Degrees of legitimacy: Ensuring internal and external support in the absence of recognition

Caspersen, Nina

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.003

Cited by 52 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With this understanding revolving around the need to achieve approval among its subjects, a polity's legitimacy is ultimately rooted in a 'collective's belief in rightful rule' (Lake 2010, p. 31; emphasis added). The strategic construction of legitimacy is processual and relational (Jeffrey et al 2015, p. 179) because it does not occur binarily, as in the traditional view, but rather by attaining gradual 'degrees of legitimacy' (Caspersen 2015) in ongoing efforts.…”

Section: Framework Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is in light of this delicate political context that the framework of legitimacy enables us to make sense of the Transnistrian Order of Friendship. The quest for (both domestic and international) legitimacy has been repeatedly identified as a valuable research agenda with regards to contested polities (Pegg 1998;Caspersen 2015;Dembińska & Campana 2017). This article seeks to answer the following questions with regards to the Order of Friendship: 'What strategies do the ruling elites [in de facto states] employ in order to foster identity formation and self-legitimation … [and] how do these efforts influence the chances of attaining international awareness or even recognition?'…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transnistria’s Order of Friendship: Legitimacy Through Diplomatic Practice

Nishikawa-Pacher¹

2020

Europe-Asia Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What strategies do de facto states employ in conducting their diplomacy? This article examines Transnistria's Order of Friendship, a state award that primarily targets foreigners, by analysing the profiles of all known award recipients. The Order is found to be a political tool to enhance Transnistria's domestic and external legitimacy in the absence of recognised sovereignty. The findings confirm the literature on Transnistria's 'bandwagoning' with Russia, indicate that a patron's support must be actively sought rather than taken for granted, andsince many awardees are from jurisdictions other than the patron state Russia-point to the need to examine the foreign policy of de facto states more holistically. WHEN, IN 2012, TRANSNISTRIA ESTABLISHED THE ORDER OF FRIENDSHIP as its only state award primarily aimed at foreigners, 1 there were good reasons to doubt that the de facto state 2 still enjoyed a strong commitment from its patron state Russia. In the preceding year, Russia had backed a defeated candidate in the Transnistrian presidential election, pressuring the newly elected de facto government under the leadership of Evgenii Shevchuk to 'convince his Russian ally of the continuity of Transnistria's devotedness' (Istomin & Bolgova 2016, p. 12). The cooling of relations between Russia and Transnistria was indicated by, inter alia, the eruption of a dispute on gas prices in Transnistria, the closure of the Russian quasi-consulate in Tiraspol, and investigations regarding the son of a former Transnistrian de facto president for allegedly embezzling Russian aid (Devyatkov 2012, pp. 57-8).

show abstract

Section: Framework Legitimacymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnistria’s Order of Friendship: Legitimacy Through Diplomatic Practice

Nishikawa-Pacher¹

2020

Europe-Asia Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Untuk itu diperlukan komunikasi yang baik (Hoffman, 2009). Dukungan politik ini juga menjadi representasi dukungan pemerintah sebagai dukungan dari luar (Pinkertonet al, 2014;Caspersen, 2015) yang mampu menggalang aliansi, jaringan isu dan serta jalan bagi akses pada kekuatan yang beragam sehingga mendorong terjadinya rasa percaya (trust) antara nelayan dan pemerintah (de Vos dan van Tatenhove, 2011).…”

Section: Politisunclassified

“…Mengingat adanya otoritas legal ganda yang mempunyai klaim terhadap area ini (KAKS dan TNKS), maka sea ranching tidak boleh bersifat kompromistis terhadap salah satu dari otoritas tersebut. Karena akan berpengaruh pada legitimasi eksternal (Jentoft, 2000;Caspersen, 2015).…”

Section: Regulatifunclassified

TINJAUAN LEGITIMASI KELEMBAGAAN SEA-RANCHING DI KEPULAUAN SERIBU-JAKARTA -- Perspective on Institutional Legitimacyof Sea-ranching at Seribu Island-Jakarta

Taryono¹,

Soewardi²

2016

Sodality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main problem of shallow water fisheries is overfishing. To improve fishing capacity of overfished fisheries is potentially by ABSTRAKProblem utama perikanan perairan dangkal adalah tangkap lebih.Untuk meningkatkan produktivtas perikanan yang tangkap lebih dapat dilakukan dengan menerapkan sea ranching. Sea ranching adalah pelepasan juvenil yang dibudidayakan ke lingkungan laut tertutup dalam sistem lepas-tumbuh-panen. Dua aspek krusial penerapansea-ranching adalah tata ruang dan pengendalian akses nelayan pada sumberdaya. Implementasi sea ranchingmemerlukan kelembagaan yang mempunyai legitimasi kuat. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis isu-isu legitimasi kelembagaan sea ranching pada perairan dangkal Semak Daun di Kepulaun Seribu-Jakarta dalam pandangan teoritis baik dalam perspektif legal-substansial dan sosial politik-koginitif. Legitimasi lebih merupakan persoalan persepsi, yang diasumsikan bahwa lembaga diijinkan untuk melakukan suatu tindakan yang yang diharapkan, tepat dan benar. Lembaga pengelola sea ranching yang legitimatif membutuhkan kewenangan yang kuat untuk menyusun peraturan dan melakukan tindakan penegakannya. Untuk itu, kelembagaan sea ranching harus memenuhi alasan politis, regulatif, ilmiah, dan moralitas. Untuk melengkapinya, kelembagaan tersebut juga membutuhkan dukungan pilar-pilar kelembagaan yang mencakup perspektif regulatif, normatif dan kognitif.Hasil analisis ini dapat menjadi salah satu rujukan untuk membangun kelembagaan implementasi sea ranching di lokasi studi.Kata kunci: legitimasi kelembagaan, perairan dangkal, sea-ranching, tangkap lebih

show abstract

“…Some see such interests in the lack of open communication on the part of the intermediary countries that stems for their interest in maintaining relations with both sides (Bayramov 2016;Branch 2018). Others are trying to connect the Karabakh conflict to the lack of universally recognized criteria for the international legitimization of new states emphasizing that its only difference from other states is non-recognition (Berg et al 2018;Caspersen 2012Caspersen , 2015Iskandaryan 2019). They argue that, objectively, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan can afford to start a new large-scale war that would inevitably lead to unacceptable material losses and a breakdown in interaction with many key players (Ozan 2008;Babayev et al 2020).…”

Section: Introduction and The Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple borders of Nagorno-Karabakh

Колосов

Зотова

2020

GES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though the agreement on ceasefire between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops in Nagorno-Karabakh was concluded more than 25 years ago, there is no progress in the negotiations between the sides. The conflict is intrinsically related to the partition of territory between the areas de facto controlled by the non-recognized Republic of NagornoKarabakh, boundaries of which do not match the administrative borders of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region in the Soviet period, and Azerbaijan. This paper considers the geopolitical situation of Nagorno-Karabakh through the lenses of its cross-border interactions and bordering. This notion widely used in contemporary border studies means not only border delimitation and management, but also the constant process of change in their functions, regime, and social importance. Such change can result, for instance, from the transformation of political strategies, shifts on the international arena and bilateral relations, currency exchange rates and global market prices, as well as in the course of the everyday practice and interactions. The authors analyzed first the existing pattern of borders in the context of security. Then they characterized de-bordering and interactions between Nagorno-Karabakh and its patron state, Armenia, describing the adaptation of the Karabakhi population and economy to the lack of international recognition. The demarcation line with Azerbaijan remains one of the rare cases of a completely closed border. One of the main and potentially long-term obstacles in finding a solution is the cultivation of the «image of the enemy» on both sides of this border.

show abstract

Degrees of legitimacy: Ensuring internal and external support in the absence of recognition

Cited by 52 publications

References 27 publications

Transnistria’s Order of Friendship: Legitimacy Through Diplomatic Practice

Transnistria’s Order of Friendship: Legitimacy Through Diplomatic Practice

TINJAUAN LEGITIMASI KELEMBAGAAN SEA-RANCHING DI KEPULAUAN SERIBU-JAKARTA -- Perspective on Institutional Legitimacyof Sea-ranching at Seribu Island-Jakarta

Multiple borders of Nagorno-Karabakh

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About