One of the fundamental contributions of the movement of Global Administrative Law is the affirmation that the latter constitutes “a battlefield, a place and an instrument of conflict in itself, resulting from the moves of different players, who coordinate through hierarchy, cooperation and/or competition”. Is this game of power without primary rules, a legal game of thrones? More specifically, is the political non-accountability of transnational governance an inevitability? Or, is it possible to impose overarching principles, such as democracy to the multi-polarity of the global arena? A possible reply could be that democracy is as an unfeasible promise under actual state of international affairs.
However, the basic argument of this paper is that this stance is normatively problematic and politically unacceptable. It is a different story to deterritorialize administrative law from its state base and quite another to disconnect it completely from its historical normative, democratic constitutional foundations. The absence of a global polity or global demos does not preclude the application of democratic principles even at the new global administrative space. Moreover, the related policy choices have important repercussions on internal administrative law and popular sovereignty, as well.