Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Since its establishment, the African Union (AU) takes on an active role in regional security matters through different types of interventions. These interventions, however, remain undertheorized. This paper argues that African hybrid regionalism, which combines problem-solving and regime-serving logics of cooperation, shapes the AU's intervention practice in specific ways. To this end, I first theorize how the parallel presence of these logics shapes AU interventions before probing the empirical validity by studying coercive interventions undertaken by the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) between 2005 and 2021. For this purpose, I employ methods of content analysis to systematically code all publicly available meeting documents issued by the PSC. The results demonstrate that the AU strives to prevent and manage crises through interventions but does so in ways that protect or promote incumbent regimes, either by producing direct benefits for them or, when their actions contribute to the crisis, by avoiding head-on confrontations. This suggests careful balancing of the two main impetuses in African security regionalism, namely solving transnational problems and serving the interests of incumbents.

Since its establishment, the African Union (AU) takes on an active role in regional security matters through different types of interventions. These interventions, however, remain undertheorized. This paper argues that African hybrid regionalism, which combines problem-solving and regime-serving logics of cooperation, shapes the AU's intervention practice in specific ways. To this end, I first theorize how the parallel presence of these logics shapes AU interventions before probing the empirical validity by studying coercive interventions undertaken by the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) between 2005 and 2021. For this purpose, I employ methods of content analysis to systematically code all publicly available meeting documents issued by the PSC. The results demonstrate that the AU strives to prevent and manage crises through interventions but does so in ways that protect or promote incumbent regimes, either by producing direct benefits for them or, when their actions contribute to the crisis, by avoiding head-on confrontations. This suggests careful balancing of the two main impetuses in African security regionalism, namely solving transnational problems and serving the interests of incumbents.

This article introduces a new dataset on how international organizations (IOs) justify their authority. For a long time, IOs were believed to derive legitimacy from member-state consent and technocratic problem-solving capacities. Over recent decades, the growing politicization of IOs, political polarization within Western democracies, and power shifts in the international system have spurred IOs' efforts to justify their right to rule, using a variety of legitimation practices. While research on the theory and practice of IO legitimation has grown considerably over the past decade, much of this work builds on case studies of prominent global and regional IOs. As a result, we lack data suitable for systematic comparative analyses across time, IOs, and world regions. The Legitimation Strategies of Regional Organizations (LegRO) dataset aims to narrow this gap, providing data on the standards, intensity, and modes of legitimation for twenty eight regional IOs from 1980 to 2019. These variables inform theoretical and policy-relevant research on contemporary global governance by providing the first systematic overview of IOs' legitimation practices.

Abstract
This article introduces a new dataset on how international organizations (IOs) justify their authority. For a long time, IOs were believed to derive legitimacy from member-state consent and technocratic problem-solving capacities. Over recent decades, the growing politicization of IOs, political polarization within Western democracies, and power shifts in the international system have spurred IOs' efforts to justify their right to rule, using a variety of legitimation practices. While research on the theory and practice of IO legitimation has grown considerably over the past decade, much of this work builds on case studies of prominent global and regional IOs. As a result, we lack data suitable for systematic comparative analyses across time, IOs, and world regions. The Legitimation Strategies of Regional Organizations (LegRO) dataset aims to narrow this gap, providing data on the standards, intensity, and modes of legitimation for twenty eight regional IOs from 1980 to 2019. These variables inform theoretical and policy-relevant research on contemporary global governance by providing the first systematic overview of IOs' legitimation practices.

In an era of increasing political challenges to global and regional organizations, it is crucial to understand how they claim legitimacy and how successful they are in this respect. Yet, we know surprisingly little about the sources and consequences of legitimation in most regional organizations worldwide. In this project, we thus map the legitimation strategies of a sample of 28 organizations between 1980 and 2019.

Regional organizations in the sample:
Africa
- Organization of African Unity/African Union (OAU/AU)
- Central African Economic and Monetary Union (CEMAC)
- Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)
- East African Community (EAC)
- Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)
- Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD)
- Southern African Customs Union (SACU)
- Southern African Development Community (SADC)
Asia-Pacific
- Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
- Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
- Pacific Island Forum (PIF)
- South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
Americas
- Andean Pact/Andean Community (CAN)
- Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
- Common Market of the South (Mercosur)
- Organization of American States (OAS)
- Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)
- Central American Integration System (SICA)
Europe
- Council of Europe (COE)
- European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
- European Union (EU)
- Nordic Council (NordC)
Cross-Regional
- Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
- Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
- League of Arab States (LoAS)
- Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC)
- Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

The Organization of African Unity, recognised for its promotion of solidarity and sovereignty across Africa, just turned 60. Today, the African Union continues the OAU's spirit and mission. Sixty years of pan-African cooperation have been defined by tremendous challenges and underappreciated achievements - but, above all, they have demonstrated a continued appreciation for multilateralism.
Colonial legacies meant that nascent African states with often arbitrarily drawn borders and limited territorial control had the difficult task of achieving full decolonisation, ensuring inter-state peace, and integrating into the international system. Despite being dealt a bad hand, the early OAU played a crucial role in the strides made by the African community towards achieving these ends.
Over time, the need for African solutions and African agency in dealing with new developments and challenges has become undeniable. Efforts to make the OAU fit for purpose ultimately led to the establishment of the more authoritative and sophisticated AU at the turn of the new millennium. This concluded a remarkable institutional transformation and ushered in a new era of cooperation.
Today's AU is a natural ally for promoting norms and goals shared by the European Union and others, including democracy and good governance, human rights, economic development, peace and security, and environmental protection. With its inclusive membership and history of representation, a strong AU can play an important role in achieving progress and serve as Africa's voice on the world stage.
The African-European partnership is crucial for dealing with many issues of mutual concern, but should not be taken for granted. For the partnership to be sustainable and effective in the long run, it is important for policymakers in Europe to recognise their own hand in the challenges Africa faces, and to respect African agency, support African-led solutions, and to accept cooperation as equals.

Regional organisations (ROs) are key actors in global and regional governance, and their authority has increased continuously in all world regions. In the face of growing contestation and politicisation, these ROs are increasingly justifying their right to rule. In so doing, ROs invoke the norms which they claim to pursue or embody.
Our novel data shows that RO legitimation has become more diverse. This is in large part due to the growing importance of liberal and communitarian norms, such as democracy, human rights, and a common identity. Today, these norms account for more than half of all statements. However, these global trends do not apply equally tos all ROs. We also observe region-specific trends and patterns.
These legitimation patterns are reflective of the regions' normative bases and the identities which the ROs promote. They help us understand the relevance of region-specific challenges and characteristics such as culture or geography. Regions in the Global South warrant particular attention in this regard, as their distinctive features are still too often neglected.
The growing diversity of legitimacy claims is related to the increasing variety of stakeholders and audiences, processes of socialisation and diffusion, and the emergence of region-specific issues of relevance. As such, ROs today operate in a more complex and demanding environment.
A closer look at ROs' legitimacy claims helps identify normative developments in specific regions as well as in global governance more broadly. Greater awareness of a region's normative foundations and shifts increases the chances of mutually beneficial long-term cooperation based on shared values and priorities.