Global Governance, Legitimacy and (De)Legitimation

Bexell, Magdalena

doi:10.1080/14747731.2014.919744

Cited by 37 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While IOs have traditionally been understood in power-based or functionalist terms, a burgeoning body of scholarship has recognized the significance of legitimacy for IOs and other international institutions (Bexell 2014;Brassett and Tsingou 2011;Buchanan and Keohane 2006;Coicaud and Heiskanen 2001;Grigorescu 2015;Symons 2011;Zaum 2013b;Zürn 2004). The legitimacy of an institution consists of the degree to which its relevant public generally regards its features and behaviour as desirable, correct or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (Franck 1990, 24;Hurd 1999, 381;Reus-Smit 2007, 159;Suchman 1995, 574;Zaum 2013a, 9).…”

Section: The Legitimacy Of International Organizations In Timementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Stephen

2018

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Legitimacy Of International Organizations In Timementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Stephen

2018

Cambridge Review of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…14 De-legitimation, in contrast, denotes a process of contestation that erodes existing or claimed legitimacy. 15 As authority is not inherent in any institution, it needs to be continuously built, justified and negotiated 16 ; this creates an impetus for the institution to acquire, construct and defend its legitimacy, thus engaging in legitimacypursuing behaviour. Goddard argues that conflict resolution in polarised networks rely on 'brokers' to legitimise peace agreements because they can 'frame settlements in ways that resonate across multiple coalitions.'…”

Section: Legitimacy In Peace Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimising the Juba peace Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation: the International Criminal Court as a third-party actor?

Gissel

2017

Journal of Eastern African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the Juba peace negotiations on accountability and reconciliation. It advances a new interpretation of the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation, focusing on five justice features: National proceedings, restorative accountability, alternative sentencing, individual responsibility and forward-looking victimhood. The article argues that the nature of the agreed justice policy derives from negotiators and mediators' pursuit of international legitimation by the ICC and its compliance constituency. This argument has implications for our understanding of the role of the ICC in internationally judicialised peace processes: The need for peace agreement legitimation combined with the legitimacy requirements in such peace processes structurally constitutes the ICC as metaphorically present in the negotiation room and thus akin to a third-party actor.

show abstract

“…From this perspective, legitimacy is seen as a relational concept. It is granted or denied by an institution's audiences in a dynamic process of legitimation (Bernstein, 2011;Bernstein & Cashore, 2007;Bexell, 2014;Fransen, 2012;Glasbergen, 2013;Schouten & Glasbergen, 2011). In the words of Steven Bernstein (2011: 19): 'legitimacy results from the interaction of the community of actors affected by the regulatory institution (…) that prevail[s] in the relevant issue area'.…”

Section: Theorizing (De)legitimation and Private Governance Failurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In developing our argument about institutional failure, we draw from research on legitimacy and legitimation (Bernstein, 2011;Bernstein & Cashore, 2007;Bexell, 2014;Cashore, 2002;Fransen, 2012;Glasbergen, 2013;Schouten & Glasbergen, 2011). In particular, our approach is informed by previous efforts examining the legitimation dynamics surrounding non-state market-driven governance (NSMD) in the forestry sector (Bernstein & Cashore, 2007;Cashore, 2002;Cashore, Auld, & Newsom, 2003Cashore, Egan, Auld, & Newsom, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Institutions Fail: Legitimacy, (De)legitimation, and the Failure of Private Governance Systems

Schleifer

Bloomfield

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Global Governance Programme (GGP) is research turned into action. It provides a European setting to conduct research at the highest level and promote synergies between the worlds of research and policy-making, to generate ideas and identify creative and innovative solutions to global challenges.The GGP comprises three core dimensions: research, policy and training. Diverse global governance issues are investigated in research strands and projects coordinated by senior scholars, both from the EUI and from other internationally recognized top institutions. The policy dimension is developed throughout the programme, but is highlighted in the GGP High-Level Policy Seminars, which bring together policy-makers and academics at the highest level to discuss issues of current global importance.The Academy of Global Governance (AGG) is a unique executive training programme where theory and "real world" experience meet. Young executives, policy makers, diplomats, officials, private sector professionals and junior academics, have the opportunity to meet, share views and debate with leading academics, top-level officials, heads of international organisations and senior executives, on topical issues relating to governance. For more information:Abstract Why do institutions fail? With a focus on non-state market-driven governance, this paper explores the failures of the Flower Label Program and the Marine Aquarium Council. To date, research on private governance has tended to focus on the most robust and 'successful' cases of non-state institutionbuilding. While it makes sense to study the most developed systems, we posit that much can be learned by examining failed institutions and an analysis of these 'non-cases' is long overdue. In developing our argument about institutional failure, we draw on previous efforts examining the legitimation dynamics surrounding private forestry governance. The central argument of our framework is that processes of delegitimation can lead to institutional failure if they deprive private governance systems of key resources and competencies that they require to attain their stated goals. We show that poorly executed legitimation strategies in combination with inhospitable institutional environments are important factors causing delegitimation and ultimately institutional failure.

show abstract

Global Governance, Legitimacy and (De)Legitimation

Cited by 37 publications

References 44 publications

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

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

Legitimising the Juba peace Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation: the International Criminal Court as a third-party actor?

When Institutions Fail: Legitimacy, (De)legitimation, and the Failure of Private Governance Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About