One of the most striking features of international institutional law that emerges from the several cases studies collected in this issue is that enforcement authority is now vested in international institutions alongside the more familiar types of public authority almost as a matter of course. Enforcement of international law by international institutions needs to be distinguished from other closely related concepts of public authority that are in turn the subject of closer studies collected in this issues. As discussed by von Bogdandy, Dann and Goldmann, international institutions often dispose of an implementation authority which in turn is subject to a branch of international institutional law. The responsibilities and indeed the authority of international institutions do not stop at the mere implementation of their legal base. However, enforcement involves a categorically different exercise of public authority. It concerns the interaction with another subject of law. Insofar as enforcement essentially empowers an international institution to confront States it deeply interferes with the sovereign's conduct, and its very existence may seem counterintuitive.

The current contribution focuses on the oversight over international institutions, which is used as a synonym for the accountability of such entities. It departs from the principle that all entities exercising public authority have to account for the exercise thereof. The growing power of international institutions in areas that were formerly regulated domestically, along with the growing impact of their conduct on (the rights of) States and non-State actors alike, has thus far not been matched by a shift in accountability relationships beyond those applicable within the confines of the territorial State. Understandably therefore the calls for the accountability of international institutions have increased in recent years, as it is seen as essential for ensuring their credibility and for securing control over public power.

The administration of the traditional nation-state used to operate as a rather closed system to the outside world. Today, cooperation between the public authorities of different States and between States and international bodies is a common phenomenon. Yet the characteristics and mechanics of such cooperation can hardly be understood using the concepts domestic public law or public international law currently on offer. Conventional concepts, such as federalism, confederalism or State-centered “realism” hardly fathom the complexity of interactions or reflect the changed role of the State, while more recent concepts, such as multi-level systems or networks, seem to encompass only parts of the phenomena at hand. Given this void, we propose to explore the notion of “composite administration” (Verbundverwaltung) and argue that it offers a concept which can combine more coherently the seemingly diverging legal elements of cooperation and hierarchy that distinguish administrative action in what often is called a multi-level administrative system. Even though the concept of composite administration was originally designed and further developed with respect to the largely federal European administrative space, we suggest testing the concept in the wider context of international cooperation. We believe that it offers valuable insights and raises critical questions, even though we do not intend to insinuate any proto-federal prospects of the institutions discussed in this paper.

It is possible to speak of international administration only if an international entity is truly exercising functions equivalent to States. While such cases are rare, as Joseph Weiler emphasized in a different context, they do exist. One such case is the International Seabed Authority, which exercises legislative as well as executive functions concerning the international seabed (Area) and its resources. Furthermore, the legal regime on the international seabed comprises a fully elaborated system for the settlement of disputes available to public and private actors involved in the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in the Area. The functions assigned to IMO and some fisheries organizations have not quite reached this level. Nevertheless one can observe that these organizations, too, prescribe binding rules, at least de facto. However, they lack the jurisdiction to enforce such rules directly; in that respect they are relying on the enforcement of States to enforce such rules acting under different capacities such as flag States or port States. One may consider these legal regimes as belonging to a multilevel system (Mehrebenensystem) where the prescriptive and executive functions are being vested in different entities.

One does not approach a challenge with a backward view. Rather, we take on challenges by looking forward. In scholarship, taking a forward view is known as research. Law schools define themselves by their research. Scholarly work is what garners prestige from without and solidarity from within. Without a doubt, teaching itself also ranks highly, but excellent teaching begins with proper research. The connection between research and teaching is indispensable. Teaching flourishes where students are gradually introduced to the processes of research, giving them a feeling for the excitement of scholarly work. This forms the nexus between the older and younger generations of academics, continually opening and reopening their perspectives to innovation and the undiscovered. Semper apertus reads the seal of the University of Heidelberg from 1386.