Alongside the promise of international cooperation lies a growing concern regarding the potential overreach of international organizations (IO). Scholars and policy-makers alike wonder how transnational actors can constrain IOs and ensure they are legitimate and accountable in our system of global governance. At the heart of this dilemma is the potential abuse or misuse of institutional power; yet these crucial concerns become even more pronounced during and after emergency rule. In Emergency Powers of International Organizations: Between Normalization and Containment, Christian Kreuder-Sonnen asks how and why some IOs extend emergency powers to become quotidian rule while other IOs draw down and regulate these emergency powers. Much of what we know about IOs centers on the procedures and norms that define routine collective policy. Yet this book makes a persuasive argument that the crisis politics of IOs can delineate the conditions under which IOs expand their mandates or maintain the status quo. Kreuder-Sonnen posits that rhetorical arguments about the legitimacy of the IO’s authority are at the heart of understanding when IO emergency powers will become normalized or subject to constitution-like checks. A convincing set of six cases of emergency rule at the United Nations, European Union, and World Health Organization provide the empirical testing ground for the convincing “authority leap” argument regarding when we will see ratcheting up or rollbacks of emergency powers in IOs. It is worth underscoring that this is not a general book about how IOs operate during emergencies. Instead, it is laser focused on understanding how and when IOs expand beyond their constitutional mandate to extend emergency powers into part of the IO’s commonplace processes. Kreuder-Sonnen calls IO emergency measures that have become normalized over time “ratchet effects.” For example, immediately following 9/11, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1373 (2001), outlining that The Review of International Organizations https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09392-z

中文翻译：

---

克里斯汀·克罗德·索南（Christian Kreuder-Sonnen）。2019。国际组织的紧急权力：在规范与遏制之间。（牛津：牛津大学出版社）

除了国际合作的希望之外，对国际组织（IO）的潜在影响也日益引起关注。学者和政策制定者都想知道，跨国行为者如何限制IO，并确保它们在我们的全球治理体系中合法并负责。这种困境的核心是潜在的滥用或滥用体制权力。然而，这些紧急问题在紧急情况发生期间和之后变得更加明显。在《国际组织的紧急权力：规范化与遏制之间》中，克里斯蒂安·克罗德-索南（Christian Kreuder-Sonnen）提出了一些IO如何以及为什么扩展紧急权力以成为quotidian的规则，而其他IO则撤消并规范了这些紧急权力的问题。我们对IO的了解大部分集中在定义常规集体政策的程序和规范上。然而，这本书提出了有说服力的论点，即IO的危机政治可以描述IO扩大其任务或维持现状的条件。Kreuder-Sonnen认为，有关IO权力合法性的言辞争论是理解IO紧急权力何时将被规范化或经受类似宪法检查的核心。联合国，欧洲联盟和世界卫生组织的一组令人信服的六种紧急规则案例，为令人信服的“权威性飞跃”论证提供了实验依据，这些论证涉及我们何时将在IO中看到或削弱应急权力。值得强调的是，这不是一本关于紧急情况下IO操作的通用书籍。代替，专注于了解IO如何以及何时扩展IO超出其组织职责，以将应急权力扩展到IO司空见惯的流程中。Kreuder-Sonnen称，随着时间的流逝，已将IO应急措施规范化的“棘轮效应”。例如，紧接9/11之后，联合国安理会通过了第1373（2001）号决议，概述了《国际组织评论》 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09392-z