International Crises of Legitimacy

Abstract

What is an international crisis of legitimacy? And how does one resolve such crises? This article addresses these conceptual issues, laying the theoretical foundations for the special issue as a whole. An actor or institution experiences a crisis of legitimacy, it is argued, when the level of social recognition that its identity, interests, practices, norms, or procedures are rightful declines to the point where it must either adapt (by reconstituting or recalibrating the social bases of its legitimacy, or by investing more heavily in material practices of coercion or bribery) or face disempowerment. International crises of legitimacy can be resolved only through recalibration, which necessarily involves the communicative reconciliation of the actor's or institution's social identity, interests, practices, norms, or procedures, with the normative expectations of other actors within its realm of political action.

Legitimacy Deficits of International Organizations: design, drift, and decoupling at the UN Security Council

“…3 Moreover, in line with sociological institutionalism, the model emphasizes the role of legitimacy for institutional development, and organizational responses to legitimacy deficits. 4 Theorists from international relations and international law have excelled at exploring the interrelationship of power and legitimacy as they manifest in international institutions (Clark 2005;Claude 1966;Franck 1990;Hurd 2002;Ikenberry 2001;Johnstone 2003;Reus-Smit 2007), but they have not yet utilized the analytical categories or explanatory accounts offered by institutionalist theory. This article aims to bridge these theoretical approaches while highlighting the ways in which rival institutionalisms can complement rather than compete with one another.…”

Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics

“…In line with recent constructivist work, the concept refers to the different ways in which actors demand, challenge, and justify legitimacy (Reus-Smit 2007).…”

“…As Reus-Smit (2007) observed, political actors constantly seek to justify their identities, interests, practices, or institutional designs, and in doing so they engage in the politics of legitimation. This concept is in line with constructivist scholarship that claims that a merely procedural view of legitimacy (Bäckstrand et al 2010) provides an insufficient basis for understanding citizen participation and evaluating the legitimacy of participatory action (Leino and Peltomaa 2012).…”

“…We apply the concept of the "politics of legitimation" by reconstructing how, why, and with what effects rules and principles guiding stakeholder engagement have been justified and finally adopted (Reus-Smit 2007). We focus in particular on contestation of the operative norms that regulate stakeholder engagement, because they determine membership, the assignment of tasks, and accountability (Reus-Smit 2007).…”

Untitled

“…Durch wen das geschehen soll, bleibt über das ‚wir' hinaus unklar und wird nicht weiter ausgearbeitet. Aber die Struktur der wechselseitigen Beziehung lässt sich direkt in Governance-Konzepte von Autorität, Legitimität und Demokratie übersetzen: Die Autorität innehabenden Akteure (Nudgers) verdanken die Legitimität ihrer Autorität der Anerkennung durch die von ihren Entscheidungen betroffenen Akteure (Nudgees) und unterliegen demokratisch legitimierten Regulierungsmechanismen (Reus-Smit 2007, Clark 2007, Dingwerth 2007. Wenn demokratische Regulierungsmechanismen im globalen Raum nicht verfügbar sind, greifen Governance-Theorien auf das Modell von Input-und Output-Legitimität zurück (Scharpf 2004) oder rücken mit dem Konzept privater Autorität Legitimationsmechanismen der moralischen oder technischen Expertise in den Vordergrund (Cutler, Haufler und Porter 1999, Hall und Biersteker 2002b.…”