Search results

This book addresses the consequences of legitimacy in global governance, in particular asking: when and how do legitimacy crises affect international organizations (IOs) and their capacity to rule. The book starts with a new conceptualization of legitimacy crisis that looks at public challenges from a variety of actors. Based on this conceptualization, it applies a mixed-methods approach to identify and examine legitimacy crises, starting with a quantitative analysis of mass media data on challenges of a sample of 32 IOs. It shows that some, but not all organizations have experienced legitimacy crises, spread over several decades from 1985 to 2020. Following this, the book presents a qualitative study to further examine legitimacy crises of two selected case studies: the WTO and the UNFCCC. Whereas earlier research assumed that legitimacy crises have negative consequences, the book introduces a theoretical framework that privileges the activation inherent in a legitimacy crisis. It holds that this activation may not only harm an IO, but could also strengthen it, in terms of its material, institutional, and decision-making capacity. The following statistical analysis shows that whether a crisis has predominantly negative or positive effects depends on a variety of factors. These include the specific audience whose challenges define a certain crisis, and several institutional properties of the targeted organization. The ensuing in-depth analysis of the WTO and the UNFCCC further reveals how legitimacy crises and both positive and negative consequences are interlinked, and that effects of crises are sometimes even visible beyond the organizational borders

This book explores processes of legitimation and delegitimation of global governance institutions (GGIs). How, why, and with what impact on audiences, are GGIs legitimated and delegitimated? The book develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying processes of (de)legitimation in global governance and provides broad comparative analyses to uncover patterns of (de)legitimation processes. It covers a diverse set of global and regional governmental and nongovernmental institutions in different policy fields. Variation across these GGIs is explained with reference to institutional setup, policy field characteristics, and broader social structures, as well as to the qualities of agents of (de)legitimation. The approach builds on a mixed-methods research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative new empirical data. Three main interlinked elements of processes of legitimation and delegitimation are at the center of the analysis: the varied practices employed by different state and non-state agents that may boost or challenge the legitimacy of global governance institutions; the normative justifications that these agents draw on when engaging in legitimation and delegitimation practices; and the different audiences that may be impacted by legitimation and delegitimation. This results in a dynamic interplay between legitimation and delegitimation in contestation over the legitimacy of GGIs

Bringing together eminent International Relations (IR) scholars from China and the West, this book examines moral realism from a range of different perspectives. Through its analyses, it verifies the robustness of moral realism in IR theory. The first section of the book is written by Chinese scholars and dedicated to debates about how moral realism relates to traditional schools of IR theory. The latter portion, provided by Western contributors, critically investigates both the universal and practical values of moral realism. Finally, Yan Xuetong concludes by responding constructively to all criticisms and further exploring the nature and characteristics of interstate leadership in moral realism.

This book offers an in-depth analysis of the concept of the direct enforcement of foreign restraint and confiscation orders, a crucial step in the process of asset recovery, including existing legal approaches and related challenges. In order to provide a balanced and informed overview, 31 jurisdictions, representing different United Nations regional groups and legal systems (civil law / common law / mixed systems), were selected as the focus of the analysis. This approach provides a meaningful picture of the situation worldwide from which generally applicable guidance could be drawn. The study suggests a series of practical steps and good practices for consideration by (1) countries exploring the possibility to introduce a direct enforcement mechanism into their domestic legal frameworks and (2) countries already in a position to directly enforce foreign confiscation orders but that are considering options to streamline processes and maximize results obtainable via direct enforcement approaches. This new StAR Initiative knowledge product is addressed to a broad range of law enforcement, justice, and asset recovery practitioners, as well as bodies involved in legislative and regulatory processes, and will be useful tool in their work