“Battling” for Legitimacy: Analyzing Performative Contests in the Gaza Flotilla Paradigmatic Case

Abstract

How can we explain the dynamics of nonconventional struggles such as the Gaza flotilla case of May 2010? Most international relations scholars analyze international disputes using a “chess logic,” according to which the actors seek to outmaneuver their opponents on the battleground. However, an increasing number of clashes are guided by a “performance logic”: although the players interact with one another, their real targets are audiences. The present study aims to bridge this gap, proposing a phenomenological framework for analyzing this particular kind of performative contest over legitimation and delegitimation in contemporary conflicts. It expands upon the idea that current anarchical global politics increasingly lead contending actors to engage in “pure” legitimation struggles—“battles for legitimacy”—seeking to persuade international audiences that they deserve political support. After providing guidelines for the identification of these phenomena, this article presents a model for the methodical examination of their interactive dynamics based on three legitimation functions (appropriateness, consensus, empathy). This model is applied to the flotilla case by mapping the protagonists’ framing contests across “legitimation (battle)fields.” The findings of this study, which emphasize the strong interplay between normative, political, and emotional mechanisms for empowering (de)legitimation strategies, can contribute to expanding the research program concerning international legitimacy.

The populist way out: Why contemporary populist leaders seek transnational legitimation

“…To this end, legitimacy is defined herein as a structural, relational property that arises from intersubjective beliefs about the external acceptance of an actor and their actions. Legitimation , the other side of this agent–structure coin, is understood as the agency-oriented process of justification that aims to shape and boost such perceptions within a specific context and audience (Clark, 2005: 1–4; Hurd, 2007: 9–11; Tallberg and Zürn, 2019: 585–586; Wajner, 2019b). As Ian Clark (2005: 2) notes, ‘The actors within international society are engaged in endless strategies of legitimation, in order to present certain activities or actions as legitimate’.…”

“…That said, a glance at the everyday lives of populist leaders shows that they are particularly affected by struggles over legitimation, especially at critical junctures (Wajner, 2019b). This conjecture begins by paying attention to populists’ constant reference in their speeches to their own popular legitimacy over that of their opponents, and vice versa.…”

Measuring institutional overlap in global governance

“…These debates point to another potential source of institutional overlap in global governance that existing research on the topic has largely neglected. We may conceive institutional overlap as emerging and evolving as a function of the 'battles for legitimacy' (Wajner 2019), by which each overlapping institution seeks to convince stakeholders that its claim to govern a policy area is more legitimate than that of its 'rival.' Overlap may be more likely to ensue or increase, for example, when the legitimacy of an institution is low, since illegitimate institutions may find it harder to defend their turf against encroachment by other institutions (Zelli 2018: 176).…”

Environmental commitments and rhetoric over the Pandemic crisis: social media and legitimation of the AIIB, the EAEU, and the EU

“…Self-legitimation can take different forms, and we focus on self-legitimation on social media that engages both discursive and behavioral claims (for the conceptual distinction between discursive, institutional and behavioural legitimation, see Bäckstrand and Söderbaum 2018). Whereas discursive self-legitimation relies exclusively on language, either in the form of speech or written text (see Wajner 2019;Phillips, Lawrence and Hardy 2004), behavioral self-legitimation refers to an IO's actions.…”