Breaking and Making Norms: American Revisionism and Crises of Legitimacy

Hurd, Ian

doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800184

Cited by 73 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, a powerful state might also be able to legitimate its own preferences more easily than other states. By routinely violating the original norm and offering competing interpretations, the state can make it increasingly difficult for the norm to be reaccepted, particularly if it is willing to invest its material capacity to promote the new norm (Ikenberry and Kupchan , 57; Philpott , 26; Hurd , 501; , 202). Given the powerful ‘lock‐in’ effects should the attempted norm cascade proceed to internalisation, where the norm becomes a taken‐for‐granted aspect of life outside of general political debate, Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth argued that, ‘the massive potential long‐term benefits of winning legitimacy for the new practices it favors may induce a far‐sighted hegemon to accept considerable near‐term costs and risks’ (2005, 517–518).…”

Section: Norms and Legitimacy In International Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Contesting the International Illegitimacy of Torture: The Bush Administration's Failure to Legitimate its Preferences within International Society

Keating¹

2013

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Norms and Legitimacy In International Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Contesting the International Illegitimacy of Torture: The Bush Administration's Failure to Legitimate its Preferences within International Society

Keating¹

2013

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One aim of statebuilding is to re-establish the State as the highest authority (Brinkerhoff et al, 2012;Chesterman, 2004;Paris & Sisk, 2008), and legitimacy plays a key role in this process (Franck, 1990;Hurd, 2007;Koh, 1997;Whalan, 2013).…”

Section: Institutional Legitimacy In the Post-conflict Statementioning

confidence: 99%

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy in post-conflict societies: a case study of Nepal

Fisk¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimacy refers to the perceived rightfulness of authorities, and is central to citizens' perceptions of institutions such as the government. Legitimate authority is linked to acceptance of institutions and long-term stability of societies. As such, rebuilding the legitimacy of institutions such as the government and judiciary ('institutional legitimacy') is essential for stability in post-conflict societies. In this thesis, I explore the factors that lead citizens to view their government as legitimate following the reconstruction of central government institutions after a conflict. I draw on sociological, political science, social psychological and statebuilding theories to develop and present a theoretical model of post-conflict legitimacy.The model has three key components. The first encompasses relational and instrumental antecedents of legitimacy. Relational antecedents encompass fair and neutral decision-making, as well as respectful and dignified treatment, and are referred to collectively as procedural justice. Instrumental antecedents are those which involve outcomes to citizens, and include distributive justice (fairness in outcome distribution), outcome favourability (personal gain in outcomes), and government performance (the ability of the government to function effectively and provide services to citizens). These main variables are investigated along with contingencies relating to social groups that may influence the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy, such as national identification and group power. Testing of the first model component revealed that procedural justice was by far the strongest predictor of post-conflict institutional legitimacy, and was significantly stronger than instrumental variables such as distributive justice, government performance, and outcome favourability. Further, the relationship between procedural justice and legitimacy was moderated by national identification and group power, suggesting that procedural justice operates through social identity to exert its positive effect. Moreover, the effect of procedural justice on government legitimacy was not simply due to trust and performance perceptions of local institutions, and was not diminished by the government's ability to provide essential services (as predicted by the statebuilding literature). 4Testing of the second model component revealed that two elements of local ownership-voice and local influence-weakly predicted legitimacy, with these relationships varying according to participants' position in the Nepalese caste hierarchy.Testing of the third model component revealed a significant social interaction effect, such that citizens' legitimacy beliefs are influenced by the legitimacy views of those around them. This effect persisted even when demographic, regional, and individual-level variables were controlled.This thesis concludes that procedural justice is more predictive of post-conflict institutional legitimacy than instrumental outcomes. Further, the relationship appears to operat...

show abstract

“…Uncertainty about how China might exert its influence over the direction in which global politics evolves persists with Donald Trump’s distain for global interdependence, his “America First” stance and his contention that “the world doesn’t belong to globalists, it belongs to patriots” (Trump 2017 , 2019 ). The 2017 US National Security Strategy (NSS) (White House 2017a , b , 25) articulated US frustration at China’s failure to converge on US values: “For decades, U.S. policy was rooted in the belief that support for China’s rise and for its integration into the post-war international order would liberalize China. Contrary to our hopes, China expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others” (White House 2017a , b , 25).…”

Section: Narratives Of Revisionist and Status Quo Powers And How Chinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexity in China’s current role in multilateral orders

Yang

2020

China Int Strategy Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rather than the prescribed scenario of a Thucydides Trap or a Kindleberger Trap, the global system will see a Transitional Reformation process of contestation and cooperation as power transitions from North America and Europe towards Asia and other regions. While acknowledging that power increasingly diffuses from state actors to transnational civil societies and private sectors, this article contends that, in a state-centric global system, it remains significant that US-China competition, and the wider competition, contestation and renegotiation of power relations between established and rising powers, takes place within United Nations multilateral frameworks. In addressing China's role, potential, and limits in the dynamics of renegotiation, this article identifies three layers, or subprocesses, of complexity in the current role China plays in multilateral orders in flux.

show abstract

Breaking and Making Norms: American Revisionism and Crises of Legitimacy

Cited by 73 publications

References 25 publications

Contesting the International Illegitimacy of Torture: The Bush Administration's Failure to Legitimate its Preferences within International Society

Contesting the International Illegitimacy of Torture: The Bush Administration's Failure to Legitimate its Preferences within International Society

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy in post-conflict societies: a case study of Nepal

Complexity in China’s current role in multilateral orders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About