Decision-rights context
Dialogue is useful only when everyone is clear about who decides. On transboundary matters, decisions are held by states, by the institutions they create and mandate, and in some cases by subnational and local authorities. This page locates the competent decision-makers for the matters Diplomacy Nexus discusses, and states the boundary: GRF holds no decision rights over any of them.
- Publisher
- The Global Risks Forum
- Field
- Diplomacy and cooperation, Water, Climate and hazards
- Status
- Established
- Service level
- R0: information and enquiries
- STEM methods
- 4
- Canonical methods this field applies
- Topics
- 9
- Subject pages in the field
- Counterparts
- 13
- Platforms in shared fields at GCRI, GRF and GRA
- Report series
- 2
- Nexus Reports series it contributes to
The short answer.
Decision rights in Diplomacy Nexus define who decides what in diplomacy and cooperation, water, and climate and hazards: public authorities take statutory decisions, operators and institutions take operational ones, and affected communities, including Indigenous rights holders, hold rights of consent and participation. The platform brings evidence and options to those who decide and takes no decision itself.
One field, three institutions.
Fig.How GCRI, GRF and GRA share one field while the authorities decide. Design, not a record.
Field overview, in outline.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Competent decision-makers by type of matter.
| Matter | Typical holders of decision rights | Role of dialogue |
|---|---|---|
| Shared rivers and aquifers | Riparian states and the basin commissions or joint bodies they establish | Shared understanding of hydrology and needs |
| Climate and biodiversity | Parties to the relevant international agreements, through their governing bodies, and national governments | Clarifying evidence and implementation questions |
| Ocean areas and the high seas | Coastal states within their jurisdiction; parties to the law of the sea and related agreements beyond it | Comparing scientific and institutional perspectives |
| Humanitarian response | Affected states, with humanitarian organizations acting under their mandates and principles | Exchange on roles, safeguards and coordination |
| Migration and displacement | States, under national law and international obligations, with mandated international agencies | Comparative understanding of approaches |
| Technology governance | National legislators and regulators, and international standard and treaty bodies within their remits | Neutral exchange on risks and options |
Only states negotiate, sign and ratify.
| Decision | Holder |
|---|---|
| Negotiate | Delegations with full powers |
| Sign | Head of state, government or foreign minister, or authorised representative |
| Ratify | State, under its constitutional procedure |
| Implement | National authorities |
Diplomacy Nexus convenes outside these procedures.
What GRF and Diplomacy Nexus do not hold.
- No authority to negotiate, decide or commit on behalf of any state, institution or community.
- No regulatory, financing, procurement or certification role.
- No standing to settle disputes or interpret treaties.
- No authority conferred on hosts, sponsors or participants by taking part.
GRF convenes and governs programmes. It does not regulate, finance, procure or certify, it does not represent any state, and hosting or sponsorship confers no authority over findings or outcomes.
Clarity about authority protects dialogue.
Dialogue platforms can create confusion when participants or observers mistake discussion for decision. Clear statements of decision rights protect participants, who can speak openly without appearing to commit their institutions, and protect the competent authorities, whose mandates are not blurred.
Each topic page states which decisions its subject informs and who holds them. For example, shared water and energy systems notes the role of basin bodies, and humanitarian cooperation notes the mandates of humanitarian organizations. Methods for designing dialogue around mandates are set out in regional dialogue methods.
Terms used on this page.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Decision rights matrix | A table showing which body proposes, approves, executes and oversees each decision. |
| Competent authority | The body that a law or regulation designates to exercise a given power or duty, such as a supervisor, a civil protection agency or a ministry; only it can take the decisions the law assigns to it. |
| Free, prior and informed consent | The right of Indigenous peoples to give or withhold consent, without coercion, in advance and with full information, to measures that affect their lands, territories and rights, as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sets out. |
| Subsidiarity | The principle that a decision is taken at the lowest level able to take it well, with a higher level acting only where the objective cannot be achieved closer to the people concerned; the Treaty on European Union states it. |
Where this page's references lead.
The bodies and documents this page is read against. Status and editions change; each link goes to the issuing body.
Questions and answers.
Can a Diplomacy Nexus dialogue produce a binding outcome?
Why list decision-makers by type rather than by name?
What if participants want to act on a dialogue?
How do participants know what they may say?
Around Diplomacy Nexus.
Bring your expertise to this field.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.