Legitimacy and contestation in global governance: Revisiting the folk theory of international institutions

Abstract

Whether international institutions are seen as legitimate or not is important to whether they are able to exercise authority. An institution that is seen as legitimate finds it easier to gain acquiescence with its rules and decisions and so relies less on outright coercion. From the point of view of the organization therefore legitimacy is a useful property worth cultivating, defending, and deploying. Most studies of legitimacy in International Relations take the perspective of the ruling institution. In this article turn the tables and consider global legitimacy with an eye on political controversy and opposition: how do legitimacy studies look if we begin by assuming a gap between what the people want and what rulers want? International organizations (IOs) are ubiquitous in international politics, in roles ranging from setting rules for governments and defining rights for individuals, to acting as settings for interstate negotiations, to supplying some of the discursive concepts and resources taken up by governments and activists in domestic and international society. From landmines to bankruptcy law and beyond, there is compelling evidence of the practical influence of international institutions over the conditions of life for many people (on power politics see Lipscy 2017; on markets see Block-Lieb and Halliday 2017; more widely see Halliday and Shaffer 2015). International organizations sometimes exercise political authority over their subjects and as such they deserve the same kind of attention as is given to other governing institutions in society. Questions that one might ask about a government-is it transparent? it is accountable? to what ends does it deploy its authority? what follows from its governance and for whom?-are now increasingly also asked about IOs. The essays in this collection advance these efforts by considering how legitimacy and legitimation affect IOs and how through them legitimacy shapes the broader world of international politics. The central premise of this approach is articulated by Tallberg and Zürn who say that Blegitimacy is central for international organizations (IOs) to make a difference in world politics^(Tallberg and Zürn 2019, 1). From there, the contributions here consider how legitimacy can be measured, used in practice,

The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework

“…While existing research suggests that legitimacy matters, as described in the beginning of this article, we know less about the conditions and mechanisms through which such effects come about (Sommerer and Agné 2018). This gap also ties in with Hurd's (2018) criticism of this special issue for neglecting the distributional implications of legitimacy and legitimation in global governance. When and how do higher or lower levels of legitimacy among member governments, stakeholder groups, and the general public change the ways that IOs operate and affect their surroundings?…”

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

“…If a particular audience has significant grievances concerning what the GGI does, self-legitimation practices without any real transformation are unlikely to change legitimacy beliefs (cf. Hurd, 2018). Those civil society actors who are deeply concerned about the overall activities of MDBs and believe that such GGIs contribute to sustaining a fundamentally unjust world order will not change their minds because of anything the AIIB or its supporters say.…”

China’s challenge to the global commons: compliance, contestation, and subversion in the maritime and cyber domains

“…20 In some cases, states may comply with existing rules that are not to their benefit, if they believe that such rules are legitimate. 21 Domestic factors such as courts, political regime type, and social mobilization can also increase the likelihood of compliance. 22 Contestation is a direct attempt to change the status quo governance regime by acting within existing institutional channels such as interstate negotiations or dialogs.…”