A Virtual World Government Unto Itself': Uncovering the Rational-Legal Authority of the IOC in World Politics‪.‬

The International Olympic Committee's (IOC) place in world politics is both fascinating and puzzling. On the one hand, the IOC is a fiercely nongovernmental organization (NGO), a status which it has maintained throughout its 116 year history; to this day, the Committee makes quick expulsions of National Olympic Committees (NOC) who it perceives as having been unduly influenced by respective governments and public authorities. (3) This private status and its implications for the IOC's role in world politics is exemplified by the latter statement above (made by John MacAloon) which gave voice to the exasperation the Committee felt in the face of strong criticism over the hosting of the 2008 Games in Beijing. Indeed, the IOC has neither an army, nor many of the other (coercive or non-coercive) institutions common to states and governments. On the other hand, as noted international relations scholar James Rosenau and co-author Hongying Wang have pointed out, the IOC can, at times, behave and be treated by other political actors as a world government unto itself. The Committee enjoys many of the rights and privileges traditionally reserved for public, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs; e.g. United Nations General Assembly or the International Labor Organization [ILO]) and its edicts and norms receive more deference than many such organizations. It drafts public international law, negotiates with the UN Security Council over individuals in genocidal conflict zones, and has even temporarily restrained tyrannical dictators. (4) There are many IGOs who would envy such a record. Which is it, then? Is the IOC a genuinely private association or has it crossed the threshold into the realm of legitimized, public authority? More importantly, what are the sources of its power to influence world politics, how is that power wielded, and why does it enjoy this measure of autonomy?