InternationalOrganizationsunderPressure: LegitimatingGlobalGovernanceinChallenging Times2ndEditionKlausDingwerth
https://ebookmass.com/product/international-organizationsunder-pressure-legitimating-global-governance-inchallenging-times-2nd-edition-klaus-dingwerth/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
International Business 3rd Edition Klaus Meyer
https://ebookmass.com/product/international-business-3rd-editionklaus-meyer/
ebookmass.com
Foundations of American Education: Becoming Effective Teachers in Challenging Times 17th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/foundations-of-american-educationbecoming-effective-teachers-in-challenging-times-17th-edition-ebookpdf/
ebookmass.com
Conflicts in Curriculum Theory: Challenging Hegemonic Epistemologies, 2nd 2nd Edition João M. Paraskeva
https://ebookmass.com/product/conflicts-in-curriculum-theorychallenging-hegemonic-epistemologies-2nd-2nd-edition-joao-m-paraskeva/ ebookmass.com
Magic Awakens (The Evermores Chronicles Book 8) Martha
Carr & Michael Anderle
https://ebookmass.com/product/magic-awakens-the-evermores-chroniclesbook-8-martha-carr-michael-anderle/
ebookmass.com
Even You Can Learn Statistics and Analytics: An Easy to Understand Guide 4th Edition David Levine
https://ebookmass.com/product/even-you-can-learn-statistics-andanalytics-an-easy-to-understand-guide-4th-edition-david-levine/
ebookmass.com
The Man Who Wrote the Perfect Novel: John Williams, Stoner, and the Writing Life Charles J. Shields
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-man-who-wrote-the-perfect-noveljohn-williams-stoner-and-the-writing-life-charles-j-shields/
ebookmass.com
Manual of Structural Kinesiology, 22nd Edition R .T. Floyd
https://ebookmass.com/product/manual-of-structural-kinesiology-22ndedition-r-t-floyd/
ebookmass.com
Islam And Security In The West 1st Edition Edition Stefano Bonino
https://ebookmass.com/product/islam-and-security-in-the-west-1stedition-edition-stefano-bonino/
ebookmass.com
University Education, Controversy and Democratic Citizenship Nuraan Davids
https://ebookmass.com/product/university-education-controversy-anddemocratic-citizenship-nuraan-davids/
ebookmass.com
Climate https://ebookmass.com/product/climate-change-and-soilinteractions-1st-edition-majeti-narasimha-vara-prasad-editor/
ebookmass.com
INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS UNDERPRESSURE International Organizationsunder Pressure KLAUSDINGWERTH,ANTONIAWITT, INALEHMANN,ELLENREICHEL, ANDTOBIASWEISE GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©KlausDingwerth,AntoniaWitt,InaLehmann,EllenReichel&Tobias Weise2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2019 Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018957735
ISBN978–0–19–883789–3
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements Inthisbook,wedocumenthowthelistofnormativeexpectationsthat internationalorganizationsconfronthasbecomelongerandmoreheterogeneousovertime.Today,internationalorganizationsarenotonlyexpectedto servetheirmemberstates,butalsoadvancetheinterestsoftheindividualsand communitiesinthesestates.Inaddition,internationalorganizationsarenot onlyevaluatedbasedonwhattheyaccomplish,butalsobasedonthewaysin whichtheyorganizetheirworkandmanagethemselves.Takentogether,the combinedriseof ‘people-based’ andof ‘procedural’ legitimacystandards,we argue,makesthelegitimationofinternationalorganizationsmorechallenging, notablybecausetraditionalnormsremaininplacewhilenewnormsareadded tothemenu.
Whilewehavecontributedinvariousconstellationstothechaptersthat follow,ourstudyisbestseenasamonograph.Theresearchwepresentisbased onatrulycollaborativeeffortfromtheverybeginning,andallofushave contributedconcepts,ideas,andargumentsthatgowellbeyondtheindividual authorshipofsinglechapters.Intheyearswehaveworkedonthisbook, moreover,numerouspeoplehavecontributedinthebackground.Itisthereforetimeforustosayafewwordsofthanks.Intermsofinstitutions,wethank theDeutscheForschungsgemeinschaftfortakingourprojectunderthewings ofitsEmmyNoetherProgramme.WeareparticularlygratefultoKatja Fleischer,HeideHorstmann,DrEckardtKämper,andPetraTierlingfor theirgenerousadviceandforthepatiencetheyshowedindealingwiththe complexitiesofwhateventuallybecameatransboundaryresearchproject.
Next,weowemuchtothetrulywonderfulInstituteforInterculturaland InternationalStudies(InIIS)anditshostinstitution,theUniversityofBremen. Theyprovidedanintellectualhomeforourresearchduringthe firstyears.At InIIS,weareparticularlygratefultoPeterMayer,PatriziaNanz,LotharProbst, andBernhardZanglwhohelpedwiththeinitialgrantproposal,provided adviceandfriendshipthroughouttheyears,andconvincedusthattheInIIS wastherightplaceforus.Moreover,weowespecialthankstoTinaMenge, VickyMay,andPeterArnholdwhohelpedwiththeprojectadministration,as didBrittaWulfandherteamfortheUniversityofBremen.Finally,wecanno longerthankthelateStephanLeibfriedinpersonbuthe,too,helpedbringour projecttoBremen.
Since2014,theUniversityofStGallen’sDepartmentforPoliticalScience hasprovidedanewandnolesssupportivehomebaseforourresearch.We thankourcolleaguesthere,inparticularDanieleCaramaniandJamesDavis
whosupportedourprojectintheirfunctionsasheadofthedepartmentfrom dayone.Inaddition,thetransitiontoStGallenwouldhavebeenimpossible withouttheadministrativeknow-howandassistanceMartinaFlockerzi,CorneliaKappeler,andThomasRempflerprovided.Finally,theGlobalPublic PolicyInstituteinBerlinservedasanacademicbasisforKlaus’ workin summer2014,andtheGoetheUniversityFrankfurtandPeaceResearch InstituteFrankfurthavebecomenewhomesforAntoniaWittsince2014. Since2016,InaLehmann’sworkonthisbookhasgreatlybenefitedfromthe supportiveworkingconditionsattheUniversityofEastAnglia’sSchoolof InternationalDevelopmentandtheUniversityofBremen’sartecSustainabilityResearchCenter.
Beyondinstitutionalsupport,ourworkbenefitedfromtheexcellentworkof severalgenerationsofstudentassistants.TheyincludeFelixAnderl,Marret Bischewski,BenjaminBrast,CarolinCarella,IgorFayler,SebastianGomez, NicoleGonyea,NeleKortendiek,MalteLellmann,EliasLingnau,Jishuo Ma,AnneReiff,HelgeStaff,andJonasWodarz thankyouall!
Moreover,wearehighlygratefultothestaffmembersandstakeholdersof theorganizationsweexamineinthisbook.Whethertheysharedinformation ortheirviewsandexperiencesininterviews,orpointedustospecificissues andsourcesthatwemayotherwisehavemissed,theirhelpwascentralin preparingthecasestudieswepresentinthisbook.Withouttheinsightsthus provided,thisbookwouldnothavebeenpossible.
Overtheyears,wewereabletodiscuss firstdraftsofourworkatworkshops organizedattheGlobalPublicPolicyInstituteinBerlinandtheEnvironmentalPolicyDepartmentattheVrijeUniverseitAmsterdam,andtopresent preliminary findingsatinvitedlecturesattheEuropeanUniversityInstitute, theUniversityofFreiburg,andtheUniversityofPortsmouth weremain indebtedtoall fiveinstitutions.Ontheseaswellasonnumerousother occasions,colleagueshavegenerouslyandcriticallycommentedonthework thathasgoneintothisbook.Theirscrutinyhashelpedusimproveour researchinimportantways.WeparticularlythankThorstenBenner,Steven Bernstein,MagdalenaBexell,DominikaBiegoń,FrankBiermann,Andrea Binder,MartinBinder,MalteBrosig,MladaBukovansky,TonyChafer,EugéniadaConceição-Heldt,ChristopherDaase,JamesDavis,MatthewEagletonPierce,SophieEisentraut,OrfeoFioretos,UlrichFranke,KatharinaGlaab, CatiaGregoratti,AlexGrigorescu,JenniferGronau,TineHanrieder,Monika Heupel,GiselaHirschmann,AnnaHolzscheiter,TobiasLenz,AndreaLiese, PeterMayer,AysemMert,DarrelMoellendorf,AlettaMondré,PatriziaNanz, MartinNonhoff,FrankNullmeier,HenkOverbeek,DianaPanke,Philipp Pattberg,JürgenRüland,FrankSchimmelfennig,KlausSchlichte,Henning Schmidtke,SteffenSchneider,AndreaSchneiker,JanAartScholte,Dieter Senghaas,ThomasSommerer,FredSöderbaum,JensSteffek,MichaelStrange,
JonasTallberg,AndersUhlin,Lora-AnneViola,ClaraWeinhardt,Oscar Widerberg,BernhardZangl,DominikZaum,FariborzZelli,andMichaelZürn.
AtOxfordUniversityPress,moreover,DominicByattdeservesspecial thanksforhiseffortstobringourbooktothepublicationstage.Moreover, weareindebtedtoMargaretKarnsaswellasthreeanonymousreviewersfor thetremendouseffortandintellectualrigortheyshowedinreviewingour initialmanuscript.Theircommitmentandgenerosityinengagingwiththe detailsofalongtextweretrulyexceptional,andwehavetriedourbesttodo justicetotheireffortsinourownrevisionsofthemanuscript.Atthe final stage,DanielIszakhelpedwithlanguageediting,forwhichhe,too,deserves ourthoroughgratitude.KlausDingwerthalsothanksRoutledgeforthepermissiontoreusepartsofhisbookchapter ‘Democracy’ (publishedin The LanguageofWorldTradePolitics:UnpackingtheTermsofTrade,editedby KlausDingwerthandClaraWeinhardt,Routledge,2019,pp.80–96;©2019 selectionandeditorialmatter,KlausDingwerthandClaraWeinhardt;individualchapters,thecontributors,andreproducedwithpermissionofthe LicensorthroughPLSClear)inthesection ‘TheDohaDeadlockandthe LongLegacyofSeattle’ ofChapter3.
Andthen,ofcourse,weallremainindebtedtotheindividualswhomattered inverydifferentways.Ontheonehand,therearethosecolleagueswho early oninourcareersaswellaslater,inonewayoranother,andveryoften unconsciously inspiredusandgavemeaningtothebroaderprojectwecall ‘thesocialsciencesandhumanities’.Ontheotherhand,wecouldnothave writtenthisbookwithoutthesteadyandreliablesupportourfamiliesand closefriendsprovidedinthisendeavourasinsomanyothers.Thankyou!
Contents ListofFigures xi
ListofTables xiii
ListofAcronyms xv
1.InternationalOrganizationsunderPressure:Introduction1 KlausDingwerth,AntoniaWitt,InaLehmann,EllenReichel, andTobiasWeise
2.LegitimationContests:ATheoreticalFramework29 KlausDingwerthandAntoniaWitt
3.FromtheGATTGospeltoDemocraticGlobalGovernance: LegitimatingtheGATTandtheWorldTradeOrganization62 KlausDingwerth
4.BetweentheShadowofHistoryandthe ‘UnionofPeople’ : LegitimatingtheOrganisationofAfricanUnityandthe AfricanUnion98 AntoniaWitt
5.TheInvoluntaryWatchdog:LegitimatingtheInternational AtomicEnergyAgency130 TobiasWeise
6.FromNoah’sArkto ‘Nature+’:LegitimatingtheInternational UnionforConservationofNature161 InaLehmann
7.NavigatingbetweenRefugeeProtectionandStateSovereignty: LegitimatingtheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforRefugees195 EllenReichel
8.LegitimatingGlobalGovernanceinaPost-NationalWorld: Conclusions232 KlausDingwerth
Appendix:OverviewofOrganizationalMeetingsAttended andInterviewsConductedforThisStudy 267 References 269 Index 309
ListofFigures 2.1.Thebubblesmodel:internationalorganizations,normative environment,andworldpoliticalcontexts40
6.1.ShareofnationalIUCNmembersfromdifferentworldregions (totalnumberofnationalmembers:1970:254;1990:663;2010:1138)186
2.1.Legitimationprinciples:categoriesusedintheliterature43
2.2.MeanPolityIVscoresfororganizationalmembers50
2.3.Expectedgeneraleffectsofmacro-trendsonlegitimationcontests56
8.1.Normativechangeinthelegitimationofinternationalorganizations234
ListofAcronyms ASEANAssociationofSoutheastAsianNations
AUAfricanUnion
BBPBusinessandBiodiversityProgramme
CBDConventiononBiologicalDiversity
CIDOAfricanCitizens’ Directorate
CSOCivilsocietyorganization
CTECommitteeonTradeandEnvironment
DDADohaDevelopmentAgenda
ECOSOCUnitedNationsEconomicandSocialCouncil
ECOSOCCAfricanUnionEconomic,SocialandCulturalCouncil
EUEuropeanUnion
ExComExecutivecommittee
GATTGeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade
GEFGlobalEnvironmentFacility
HCR(LeagueofNations’)HighCommissionerforRefugees
IAEAInternationalAtomicEnergyAgency
ICCInternationalCriminalCourt
ICFTUInternationalConfederationofFreeTradeUnions
IDPInternallydisplacedperson
ILOInternationalLabourOrganization
IMFInternationalMonetaryFund
IOMInternationalOrganizationforMigration
IPBESIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformforBiodiversityand EcosystemServices
IPEPInternationalPanelofEminentPersonalities
IRInternationalRelations
ITOInternationalTradeOrganization
IUCNInternationalUnionforConservationofNature
IUPNInternationalUnionforProtectionofNature
MFNMost-favourednation
MSRPManagementSystemsRenewalProject
NGONon-governmentalorganization
NIEONewInternationalEconomicOrder
NPTTreatyontheNon-ProliferationofNuclearWeapons
OAUOrganisationofAfricanUnity
OCHAUnitedNationsOfficefortheCoordinationofHumanitarianAffairs
OPECOrganizationofthePetroleumExportingCountries
OSCEOrganizationforSecurityandCo-operationinEurope
PAPPan-AfricanParliament
PoWPAProgrammeofWorkonProtectedAreas
PSCAfricanUnionPeaceandSecurityCouncil
SCOShanghaiCooperationOrganization
TEEBTheEconomicsofEcosystemsandBiodiversity
TILCEPAThemeonIndigenousandLocalCommunities,EquityandProtected Areas
TMIThreeMileIsland
UKUnitedKingdom
UNUnitedNations
UNCTADUnitedNationsConferenceonTradeandDevelopment
UNDPUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme
UNDRIPUnitedNationsDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples
UNEPUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme
UNFCCCUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange
UNHCR(Officeofthe)UnitedNationsHighCommissionerforRefugees
USUnitedStates
USDUnitedStatesdollar
WCCWorldConservationCongress
WCEDWorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment
WCSWorldConservationStrategy
WHOWorldHealthOrganization
WTOWorldTradeOrganization
WWFWorldWideFundforNature
1 InternationalOrganizationsunderPressure Introduction KlausDingwerth,AntoniaWitt,InaLehmann, EllenReichel,andTobiasWeise
OneproblemoftheWorldBankisthatitiscalledabank.
RobertB.Zoellick
INTERNATIONALORGANIZATIONS UNDERPRESSURE TheMarch/April2012issueofthe ForeignAffairs magazinemarksasobering pointinthehistoryofinternationalorganizations.Inacontributiontothe issue,outgoingWorldBankpresidentRobertZoellick(2012)elaborates ‘Why westillneedtheWorldBank’.Thetitlesuggestsadeep-seatedcrisis. That we stillneedacoreinstitutionofthepost-warinternationalorder,heseemsto acknowledge,isnolongertakenforgranted. Why weneeditrequiresan explanation,aconvincingargument,afoundationinthenorms,values,and beliefsonwhosesupporttheBankdepends.Yet,whiletheproposalsforhow toturntheBankintoanorganizationmoredeservingofoursupportare manifold,theyoftenpointintodifferentdirections.So,whichpathshouldthe Banktake?
Forscholarsofglobalgovernance,theepisodeiscentralinatleasttwoways. First,ourintroductoryquotehintsthatthepathstheWorldBankmaychoose areinfactlimited.Likeanyorganization,theBankcannotsimplypressthe resetbuttonandreinventitself.Instead,itisconstrainedbytheidentityit hasacquiredupuntiltoday.Thatidentityisneitherunderthefullcontrolof theorganizationitself,norcanitbechangedquickly.WhenZoellickseeksto defend ‘whywestillneedtheWorldBank’,hethusnotestheproblemof ‘beingcalledaBank’;butatthesametime,hespeaksofmemberstatesas
‘ clients’ andisquicktodrawfurthercorporateanalogieshimself(seeMoretti andPestre2015).
Second,theWorldBankisnottheonlyinternationalorganizationthathas comeunderpressure.Others,too,arechallengedforwhattheydoandhow theyoperate,orfeelaneedtoexplain ‘whywestillneedthem’—inbrief,to legitimatethemselves.TaketheUnitedNations(UN).Intheearly1990s, manyhadhopedthatthecollectivesecuritysystemwhichtheUNhad envisagedcould finallybeputtoworkgiventhatthe ‘vetoparalysis’ resulting fromblockconfrontationwas finallyover.Yethistoryfollowedadifferent path.Alreadyin1994,JohnBolton,whowouldlaterbecomeaUnitedStates (US)ambassadortotheUN,suggestedthat ‘thereisnosuchthingasthe UnitedNations’ andthat,iftheUNSecretariatbuildinginNewYorklostten ofits38stories, ‘itwouldn’tmakeabitofdifference’.¹Inthefollowingyear, theinabilityoftheworldorganizationtohaltthegenocideinRwandacontributedtoadeepsenseoffailurethatwasonlyexacerbatedwhenUN protectionforcescouldnotdefendthe ‘safearea’ theUNhaddeclaredin SrebrenicaagainstSerbiantroops,leavingover8,000Bosnianmenand womenmassacredinyetanothergenocide(Barnett2002).Ifthatwasnot enoughtoquestion ‘whywestillneedtheUN’,the2000sgavebirthtoa furtherlegitimacycrisis.Thistime,itresultedfromtheinabilityoftheUN ‘to constraintheunilaterallyinclinedhegemonicUSinitseffortstobringabout regimechangeinIraq(MorrisandWheeler2007:214).And finally,the questionofUNSecurityCouncilreformloomedlargesincetheendofthe ColdWar,asmanyUNmembersbelievedtheCouncilwasnolongerrepresentativeofamembershipthathadchangeddramaticallysince 1945 (Fassbender1998;Grigorescu2015:47 – 88).
BeyondtheUN,theEuropeanUnion(EU)comestomind.ThattheEUis underpressureishardlyanovelinsight.In2010,pollsrevealedthat,forthe firsttimeinthehistoryofthe Eurobarometer,thenumberofrespondents sayingtheydo not trusttheEUhadexceededthenumberofrespondentsthat dotrusttheEU(Eurobarometer2011:43).Studiesofmediadiscourseecho thatfeeling.Theyrevealthat,incomparisontothenationalpoliticalsystems ofGermany,Switzerland,theUnitedKingdom(UK),andtheUS,aswellasto otherinternationalinstitutionsliketheG8andtheUN,thequalitypress evaluatestheEUmostnegativelyonabroadrangeoflegitimacystandards (Nullmeieretal.2010).Finally,ifanyonestillneededfurtherproofofcrisis, the ‘Leave’ voteoftheBritishelectorateinJune2016,combinedwithariseof nationalistpartiesinmanyothermemberstates,hasunsettledtheorganization’sveryfoundation.Theeffortsofpoliticalactorstomobilizegeneralized
¹BothquotesweresubjecttodebateintheSenatehearingofBolton’snominationasUS ambassadortotheUN;see U.S.CongressionalRecord Senate,Vol.151,Pt.8(May26,2005), p.11520.
supportfortheEuropeanintegrationprojectandgivereasonsforsuchsupport hasnotkeptpacewiththechangesthathaveoccurredintheorganizationand itsenvironment.Inaveritablecrisislikethisone,toregainlegitimacywith citizensbecomesamatterofsurvival.ButwhiletheEU’slegitimationnarratives havechangedsignificantlyinthepast frompeacetowelfaretodemocracy (Biegoń 2016;Sternberg2013) justwherearenewaloftheEU’slegitimacy maycomefromthistimeremainsopen.
Wecancontinuethelistfurther.Facingamorepersistentstandstillin multilateraltradenegotiationsthaneverbeforeinitshistory,thosecommentingonthestateoftheWorldTradeOrganization(WTO)frequentlyresortto metaphorsoflifeanddeath(seeChapter3).Elsewhere,protestersinGreece andIrelandshoutthattheywantthe ‘IMFout!’ (InternationalMonetary Fund),whileastand-offamongRussiaandWesternmemberstatesofthe OrganizationforSecurityandCo-operationinEurope(OSCE)makesothers wonderwhythatparticularorganizationstilldeservesoursupport(Peters 2013).Inasimilarvein,Burundi,Gambia,andSouthAfricaeitherthreatened ordecidedtoleavetheInternationalCriminalCourt(ICC).Asallthreestates chargedtheICCwithsufferingfromapoliticalbiasagainstAfricangovernments,the NewYorkTimes wasquicktocallthedefectionsofthethree membersan ‘unprecedentedblowto[theCourt’s]legitimacy’ (Cuvellier 2016;seealsoVilmer2016).Thesamediagnosiswouldbeaptifcontemporary publicdebatesinSwitzerlandandtheUKweretoleadbothcountriestoputan endtotheruleof ‘foreignjudges’ anddecide,ascampaignsinbothcountries demand,toturntheirbackontheEuropeanhumanrightsregime.Finally,few observersdoubtthattheUnitedNationsIndustrialDevelopmentOrganizationneedstoreinventitself:whiletheUS,Canada,andAustraliahadalready lefttheorganizationinthe1990s,eightEuropeanmembersandNewZealand haveterminatedtheirmembershipsince2012.
Thisbookisaboutthecrisisofinternationalorganizations,understoodasa situationinwhichkeyconstituenciesnolongertaketheneedforinternational organizationsforgranted.Tobesure,organizationalcrisesarenotanew phenomenon.ButthehistoryoftheLeagueofNationsalsoillustrateshow serioustheymayget;anditseemsfairtosaythatthepressureoninternational organizationshasbecomeexceptionallyhighinrecentyears.Whenweask wherethesepressuresmightcomefrom,severaldriverscometomind.In generalterms,however,wecouldsaythatthemountingpressuresresultfrom awideninggapbetweenadaptiveneedsandadaptivecapacities.Ontheone hand,internationalorganizationsarethusaskedtoadapttochangesintheir environmentsmorefrequently,morefundamentally,andmorequicklythan inprevioustimes.Thechallengesaremultiple:internationalorganizationsare requiredtoadapttoglobalpowershifts,withChina,India,orBrazilaskingfor astrongerroleandtraditionalpowersseekingtomaintaintheirprivileges (Zangletal.2016).Theyneedtocopewithagrowingdensityofinternational
institutionsthatallowsdissatisfiedstatestoshifttheiragendatoadifferent forum(MorseandKeohane2014).Theyhavetorespondtotheriseofa transnationalcivilsocietythatdemandsaccess(Tallbergetal.2013)and showsagrowingcapacitytomakeandmonitortransnationalrulesitself (Abbottetal.2016).And,likemostotherorganizations,theyneedtoadaptto aprocessofsocialaccelerationthathasbecomeadefiningfeatureofmodern societies(Rosa2013).
Ontheotherhand,internationalorganizationsarenotparticularlywell equippedtomeettheseadaptiveneeds.Whileitmightbeexaggeratingto claimthattheiradaptivecapacitieshavediminished,theclaimthattheyhave notkeptpacewithrisingadaptiveneedsappearsmuchlesscontroversial.So howmightthegaphavewidened?First,membershipininternationalorganizationshasgrown.Ithasexpandedfromtwenty-threestatesintheoriginal GeneralAgreementonTariffsandTrade(GATT)tocurrently162statesthat makeuptheWTO,from fifty-oneUNmembersin1946to196UNmembers in2016,andfromthesixstateslaunchingtheEuropeanCoalandSteel Communityin1951tothetwenty-eight-memberunionfromwhichtheUK nowseeksdivorce.However,agrowingmembershipusuallymeansthatmore heterogeneousinterestsneedtobetakenintoaccountinmakingdecisions, thusmakinganyadaptationtonewcircumstancesamoretediousaffair(Hale etal.2013).
Second,manyintergovernmentalorganizationshaveexpandedtheirareas ofactivityovertime.Ontheonehand,organizationssearchandadoptnew mandatesforthemselves.Ontheotherhand,internationalbureaucracies activelyhelptocreateneworganizations:aprocessTanaJohnson(2014)has termed ‘organizationalprogeny’.Inmanycases,theexpansionofmandates andtheproliferationofinternationalorganizationsimpliesagreaterneedto coordinatewithotheractors,agreaterlikelihoodoffailureinsomeareas,and agreaterchallengewhenitcomestointegratingthevariousactivitiesintoa coherentlegitimationnarrative.
Third,internationalorganizationsareknownfortheirlegal-rationalculture.Yet,astheybecomemoreinstitutionalized,internationalorganizations arealsolikelytolose flexibilityandthusadaptivecapacity.Onereasonisthat therulesthatgoverntheorganizationhavebeenformallystabilized(Goldstein andMartin2000);anotherthatthebureaucraciesthatadministertheday-todayactivitiesoftheorganizationdevelopformalorinformalroutinesthat reducethescopefordeviatingpractices(BarnettandFinnemore2004;Steffek 2003).Moreover,wecanalsoexpectprocessesof ‘layering’ tomakeinternationalorganizationsmorecumbersomeovertime,asinstitutionalreforms create ‘disjointed’ patternsaswellashighlevelsof ‘institutionalincoherence’ (StreeckandThelen2005).FortheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO),for instance,TineHanrieder(2015)hasshownthatreformeffortsthatsoughtto centralizetheorganizationwereusuallyblockedbyregionalvetoplayersand,
whenreformseventuallymaterialized,theycommonlyincreasedratherthan decreasedthepoweroftheregionswithintheWHO.Inaddition,headquarter effortstosecurecentralizedcompetencesforparticularissuesledtothe creationofadditionalcentresofdecisionmaking.Asmore,notfewerveto playerswerethusgenerated,thismadegovernanceoftheorganizationmore difficultandultimately ‘fragmented’ theWHO.
Inshort,existingaccountscanhelpustounderstandthemountingpressuresinternationalorganizationsconfront.Thisargumentsuggeststhatthe crisisofinternationalorganizationshas,atleastinpart,structuraloriginsthat leadtoawideninggapbetweenadaptiveneedsandadaptivecapacities.Our studyshedsfurtherlightonthisargument,andhenceonthecrisisofinternationalorganizations.Yet,itexaminestheideathatinternationalorganizationshavecomeunderpressurefromadifferentangle,namelyfromthe perspectiveoftheirlegitimation.Thislegitimationmattersbecauseitis ‘foundational’:howanorganizationendsupjustifyingitsexistencewillreverberate initswork,includingitsinstitutionaldesign,itspolicies,andthewaysinwhich thesepoliciesareimplemented.
Broadlyspeaking,weconceiveoflegitimationasthesocialprocessinwhich politicalactorsseektogenerateandpromote,amongrelevantaudiences, generalizedsupportforpoliticalinstitutions.Moreprecisely,weareinterested inthereasonsactorsgivewhentheydefendorchallengeinternational organizations or,stateddifferently,inthe termsoflegitimation thatprovide thenormativeyardstickstowhichinternationalorganizationsareheld.²The normativeyardsticksrelevantaudiencesapplymarkthepathsthatleadto legitimacy,understoodasthebeliefintherightfulnessofapoliticalorderorits constituentparts.Consequently,thenormativeyardstickswetraceinour studyalsosettheboundariesthatinternationalorganizationsleaveonlyat theriskoflosingsomeoftheirlegitimacy.
Theprimaryquestionweaskis howandwhythenormativeyardsticksthat underpinevaluationsofinternationalorganizationshavechangedsincethe endoftheColdWar.Inaskingthisquestion,werefertothe ‘endoftheCold War’ asaperiodratherthananevent.Hence,thephrasedenotesnotmerely achangeintheconfrontationbetweenEastandWest.Instead,weuseitasa shorthandforaseriesoftransformativechangesthatunfoldedaroundthe sametime.Thesechangesincludeafurtherwaveofdemocratizationatthe domesticlevel,thebirthofanewworldorderattheinternationallevel,anew phaseintheglobalizationofeconomicrelations,arevolutionincommunicationstechnologies,andtheproliferationof ‘ newwars ’ (seeChapter2).Our
²Weusethetermsinternationalorganizationandintergovernmentalorganizationinterchangeablyinthisstudytorefertoformalorganizationsthatareestablishedbytreatyorbythe decisionofanotherinternationalorganizationandthathavestates,governments,orgovernment agenciesasanimportantorexclusivecategoryoftheirmembership.
inroadforunderstandinghowthelegitimacystandardstowhichinternational organizationsaresubjectedhavechangedarewhatwecall legitimationcontests.Inthese,adiversesetofactorsmoreorlessconstantly(re)negotiatethe termsoflegitimationforaninternationalorganization(seeChapter2).We examinethesenegotiationsthroughin-depthcasestudiesofnormativechange in fiveinternationalorganizations.OurcasesincludetheGATTandits successor,theWTO;theOrganisationofAfricanUnity(OAU)anditssuccessor,theAfricanUnion(AU);theInternationalAtomicEnergyAgency (IAEA);theInternationalUnionforConservationofNature(IUCN),andthe OfficeoftheUNHighCommissionerofRefugees(UNHCR).
Takentogether,the fivecasestudiesallowustotracehowthenormative foundationsofglobalgovernancehavebeenrenegotiatedafter1989/90,adate thatiscommonlyseenasamajorturningpointinworldpoliticalhistory. Becauselegitimacystandardsgiveexpressiontohowwethinkaboutour commoninstitutionsandaboutthevaluesthatshouldguidethem,knowledge ofsuchshiftsisrelevantnotonlywithin,butalsobeyondacademia.Inbrief, whichwaysofdoingpoliticsacommunity findsacceptableisoneofthemost fundamentalpoliticalquestions,andthosewhowieldthecapacitytodefinethe conceptualterrainonwhichlegitimationtakesplacewieldpower(Boltanski 2011;Forst2015).Whenwestudythetermsoflegitimation,wethereforealso studyaparticularformofpoweringlobalgovernance.
Weunderstandthe terms oflegitimationinaliteralaswellasina figurative sense.Inaliteralsense,ourinterestinthetermsoflegitimationleadsusto examinehowthevaluesthatunderpineffortstolegitimateordelegitimate internationalorganizationshavechangedovertime.Whatwereinternational organizationssaidtobegoodforbackthen?Whataretheybeingcriticizedfor now?Ina figurativesense,however,thetermsoflegitimationalsostandfor therulesofthe ‘legitimacygame’ (vanRooy2004).Howandwhydonew standardsof ‘goodglobalgovernance’ arise,whileothersdisappearorchange theirmeaning?Howdoeschangeinthebroaderworldpoliticalcontextaffect thewaysinwhichinternationalorganizationsneedtogainandmaintaintheir ‘sociallicencetooperate’?Finally,howdospecificactorscometoacquirethe powertocontrolthenormativeterrainonwhichinternationalorganizations canclaimlegitimacy?
Whatwe findinourresearchboilsdowntoacentralmessage.The legitimationnarrativesofthenationalconstellationofthepost-1945era remaininplace;buttheyareincreasinglycomplementedbythelegitimacy standardsofthe ‘post-nationalconstellation’ thatischaracteristicofthepost1989world.Theresultisthattoday’sinternationalorganizationsneedtolive uptoa longerlistoflegitimacyprinciples thaninprevioustimes.Twochanges areparticularlynoteworthy.First,internationalorganizationsneedtodemonstratenotonlywhattheydo fortheirmemberstates,butalso forthe individualsinmemberstates.Second,whileinternationalorganizations
continuetobeevaluatedintermsof whattheyachieve,theyareincreasingly alsomeasuredby howtheyoperate.³
Asourcasestudiesshow,themorepluralistpatchworkoflegitimacy principlesthatresultsfromtheshiftsweobservehasmultipleorigins,but similarconsequences.Notably,itrendersthelegitimationofinternational organizationsmorecomplex,anditrequiresinternationalorganizationsto reconcileadiversityofnormativeexpectations.Strikingly,then,atatime whenmanyfeelinternationalcooperationisneededmorethanever(Hale etal.2013),legitimatingtheformsinwhichsuchcooperationtakesplacehas becomemostdifficult.Internationalorganizationshavecome underpressure.
THESTATEOFTHEART InternationalRelations(IR)scholarshavenotoverlookedthephenomenawe describe.Tothecontrary,specialissues,conferencepanels,andeditedvolumesaboundinwhichtheauthorstakeissuewiththeallegedlyswindling legitimacyofinternationalorganizations(Bexell2015;BrassettandTsingou 2011;Hurrelmannetal.2007;Reus-Smit2007;Scholte2011;Zaum2013a). Yet,whilethis ‘legitimacyturn’ allowsustobuildonexistingIRliteratures,we alsomovebeyondthelatter.Inparticular,weseektoovercomethreelimitations:atendencytoexaminelegitimacyprimarilyintermsofcitizenattitudes andmediadebates;aninclinationtoneglectthehistoricaldimensionof legitimationprocesses;andaproclivitytobuildgeneralclaimsaboutinternationalorganizationsonevidencegatheredfromonlyasmallnumberof relativelylarge,powerful,andvisibleinternationalorganizations.
MovingbeyondAttitudesandMediaDebates TheIRliteratureonlegitimacycommonlydistinguishesbetween ‘normative’ and ‘sociological’ perspectives.Intheformer,authorsdeveloparguments aboutthenormativeprinciplesinternationalinstitutions shouldcomplywith
³WelinkbothshiftstoJürgenHabermas’ notionofa ‘post-nationalconstellation’ because theyrespond,atleastinpart,tothe ‘post-nationalchallenge’ societiesfaceunderconditionsof economicglobalization,namelythechallengetomaintaintheircapacityfordemocraticselfcontrolandself-realization.Wherepoliticalboundarieshavebecomepermeableandstateshave cometosharesovereigntywithinternationalagencies,theriseofpeople-basedandprocedural legitimacystandardsinrelationtothelatterthusresonateswiththeneedtoidentify ‘the appropriateformsforthedemocraticprocesstotake beyond thenation-state’ (Habermas 2001,60–1,emphasisintheoriginal).
todeservelegitimacy (BuchananandKeohane2006).Inthelatter,authorsare interestednotsomuchinmoralprinciplesthatshouldguideevaluationsbut rather inactuallegitimacybeliefs,heldbyindividualsorsocialgroups,andin theexplanatoryfactorsthatshapesuchbeliefs.
Ourstudycontributestothesociologicalliteratureonthelegitimacyof internationalinstitutions.Thatliteraturecommonlytakesthedistinction betweenanormativeandasociologicalperspectiveasitsstartingpoint. Distinguishingitselffromthenormativedebate,itarguesthat,whichever viewspoliticalphilosophersmighthold,whatmatters politically ishow thoseonwhoseallegiancepoliticalinstitutionsrely,relatetotheseinstitutions. Consequently,animportantpartoftheempiricalliteratureconceptualizes legitimacyas ‘trust’ or ‘ confidence’ citizensorelitesexpressinaninstitution. Itsprimaryinterestistomeasuresystemicallytheleveloftrustorconfidence variousconstituenciesdisplayatdifferentpointsintime,andtoidentifywhat determinesvariationintheselevels.
Summarizingthestateoftheartinsurvey-basedresearchofthiskind,Lisa DellmuthandJonasTallberg(2016:6)identifythreemajorexplanationsfor varyinglevelsofconfidenceininternationalorganizations.The firstassumes thattheindividualattitudestowardsinternationalorganizationsbuildon ‘rationalevaluationsoftheprocessesandoutcomesofinternationalcooperation’.Incontrast,thesecondexplanationtiestheseattitudestothetrust individualshaveintheirdomesticpoliticalinstitutions.Finally,thethird explanationarguesthatindividualattitudesdependonidentityconstructions, with ‘cosmopolitans’ evaluatinginternationalorganizationsmorefavourably thanthosewhoidentifymorestronglywiththeircompatriots.Inlinewith theseexplanations,BennoTorgler findsthattrustintheUNdependsonthe capacityofrespondents’ countriestoactinglobalpolicymaking,onrespondents’ perceivedlevelofcorruptionintheirowncountry,andonhowstrongly respondentsidentify ‘withtheworldasawhole’ (Torgler2008;seealsoEckerEhrhardt2016).
Theliteratureonpublicattitudestowardsinternationalorganizationsties intoresearchonthecontestationofinternationalinstitutionsinimportant ways.Notably,itshows that supportlevelsvaryamonggroupsaswellasover timeandithelpstoidentify who holdsparticularlynegativeviewsofinternationalorganizations.Atthesametime,itscontributionhasbeenlimited whenitcomestothegroundsonwhichrelevantaudiencesassessinternational organizationsaseither ‘good’ or ‘bad’,ortothequestionwhoseviewsmatter.
Morerecently,surveyexperimentshaveaddressedthesechallengesby randomlyassigningcuesthatcontaininformationabouthowwellpolitical elitesbelieveanorganizationmeetscertainvalues.DellmuthandTallberg, forinstance,showthatrespondentspayequalattentiontoeliteinformation basedontheperformanceandtheproceduresofinternationalorganizations. Moreover,theviewsrespondentsholdofinternationalorganizationsare
susceptibletocuesfromtheirgovernmentsaswellasfromnon-governmental organizations(NGOs),butnotfromtheinternationalorganizationsthemselves(DellmuthandTallberg2016;seealsoAndersonetal.2017;Hydeetal. 2017).Whilethisapproachtakes legitimacy researchonestepfurtherinthe directionof legitimation research,thefactthatrespondentsareconfronted withisolatedstatementsremainsanimportantlimitation.What ‘levelof confidence’ respondentswouldexpressiftheywereconfrontedwiththe legitimationdiscourseinitsentiretyisthusaquestionsurvey-basedresearch cannotanswer.
Likewise,contentanalysesofmediadebatesaboutthevalueofinternational organizations(Nullmeieretal.2010),ofdebateswithininternationalorganizations(BinderandHeupel2015),orofthewaysinwhichinternational organizationspresentthemselvestovariousaudiences(Dingwerthetal.2018) haveconsiderablyadvancedourknowledge.Theyhavehelpedustosortout whichlegitimacyprinciplesmatter.Theyhaveshedlightonwhichlegitimacy standardsaparticularorganizationmeetsrelativelywell.Andtheyhavealso advancedourknowledgeofthenormativeyardsticksspecifictypesofactors forinstancegovernments,internationalbureaucrats,NGOs,orjournalists upholdmoststrongly.FromHenningSchmidtke’sstudyonmediaevaluations oftheUN,forexample,wecanlearnthatmediadiscoursesinWestern democraciesevaluatetheprinciplesonwhichtheUNisfoundedinverypositive ways,whiletheyjudgespecificUNbodies theGeneralAssembly,theSecurity Council,andtheSecretaryGeneral negatively(Schmidtke2010).
Overall,surveyresearchandmediaanalysesshedlightonvariousaspects ofthe ‘legitimacygame’.Yet,botharelimitedwhenweseektoexplorethe dynamicsof ‘justificatoryorders’ (Rechtfertigungsordnungen;Forst2015)to whichinternationalorganizationsaresubjected.Toreconstructthelatter,we willneedacomplementaryapproachthatlooksat discursiveinteraction and seekstounderstandnotonlywhichstandardsmatter,butalsohowthe strugglebetweendifferentstandardsoflegitimacyplaysoutinglobalgovernance.Wethereforeask:whoaretheprotagonistsoflegitimationcontests involvinginternationalorganizations?Howdotheyinteract?Andhowdo thesetsoflegitimacystandards,whichactorsreferto thejustificatory orders shiftasaresultofchangeintheorganizationalenvironmentandof themanifolddiscursiveinteractionsamongtheprotagoniststhemselves?
TakingHistorySeriously Asecondstrandofwritingonwhichwecanbuilddealswiththehistoryof internationalorganizationsandtheirroleinconstructingaworldofglobal governance(Freyetal.2014:3;Cottrell2016;Iriye2002;MacKenzie2010; Reinalda2009).Thisliteratureseemsparticularlyrelevantsincetheclaimthat
