cases, the information gathered is reviewed by IO secretariats. A large share of IOs also rely on external experts (20 respondents) or peer review by other members (15 respondents).
CITES has mandatory reporting mechanisms (CITES, 2020[24]) on trade in endangered species, containing a summary of information on, inter alia, the number and type of permits and certificates granted, the States with which such trade occurred, the quantities and types of specimens, and the names of species. A standing committee verifies countries which have not provided reports for three consecutive years. Based on this reporting, CITES develops Implementation Reports, which provide guidance on the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures that members can take to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention. It also outlines the distribution of responsibilities between members (submit structured information on progress in implementing the Convention) and the CITES Secretariat (collating and synthesising the information received).
The IEA conducts periodic peer reviews – known as Emergency Response Reviews (ERRs) (IEA, 1979[25]) – of all member countries to assess the readiness of each country to respond to an emergency. The ERRs assess each country’s emergency response frameworks for oil, natural gas and electricity as well as their emergency data-reporting capabilities. ERRs are now carried out in conjunction with the IEA’s In-Depth Reviews (IDRs), which are peer reviews focussing more broadly on assessing each IEA member’s energy policies. Review teams for the ERRs include not only IEA Secretariat staff but also representatives from other IEA member countries. Following the reviews, the IEA Secretariat prepares reports containing the assessment and recommendations based on the reviews, and presents the report to the IEA’s Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ). The country under review is called upon by the SEQ to accept the recommendations from the review, and each review includes an assessment of the steps taken by the country to address the recommendations of the previous review. Unlike the IDR reports, an ERR report is not made public.
The ILO Supervision Mechanism facilitates the monitoring of the implementation of its instruments in member states and identifies areas where they could be better applied. These offer an example of IO practice where information by a third party body is used for implementation monitoring purposes. Comments by national and international organisations of employers and workers on the application of ratified Conventions are taken into account by regular ILO supervisory bodies. The supervision process comprises legal assessment, tripartite (members, employers, workers) scrutiny and, where appropriate, direct contact with and technical support to Member States on the basis that optimal implementation will be achieved through a combination of dialogue, encouragement, advice and assistance.
IOSCO carries out implementation monitoring reviews, in the form of Thematic Reviews (IOSCO, 2019[26]), which are intended primarily to provide a stimulus to members who have not applied guidance to take steps toward this end. This is achieved by enhancing understanding of the significance of any identified differences in approach and measures which may be developed to work with those differences, identifying examples of best (or good) practice in implementing the IOSCO Principles and Standards to assist other IOSCO members in implementation, and targeting areas in which IOSCO Principles and Standards may warrant revision or where further IOSCO work would be necessary.
The OECD peer review process (OECD, 2020[27]) in relation to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Anti-Bribery Convention), functions to monitor and promote the full implementation of this Convention. This mandate is carried out within the framework of a dedicated Working Group on Bribery, and embedded in Article 12 of the Convention. The peer reviews proceed in four distinct phases. First, the adequacy of a country’s legal framework to combat bribery and implement the Convention is evaluated. The second phase assesses whether the country is applying the legislation in practice. Third, the evaluation focusses on enforcement, cross-cutting issues, and unimplemented recommendations from Phase 2. Finally, Phase 4 foregrounds enforcement and cross-cutting issues tailored to specific country needs, and unimplemented recommendations from Phase 3. Each evaluation results in a published report with recommendations to the evaluated country for improvement. A follow-up process after each evaluation assesses the country’s implementation the Working Group’s recommendations. The peer review process has led Parties to enact legislation for implementing the Convention, and to increase their enforcement of such legislation.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on IO practice templates and 2018 IO survey.
Implementation challenges faced by IOs
IOs generally have ambitious governance goals but moderate governance capacity, which influences their role in encouraging implementation. In particular, IGOs are charged with broad and ambitious objectives such as containing the use of violence, supporting human and animal health, facilitating free trade, advancing economic development, fighting organised crime, promoting human rights, improving labour standards, defending biodiversity and providing relief after natural disasters and armed conflicts. Yet their ability to pursue these goals is subject to restrictive treaty mandates, close member state oversight and limited financial and administrative resources. In sum, IGOs often lack the capabilities to perform the roles they have been nominally allocated (Abbott et al., 2015[28]).
The capacity of IO secretariat, in terms of human resources, expertise, IT infrastructure, and funding has an impact on the choice and the development of implementation mechanisms. For some IOs, developing implementation mechanisms may require seeking extra-budgetary funding from institutional or private donors. IOs must be inventive by pursuing effective actions which minimise risk (see Chapter 4).
IOs also face difficulties in collecting information on implementation, especially for non-binding instruments. When IOs manage to collect such information, it requires IO secretariats to invest resources in “cleaning”, standardising and gathering the information into comparable datasets.
In addition, it is not easy to use information on implementation by defining an appropriate methodology. Using this information on implementation effectively to improve the relevance of International instruments and identify areas of improvement requires a holistic vision and significant strategic planning, which in turn require human, IT and financial resources. As a result, a common disconnect remains between the information collected and the rulemaking process in itself (see Chapter 1).
The wealth of information about implementation is not systematically made publicly available, which does not give full visibility to the use made of international instruments. Half of survey respondents report making information about information available online (2018 IO Survey) (OECD, 2019[2]).
How innovative practices and new technologies can support implementation
The large amounts of qualitative data that IOs collect are often under-utilised, often seen merely as individual qualitative texts and reports rather than tools to contribute to broader strategic objectives. However, these texts about implementation and other IO activities often contain a wealth of information and detail that could be made accessible with text-mining and machine-learning methods. The use of big data analytics and machine learning could therefore be further explored by IOs.
Some IOs have adopted a comprehensive approach to improve implementation. This involves outlining successive steps and constitutive elements to gather information about implementation, making this information available, analysing this information and using it to feed back into the rulemaking process (OECD, 2020[3]).
Comprehensive, virtual databases on implementation can help to make the information on implementation more effective and usable. This can support members to identify other members’ levels of implementation and to share experiences across the IO constituency, or IO secretariats to observe overall trends on implementation and draw important lessons from this for their rulemaking activities.
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, a number of IOs reacted by adapting or delivering dedicated instruments to facilitate their implementation by members (OECD, 2020[29]). For instance, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) took normative action to adjust the implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code to current sanitary requirements, while the World Customs Organisation (WCO) and World Health Organization (WHO) developed specific guidance materials to support the smooth flow of priority medicines and other essential products across borders. Similarly, the International Accrediation Forum (IAF) established a COVID-19 Task Force for the development and publication of Frequently Asked Questions to help accreditation bodies continuously operate in the context of COVID-19 and avoid contradictions with relevant international instruments. The OECD has worked on highlighting the relevance of its legal instruments for the COVID-19 Response and Recovery by providing specific references on its publically-available Compendium of OECD Legal Instruments (OECD, 2020[30]), as well as developing ongoing thematic notes on policy responses for tackling the COVID-19 pandemic (OECD, 2021[31]). The Secretariat for the Economic Integration of Central America (SIECA) developed a set of Biosafety Guidelines (SIECA, 2020[32]) for the Central American Land Transport Sector. The Guidelines contain a biosafety protocol and establish co-ordinated procedures among participating countries to avoid the spread of COVID-19 and guarantee the fluidity of trade at land border posts (SIECA, 2020[32]).
Going forward, it will be key to evaluate the effectiveness of IO responses to the crisis, identify changes and innovations that may stay in place after the crisis, revise instruments as needed and draw lessons for upcoming crises. As an example, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), is already planning an “after-action-review” of the incident recording system.
The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Observatory, currently in the process of elaboration, is envisaged to provide a continuous and systematic mechanism of observation and analysis of Members’ practices in implementing OIE international standards, through the development of a data-driven approach across the organisation. It intends to build on, tie together, and benefit from the combined strengths of various information collection mechanisms that already exist within and outside the OIE. The information collected and analysed by the OIE Observatory would aim to contribute to improved understanding on OIE standards are implemented, key global trends, and common challenges faced by OIE Members. To this effect, it is envisaged that the OIE Observatory will produce analytical reports that is expected to allow the OIE to :
Tailor capacity building activities on identified needs and by sharing practices (peer learning);
Enhance the OIE standard setting-process through evidence-based assessment of the use of OIE standards;
Improve accessibility and visibility of data for use by both OIE Members and other stakeholders.
Taken together, the OIE Observatory is intended to bring out the interlinked, mutually-complementary, and internally-varied nature of the mechanisms mobilised by IOs to support implementation. The core emphasis of the project is in monitoring. The leveraging of several monitoring approaches through this Observatory, and their deployment for several interlinked purposes capitalises on their respective benefits, while minimising the challenges associated with a more one-dimensional focus.
Source: (OECD, 2020[3]), Author’s elaboration from IO practice templates.
The IUCN Resolutions and Recommendations Database (IUCN, 2020[33]) accompanies the catalogue of instruments with a series of progress reports, which outline those members and non-members who have adopted each instrument, a brief overview of the actions undertaken to facilitate its implementation, its concrete results and achievements, outstanding challenges and obstacles in implementing the instrument, and proposed reforms to address these. This is paralleled by Activity Reports, whereby individual adherents provide an account of their implementation efforts.
The UNCITRAL Secretariat’s CLOUT Database (UNCITRAL, 2020[34]) has the central objective of facilitating the interpretation and application of UNCITRAL texts, by enabling judges and arbitrators to consider the international origin of the law and the need to promote uniformity in its application, and access to judicial precedents from the various jurisdictions that have adhered to or implemented an UNCITRAL text is a useful tool. This encompasses 1857 cases from 71 jurisdictions, to date. A network of National Correspondents are tasked with researching national case law and preparing abstracts for publication on CLOUT. In addition, a CLOUT Steering Committee establishes and maintains partnerships with relevant stakeholders to promote awareness and use of UNCITRAL texts. A dedicated User Guide facilitates the effective implementation of the CLOUT Database itself, by setting out the scope and purpose of the information system, establishing the structure of abstracts and submissions, outlining a common terminology underpinning the database, and providing a checklist for drafting documents for inclusion within it.
WTO Trade Policy Reviews (TPRs) (WTO, 2020[35]) include a detailed report written independently by the Trade Policy Review Division, a technical body within the WTO Secretariat. An online database collates these in a chronological list, and is searchable by country, code number, full text, or document date. The selection of publications within the database include the TPRs issued by the WTO Secretariat, policy statements by the government of the member under review, minutes of the meeting in which the TPR has been presented, questions and answers by other WTO members present, and press releases for each TPR.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on IO practice templates, 2018 IO survey.
The OIML Legal Metrology e-Learning Platform provides an accessible, comprehensive and interactive way of understanding the implementation of many common legal metrology activities. Through online courses, training materials, and background information on previous workshops and events, the organisation seeks to advance understanding with regard to metrology concepts and terminology; its role for trade, health, medicine and environmental protection; the regulatory infrastructure surrounding legal metrology in Europe and other regions; and the OIML Certification System. The Platform was developed by the Intra-Africa Metrology System (AFRIMETS), the CARICOM Regional Organisation for Standards and Quality (CROSQ) and the International Organisation of Legal Metrology (OIML) and facilitated by the ACP-EU TBT Programme. It was funded by the European Union at the request of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific Group of States (ACP Group). This pooling of resources and expertise provides a practical illustration of how IOs can work together with their members to transfer knowledge, advance implementation, and strengthen collaboration.
Source: (OIML, 2020[36]).
References
[28] Abbott, K. et al. (2015), International organizations as orchestrators, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139979696.
[11] ASTM International (2005), Corporate Communications Department, https://www.astm.org/SNEWS/AUGUST_2005/schindler_aug05.html.
[4] BIPM (2016), Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer (CBKT) Programme, https://www.bipm.org/en/cbkt/.
[12] BIPM/OIML (2021), World Metrology Day, http://www.worldmetrologyday.org/.
[24] CITES (2020), Reporting Requirements - Annual Report, https://cites.org/eng/imp/reporting_requirements/annual_report.
[1] Combacau, J. and S. Sur (2016), Droit international public, LGDJ-Lextenso, https://www.lgdj.fr/droit-international-public-9782275045092.html (accessed on 12 September 2018).
[13] ICN (2018), Advocacy Working Group, https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/advocacy/.
[25] IEA (1979), Emergency Response Reviews (ERRs), https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-supply-security-the-emergency-response-of-iea-countries-2014.
[5] IEA (1976), Emergency Response Exercises, https://www.iea.org/areas-of-work/ensuring-energy-security/emergency-response-exercises.
[7] IFAC (2019), Approach to Advancing Accountancy Education at the Global Level, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vfOlORv6hQ&ab_channel=InternationalFederationofAccountants%28IFAC%29.
[6] IFRC (2011), Organisational Capacity Assessment and Certification (OCAC), https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/05/Overview-of-Key-Assessment-Tools.pdf.
[14] ILAC (2020), ILAC Promotional Brochures, https://ilac.org/publications-and-resources/ilac-promotional-brochures/.
[20] ILO (1926), Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference, https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/applying-and-promoting-international-labour-standards/conference-committee-on-the-application-of-standards/lang--en/index.htm.
[26] IOSCO (2019), Thematic Review on Suitability Requirements with respect to the Distribution of Complex Financial Products, https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD638.pdf.
[15] ISO (2020), ISO Media Kit, https://www.iso.org/media-kit.html.
[16] ISO (2004), ISO Code of Ethics, https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/codeethics_2004-en.pdf.
[33] IUCN (2020), IUCN Resolutions and Recommendations Database, https://portals.iucn.org/library/resrec/search?field_resrec_all_codes_value=&field_resrec_all_titles_value=&field_resrec_type_value=rec&field_resrec_status_value=1&sort_by=title&sort_order=ASC.
[31] OECD (2021), OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/policy-responses (accessed on 25 March 2021).
[27] OECD (2020), Country Monitoring of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, https://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/countrymonitoringoftheoecdanti-briberyconvention.htm.
[29] OECD (2020), International organisations in the context of COVID-19: adapting rulemaking for timely, evidence-based and effective international solutions in a global crisis, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/Summary-Regulatory-management-Covid-19.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2020).
[30] OECD (2020), OECD Compendium of Legal Instruments, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/ (accessed on 21 October 2020).
[3] OECD (2020), OECD Study on the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Observatory: Strengthening the Implementation of International Standards, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c88edbcd-en.
[2] OECD (2019), The Contribution of International Organisations to a Rule-Based International System: Key Results from the Partnership of International Organisations for Effective Rulemaking, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/IO-Rule-Based%20System.pdf.
[36] OIML (2020), Legal Metrology e-Learning Platform, https://www.oiml.org/en/structure/ceems/e-learning-platform.
[22] OZONE (1990), Montreal Protocol Annex III: Non-Compliance Procedure, https://ozone.unep.org/meetings/second-meeting-parties-montreal-protocol/decisions/annex-iii-non-compliance-procedure.
[18] PIC/S (2020), PIC/S Compliance Programme, https://picscheme.org/en/activites-compliance.
[32] SIECA (2020), Biosafety Guidelines, https://www.sieca.int/index.php/lineamientos-bioseguridad-sector-transporte-terrestre-ca/.
[21] SIECA (2006), Central American Trade Dispute Settlement Mechanism, https://www.sieca.int/index.php/economic-integration/economic-integration/dispute-settlement/?lang=en.
[34] UNCITRAL (2020), Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts (CLOUT) Database, https://www.uncitral.org/clout/.
[23] UNFCCC (2020), Compliance Committee, https://unfccc.int/Compliance-Committee-CC.
[8] UNFCCC (2019), Capacity Building on Climate Law and Governance, http://www.climatelawgovernance.org/.
[17] UNFCCC (2012), UN Alliance on Climate Change, https://unfccc.int/topics/education-and-outreach/focal-points-and-partnerships/un-alliance-on-climate-change-education--training-and-public-awareness.
[19] WADA (2020), Code Compliance, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/code-compliance.
[9] WCO (2014), WCO Mercator Programme: A Strategic Initiative to Support Trade Facilitation, http://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/wto-atf/mercator-programme/councilwco-mercator-programme.pdf?la=en.
[10] WIPO (2020), Technical Assistance for Member States, https://www.wipo.int/cooperation/en/technical_assistance/.
[35] WTO (2020), Trade Policy Reviews - List of Reviews, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm.