Legitimacy in international law and international relations

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Over the past couple of decades, there has been an explosion of interest, both among international lawyers and international relations scholars, in the legitimacy of international institutions (IOs) – what Ian Clark (2005: 12) has described as a “veritable renaissance of international legitimacy talk.” Studies have: • historically traced the changing conceptions of legitimacy in “international society” and “world society” (Clark 2005, 2007); • theorized about the concept of legitimacy (Simmons 1999; Applbaum 2010; Buchanan 2010; Tasioulas 2010); • advanced general normative conceptions of legitimacy (Buchanan 2003; Buchanan and Keohane 2006; Caney 2009); • surveyed the legitimacy of different types of international institutions, including global governance organizations (Koppell 2010), international financial institutions (Porter 2001; Woods 2003, 2006); private governance systems (Cashore 2002; Bernstein and Cashore 2007; Schaller 2007); and public–private partnerships (Bäckstrand 2006); and • examined the legitimacy of particular international institutions, including, among others, the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Howse 2000, 2001; Weiler 2000; Howse and Nicolaidis 2001; Esty 2002; Cass 2005; Picciotto 2005;Conti 2010), the International Criminal Court (Danner 2003), the Security Council (Caron 1993; Sato 2001; Jodoin 2005; Voeten 2005; Hurd 2008), the treaty bodies of multilateral environmental agreements (Brunnée 2002), investor–state arbitral tribunals (Brower 2003; Franck 2005), the Global Reporting Initiative (Beisheim and Dingwerth 2008), the World Commission on Dams (Dingwerth 2005), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Clapp 1998; Raines 2003). This recent burgeoning of interest in legitimacy represents a significant shift. Historically, neither international law (IL) nor international relations (IR) had paid much attention to the issue. International lawyers tended to focus on legality rather than legitimacy. And political scientists tended to focus on power and interests, rather than on normative factors such as legitimacy. The newfound concern about legitimacy reflects the growing interest by international lawyers in interdisciplinary studies and the greater openness of political scientists to constructivist perspectives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationInterdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages321-342
Number of pages22
ISBN (Print)9781139107310, 9781107020740
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2010

Fingerprint

international law
international relations
legitimacy
lawyer
political scientist
world society
international organization
International Criminal Court
global governance
legality
Renaissance
WTO
treaty
governance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Bodansky, D. (2010). Legitimacy in international law and international relations. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (pp. 321-342). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107310.016

Legitimacy in international law and international relations. / Bodansky, Daniel.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 321-342.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Bodansky, D 2010, Legitimacy in international law and international relations. in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, pp. 321-342. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107310.016
Bodansky D. Legitimacy in international law and international relations. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press. 2010. p. 321-342 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107310.016
Bodansky, Daniel. / Legitimacy in international law and international relations. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, 2010. pp. 321-342
@inbook{8df12fd8e5d846dea2433b365da1fa5d,
title = "Legitimacy in international law and international relations",
abstract = "Over the past couple of decades, there has been an explosion of interest, both among international lawyers and international relations scholars, in the legitimacy of international institutions (IOs) – what Ian Clark (2005: 12) has described as a “veritable renaissance of international legitimacy talk.” Studies have: • historically traced the changing conceptions of legitimacy in “international society” and “world society” (Clark 2005, 2007); • theorized about the concept of legitimacy (Simmons 1999; Applbaum 2010; Buchanan 2010; Tasioulas 2010); • advanced general normative conceptions of legitimacy (Buchanan 2003; Buchanan and Keohane 2006; Caney 2009); • surveyed the legitimacy of different types of international institutions, including global governance organizations (Koppell 2010), international financial institutions (Porter 2001; Woods 2003, 2006); private governance systems (Cashore 2002; Bernstein and Cashore 2007; Schaller 2007); and public–private partnerships (B{\"a}ckstrand 2006); and • examined the legitimacy of particular international institutions, including, among others, the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Howse 2000, 2001; Weiler 2000; Howse and Nicolaidis 2001; Esty 2002; Cass 2005; Picciotto 2005;Conti 2010), the International Criminal Court (Danner 2003), the Security Council (Caron 1993; Sato 2001; Jodoin 2005; Voeten 2005; Hurd 2008), the treaty bodies of multilateral environmental agreements (Brunn{\'e}e 2002), investor–state arbitral tribunals (Brower 2003; Franck 2005), the Global Reporting Initiative (Beisheim and Dingwerth 2008), the World Commission on Dams (Dingwerth 2005), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Clapp 1998; Raines 2003). This recent burgeoning of interest in legitimacy represents a significant shift. Historically, neither international law (IL) nor international relations (IR) had paid much attention to the issue. International lawyers tended to focus on legality rather than legitimacy. And political scientists tended to focus on power and interests, rather than on normative factors such as legitimacy. The newfound concern about legitimacy reflects the growing interest by international lawyers in interdisciplinary studies and the greater openness of political scientists to constructivist perspectives.",
author = "Daniel Bodansky",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781139107310.016",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781139107310",
pages = "321--342",
booktitle = "Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Legitimacy in international law and international relations

AU - Bodansky, Daniel

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Over the past couple of decades, there has been an explosion of interest, both among international lawyers and international relations scholars, in the legitimacy of international institutions (IOs) – what Ian Clark (2005: 12) has described as a “veritable renaissance of international legitimacy talk.” Studies have: • historically traced the changing conceptions of legitimacy in “international society” and “world society” (Clark 2005, 2007); • theorized about the concept of legitimacy (Simmons 1999; Applbaum 2010; Buchanan 2010; Tasioulas 2010); • advanced general normative conceptions of legitimacy (Buchanan 2003; Buchanan and Keohane 2006; Caney 2009); • surveyed the legitimacy of different types of international institutions, including global governance organizations (Koppell 2010), international financial institutions (Porter 2001; Woods 2003, 2006); private governance systems (Cashore 2002; Bernstein and Cashore 2007; Schaller 2007); and public–private partnerships (Bäckstrand 2006); and • examined the legitimacy of particular international institutions, including, among others, the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Howse 2000, 2001; Weiler 2000; Howse and Nicolaidis 2001; Esty 2002; Cass 2005; Picciotto 2005;Conti 2010), the International Criminal Court (Danner 2003), the Security Council (Caron 1993; Sato 2001; Jodoin 2005; Voeten 2005; Hurd 2008), the treaty bodies of multilateral environmental agreements (Brunnée 2002), investor–state arbitral tribunals (Brower 2003; Franck 2005), the Global Reporting Initiative (Beisheim and Dingwerth 2008), the World Commission on Dams (Dingwerth 2005), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Clapp 1998; Raines 2003). This recent burgeoning of interest in legitimacy represents a significant shift. Historically, neither international law (IL) nor international relations (IR) had paid much attention to the issue. International lawyers tended to focus on legality rather than legitimacy. And political scientists tended to focus on power and interests, rather than on normative factors such as legitimacy. The newfound concern about legitimacy reflects the growing interest by international lawyers in interdisciplinary studies and the greater openness of political scientists to constructivist perspectives.

AB - Over the past couple of decades, there has been an explosion of interest, both among international lawyers and international relations scholars, in the legitimacy of international institutions (IOs) – what Ian Clark (2005: 12) has described as a “veritable renaissance of international legitimacy talk.” Studies have: • historically traced the changing conceptions of legitimacy in “international society” and “world society” (Clark 2005, 2007); • theorized about the concept of legitimacy (Simmons 1999; Applbaum 2010; Buchanan 2010; Tasioulas 2010); • advanced general normative conceptions of legitimacy (Buchanan 2003; Buchanan and Keohane 2006; Caney 2009); • surveyed the legitimacy of different types of international institutions, including global governance organizations (Koppell 2010), international financial institutions (Porter 2001; Woods 2003, 2006); private governance systems (Cashore 2002; Bernstein and Cashore 2007; Schaller 2007); and public–private partnerships (Bäckstrand 2006); and • examined the legitimacy of particular international institutions, including, among others, the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Howse 2000, 2001; Weiler 2000; Howse and Nicolaidis 2001; Esty 2002; Cass 2005; Picciotto 2005;Conti 2010), the International Criminal Court (Danner 2003), the Security Council (Caron 1993; Sato 2001; Jodoin 2005; Voeten 2005; Hurd 2008), the treaty bodies of multilateral environmental agreements (Brunnée 2002), investor–state arbitral tribunals (Brower 2003; Franck 2005), the Global Reporting Initiative (Beisheim and Dingwerth 2008), the World Commission on Dams (Dingwerth 2005), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Clapp 1998; Raines 2003). This recent burgeoning of interest in legitimacy represents a significant shift. Historically, neither international law (IL) nor international relations (IR) had paid much attention to the issue. International lawyers tended to focus on legality rather than legitimacy. And political scientists tended to focus on power and interests, rather than on normative factors such as legitimacy. The newfound concern about legitimacy reflects the growing interest by international lawyers in interdisciplinary studies and the greater openness of political scientists to constructivist perspectives.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928273318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928273318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781139107310.016

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781139107310.016

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781139107310

SN - 9781107020740

SP - 321

EP - 342

BT - Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -