Civil Society Protest and the (De)Legitimation of Global Governance Institutions

Gregoratti, Catia; Uhlin, Anders

doi:10.1093/oso/9780198826873.003.0008

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Behavioral practices of delegitimation, for their part, are intended to mobilize and signal discontent with an IO's exercise of authority and include street demonstrations, political petitions, and social media campaigns (Gregoratti and Uhlin 2018). They can also include regime shifting and competitive regime creation by states that contest the existing multilateral order (Morse and Keohane2014).Examples include the widespread public protests against the WTO, the International Monetary Fund (IMF),the World Bank, the G8,and the EU in the early 2000s, as well as the move by China in 2014 to set up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in dissatisfaction with the established financial institutions.…”

Section: Legitimation and Delegitimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While legitimacy dynamics are paramount in global governance, they have been insufficiently recognized, conceptualized, and explained in standard accounts of international cooperation. This special issue aims to advance the empirical study of legitimacy and legitimation in global governance. It engages with the question of when, how, and why international organizations (IOs) gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy in world politics. In this introduction, we first conceptualize legitimacy as the belief that an IO's authority is appropriately exercised, and legitimation and delegitimation as processes of justification and contestation intended to shape such beliefs. We then discuss sources of variation in legitimation processes and legitimacy beliefs, with a particular focus on the authority, procedures, and performances of IOs. Finally, we describe the methods used to empirically study legitimacy and legitimation, preview the articles of the special issue, and chart next steps for this research agenda.

show abstract

Section: Legitimation and Delegitimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, their willingness to take part in the Bank's consultation processes indicates an implicit acceptance of the AIIB's overall authority as legitimate even if they are very critical of specific policies and projects (cf. Gregoratti & Uhlin, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extant research has examined the self-legitimation of GGIs (e.g., Gronau, 2016;Gronau & Schmidtke, 2016) and protest against GGIs as delegitimation attempts (cf. Gregoratti & Uhlin, 2018;Haunss, 2007), but the interaction of legitimation and delegitimation has seldom been systematically analyzed (but see Anderl, Deitelhoff, & Hack, 2017). By focusing on both delegitimation and legitimation and how the two processes are related, this article intends to indicate a way toward a more dynamic analysis of (de)legitimation processes in global governance in terms of legitimacy struggles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy Struggles in Global Governance: Legitimation and Delegitimation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Uhlin

2019

Sage Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) started operation in January 2016 in the context of severe criticism from the U.S. government and transnational civil society organizations, but with the support from major Asian and European states. The establishment of this new global governance institution (GGI) raises intriguing questions concerning legitimacy and (de)legitimation. What legitimacy challenges has the AIIB as a new institution experienced and how has the Bank tried to boost its legitimacy? What specific legitimation and delegitimation practices have been applied by what actors and with what effects? Contributing to research on legitimacy in global governance, this article develops a framework for analyzing legitimacy struggles. It highlights the dynamic relations between legitimation (practices intended to boost beliefs that the rule of a political institution is exercised appropriately) and delegitimation (practices challenging the appropriateness of a political institution's exercise of authority). The framework includes a systematic study of different agents of (de)legitimation (including GGIs, states, and nonstate actors), practices of (de)legitimation (categorized as institutional and discursive), and institutional sources of (de)legitimation (related to procedure as well as performance). The case study, based on indepth qualitative content analysis of documents produced by the AIIB and other actors, demonstrates how legitimizers and delegitimizers respond to each other. Being a new GGI, legitimacy struggles on the AIIB have to a large extent focused on its institutional design referring to (the lack of) democratic procedures. Legitimizers tend to stress technocratic performance, whereas delegitimizers are more concerned with fair performance.

show abstract

“…28 Behavioural delegitimation practices, on the other hand, include street protests and social media campaigns. 29 Discursive practices of legitimation are statements in the public realm involving a positive evaluation, whereas delegitimation practices entail a negative evaluation. 30 Illustrations of the former include public expressions of praise by members of the G20 for its performance, for example in the press.…”

Section: Legitimacy and Legitimation Of International Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Club governance and legitimacy: The perspective of old and rising powers on the G7 and the G20

Brandi

2019

South African Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Club governance is among the most contested of global governance approaches. This article investigates legitimacy evaluations of two informal governance clubs from the perspective of both old powers and rising powers. It examines how legitimate the G7/G8 and the G20 are perceived to be and which (de-)legitimation criteria are used in the context of these summit regimes, assessing how legitimacy evaluations in the media vary across these two settings, across different types of actors and over time. The article shows that rising powers challenge certain aspects of the global order more than old powers. While the criteria linked to output legitimacy, such as effectiveness, tend to be more prominent than criteria on input legitimacy, such as participation, the latter seem to be more important for rising powers than for old powers. This article contributes to the various bodies of literature on club governance, the legitimacy of international institutions and the role of rising powers in global governance.

show abstract

Civil Society Protest and the (De)Legitimation of Global Governance Institutions

Cited by 31 publications

References 0 publications

The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework

The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework

Legitimacy Struggles in Global Governance: Legitimation and Delegitimation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Club governance and legitimacy: The perspective of old and rising powers on the G7 and the G20

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About