Search results

Abstract
This article investigates how superpower rivalry affects public perceptions of international organization (IO) legitimacy in the hegemon. We argue that the representation of a superpower rival state at an IO in the form of its key decision maker's nationality can dampen the IO's perceived legitimacy within the rival power. We test this argument using a survey experiment in the United States under President Trump, where we manipulate the nationality of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judge who casts a tie-breaking vote against the United States. Our results show that when the judge is Chinese, there is a strong and robust dampening of Americans' perceptions of the ICJ's legitimacy, with no comparable effect arising when the judge is from other countries, including Russia. Replication of the experiment in the United States under President Biden offers external validity for our findings, which may have important implications for the future of the liberal international order.

As they relate to the Supreme Court, institutional legitimacy and policy legitimacy have most frequently been studied in isolation. In this article, a holistic framework is proposed and examined. The political capital hypothesis holds that the Supreme Court can introduce institutional support in its efforts to generate legitimacy for particular policies, but that the Court risks its institutional backing by advancing controversial edicts. Therefore, institutional legitimacy functions as an expendable political capital with which the Supreme Court can confer some increment of policy legitimacy. Two experiments are conducted to test this dynamic, with results providing strong support for the hypothesized process of legitimation.

Intro -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- Theoretical and structural issues -- Democracy and international governance -- Intergovernmental societies and the idea of constitutionalism -- Constitutional interpretation in international organizations -- The rationality of the use of force and the evolution of international organization -- Current issues: The changing environment of international organizations -- International organizations in a period of globalization: New (problems of ) legitimacy -- The changing image of international organizations -- International democratic culture and its sources of legitimacy: The case of collective security and peacekeeping operations i -- The legitimacy of Security Council activities under Chapter VII of the UN Charter since the end of the Cold War -- Selected contexts: International organization in transition -- The legitimacy of the World Trade Organization1 -- The process towards the new international AEnancial architecture -- Distributive justice and the World Bank: The pursuit of gender equity in the context of market reform -- Legitimacy in the real world: A case study of the developing countries, non-governmental organizations, and climate change -- Conclusion -- International organizations, the evolution of international politics, and legitimacy -- Acronyms -- Contributors -- Index.

The politics of gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- The International Criminal Court in time and space -- Representing gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- Recognising gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- Redistributing gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- Complementing gender justice through the International Criminal Court -- Legacies and legitimacy of international gender justice

"This book provides the first scholarly investigation of prosecutorial discretion in the International Criminal Court (ICC) from an interdisciplinary perspective. This work analyses the discretionary power of the ICC prosecutor and its scope. It explains that there is a tendency to overlook the necessity of distinguishing between the various usages of discretion when exercised as a power authorised by the law and effect when applying indeterminate legal thresholds. The author argues that the latter indeterminacy may give decision-makers an unwarranted opportunity to exercise a wide range of discretion, where extra-legal factors may be considered. In comparison, prosecutorial discretion allows decision-makers to consider extra-legal considerations. This book also discusses the relevance of political considerations within the decision-making process in the context of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It suggests that there need not be a conflict between the broad sense of justice as outlined in the statute and political factors in giving effect to decisions. This book will be of interest to students of international law, global governance and International Relations"--

"This examination of the jurisdiction of international courts and the admissibility of cases before them analyses jurisdictional and admissibility rules in light of the roles assumed by international courts in international life and in light of the roles that jurisdictional and admissibility rules play in promoting the effectiveness and legitimacy of international courts. The theory pursued views jurisdiction as a form of delegation of power (the power to exercise judicial power and decide the law) and regards admissibility as a framework for deciding upon the propriety of exercising such power. On the basis of this theoretical framework, the author critically evaluates the exercise of judicial discretion in the existing case law of a variety of international courts, distinguishing between the category-based case selection implicit in jurisdictional rules and the case-by-case analysis and selection implicit in rules on admissibility"--

While the International Criminal Court (icc) strives for justice for atrocity crimes throughout the world, increasingly, its legitimacy is undermined: powerful states refuse to join, African states prepare to leave, victims do not feel their needs for justice are met. This article argues that this is due to contradicting assumptions and too many objectives attached to the expectations of international criminal justice, which pull and push what the criminal trial is supposed to do in too many directions, undermining what it can do, raising too high expectations, and leading to disappointment. The article analyses the critique as rooted in a misunderstanding of what 'justice' is, what a criminal trial can do, and how inherently political international criminal justice is and only can be. It concludes with some observations on what this entails for strengthening the legitimacy of the icc by matching expectations to what it can and cannot do.

The rapid ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the orderly election of its judges and prosecutor belie the radical nature of the new institution. The Court has jurisdiction over genocide, aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—crimes of the utmost seriousness often committed by governments themselves, or with their tacit approval. The ICC has the formal authority to adjudge the actions of high state officials as criminal and to send them to jail, no matter how lofty the accused's position or undisputed the legality of those acts under domestic law. While the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR) also possess this authority, those institutions operate directly under the control of the United Nations Security Council and within narrow territorial limits. The ICC, by contrast, is largely independent of the Council and vests the power to investigate and prosecute the politically sensitive crimes within its broad territorial sweep in a single individual, its independent prosecutor.

The purpose of this research is to examine theories of diffuse support and institutional legitimacy by testing hypotheses about the interrelationships among the salience of courts, satisfaction with court outputs, and diffuse support for national high courts. Like our predecessors, we are constrained by essentially cross-sectional data; unlike them, we analyze mass attitudes toward high courts in eighteen countries. Because our sample includes many countries with newly formed high courts, our cross-sectional data support several longitudinal inferences, using the age of the judicial institution as an independent variable. We discover that the U.S. Supreme Court is not unique in the esteem in which it is held and, like other courts, it profits from a tendency of people to credit it for pleasing decisions but not to penalize it for displeasing ones. Generally, older courts more successfully link specific and diffuse support, most likely due to satisfying successive, nonoverlapping constituencies.

ABSTRACT The interdependence between governance and legitimacy of the courts is a subject that has not been much studied by scholars, especially those from the fields of public administration and organizational studies. Taking into account the importance of these topics for the functioning of these organizations, the purpose of this essay is twofold: to enrich the debate on the contribution of good governance to the legitimacy of courts, and to encourage researchers to address these themes in greater depth. To this end, the main literature on governance and legitimacy of courts is analyzed. Theoretical approaches contribute to the discussion of the functioning of courts, which are highly institutionalized organizations that depend heavily on a presumption of legitimacy. Ensuring this legitimacy has been one of the challenges for these organizations, which are required to adopt governance models that contribute to better management and performance. We argue that there are managerial and substantive implications for society, since the governance and legitimacy of courts can affect the system of justice. We put forward some propositions on the influence of judicial governance on the legitimacy of the justice system and on the perception of legitimacy of the courts. These propositions provide insights for a research agenda on these issues.