Abstract
International institutions are facing a new paradox: there is an urgent need for them, but they are increasingly being resisted, and one of the main grounds for supporting and resisting international institutions is their legitimacy. Every organization claims legitimacy for itself and denies the legitimacy of others. However, a framework for evaluating legitimacy is lacking. This paper defines the concept of legitimacy for international institutions and suggests that it derives from four sources (normative values, comparative benefits, national recognition, and confirmation by other international institutions). Based on their relevancy and their capacity for operationalization in this evaluation, indicators for input, operation, and output legitimacy have been selected to methodically evaluate the legitimacy of international institutions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Legitimacy is a widely used concept, but there are no broadly accepted definitions, especially in the field of international relations. Its conceptualization and interpretation are underdeveloped in theoretical approaches to international institutions (Tallberg and Zürn 2019). In the field of international relations, legitimacy is a concept that lacks rigorous analysis in the context of international institutions (Zhao 2016). Therefore, evaluating legitimacy would be an important addition in the study of international institutions. Additionally, with the emergence of competitive multilateralism (Morse and Keohane 2014), evaluation of legitimacy has become even more urgent.
In practice, the legitimacy of international institutions has become a focus of contention and a key factor shaping international relations in recent years. Events such as Brexit and the withdrawal of the USA from certain international organizations (e.g., the World Health Organization [WHO], UN Human Rights Council, and Paris AgreementFootnote 1) have posed great challenges to current international institutions and their legitimacy. The founders and leaders of international institutions are questioning their necessity and legitimacy, and the former insiders are sabotaging their existence and rationality. A series of cultural and economic factors have reshaped the political conflicts between Europe and the USA, raising questions about the viability of the rule of law among countries; as a result, international governance is facing a crisis of legitimacy (Hooghe et al. 2019). The global spread of the COVID-19 epidemic has further affected the authority of the WHO, the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), and other international organizations.
When international institutions and their legitimacy lack adequate clarity in theory and face increasing challenges in practice, it is particularly urgent to articulate what constitutes the legitimacy of an international institution and to establish an operational and universal evaluation system for that legitimacy.
Review of Literature: Unpacking a Dichotomous Dilemma
The legitimacy of international institutions is one of the core topics in international studies. There has been an increasing amount of research on this issue in recent years, which has mainly focused on four basic themes, discussed in greater detail in the following subsections.
Is Legitimacy Transcendental?
Most studies on the legitimacy of international institutions assume that they are legitimate and progressive, and that research only needs to focus on how to improve legitimacy. Empirical research on the impact of citizens on the legitimacy of international organizations (Johnson 2011) and on how international organizations and institutions gain or lose legitimacy (Binder and Heupel 2015; Macdonald 2018) mostly assume, a priori, that the international institution as a whole has legitimacy. However, there are some scholars who are opposed to presuming the inherent legitimacy of international institutions. Hurd (2019), for example, has pointed out that an international institution itself is not necessarily progressive, nor is it necessarily legitimate. Some scholars (Zürn 2018; Hooghe et al. 2019) also suggest that the presumed legitimacy of international institutions is caused by disciplinary bias in the field of international relations.
Differing Standards of Evaluation
The biggest dispute in the study of the legitimacy of international institutions lies in the standard for judgment—that is, the difference between the normative and the social standard. The normative standard holds that the judgment of legitimacy should be based on whether the international institution conforms to specific norms. The social standard, meanwhile, follows the idea that legitimacy of an institution should be based on whether it is recognized by its intended audience. Some evaluate international institutions on the basis of Western democratic norms which in turn is forwarded as the main criterion for its legitimacy. Such studies focus on whether the inputs of international institutions are democratic and believe that the legitimacy of international organizations depends on whether these international institutions meet those democratic standards (Bodansky 2013; Held 1995; Scholte 2011; Steffek 2003; Zürn 2000). Another type of research focuses on whether the output of the international institution meets normative standards—that is, whether the output meets or contributes to ideas of democracy fairness and equality (Pogge 2002). Both input and output approaches follow the way of normative standard.
Empirical studies of the legitimacy of international institutions generally adopt social standards; that is, such studies measure legitimacy by means of public opinion surveys of elites or other groups related to the international institution or organizations (Keohane 2011). This type of research mainly takes public opinion polls as an indicator of legitimacy (Hooghe and Marks 2005; Maier and Adam 2012). International organizations also tend to use social standards to measure their legitimacy and have long relied on functional narratives, believing that international organizations based on rationality, professionalism, and neutrality are effective ways to bring practical results to the solution of international problems. This justifies the raison d’etre and the legitimacy of international institutions (Dingwerth et al. 2020).
Are the Evaluation Criteria for Domestic and International Institution’s Legitimacy the Same?
One of the contending issues is whether the criteria for the legitimacy of domestic and international institutions are the same. They appear to be related, and the common basis of both is social trust (Zürn 2018). Many scholars therefore believe that the criteria for the legitimacy of both should be the same or similar. Research on the “democratic deficit” of international institutions generally assumes that the legitimacy assessment criteria for domestic and international institutions should be consistent (Scholte 2011). Many empirical studies on democratic deficit follow the view that citizens’ recognition of the political system constitutes the legitimacy of the international institution (Johnson 2011, 57–84). The reform of international institutions should therefore include a set of constitutional democratic standards based on the standards established by the practice of domestic democracy (Keohane et al. 2009).
Other scholars, however, think that the criteria for the legitimacy of domestic and international institutions cannot be the same and that it is wrong to apply the criteria of domestic democratic legitimacy to international institutions (Buchanan and Keohane 2006a, b). If the current domestic democratic standards are used to measure the legitimacy of international institutions, the standards would be too high, and many international institutions would have to be judged illegitimate (Scherz 2019). The concept of legitimacy as a whole, however, need not be exactly the same as democratic legitimacy; the former has many different sources (Zürn 2018). The “principal-agent problem” is more serious in international organizations than in domestic organizations because of the high information cost and incentive mechanisms (Vaubel 2006).
Should There Be a Unified Standard for Legitimacy?
Most studies believe that there can be a unified standard for the legitimacy of international institutions. The various studies mentioned above are fundamentally based on the idea of establishing a unified standard, and the difference between them lies in the specific standards. Scherz (2019) has proposed that the definition of institutional legitimacy should be based on the influence of political power on individual autonomy, and this would apply to both international and domestic institutions. The greater the political power possessed by the institution, the higher the standard of its legitimacy should be: the political power of the international institution is different, and its standard for legitimacy should also be different. In this regard, some recent studies have examined whether there can be a unified standard for the legitimacy of international institutions, and there are others who have identified that there are differences in assessing the legitimacy of international institutions between emerging powers and established powers. Emerging powers assess the legitimacy of an international institution based on how it can achieve more equality for the participation of all countries, and established powers tend to assess legitimacy based on the involvement of other actors, such as NGOs, in institutional decision-making (Zürn and Stephen 2010).
The Definition and Source of the Legitimacy of International Institutions
Defining the Legitimacy of an International Institution
The social sciences have long realized the importance of the concept of legitimacy and its complexity. The classical approach of realism theory in international relations tend to pay little attention to legitimacy, Scholars of other schools have generated three different definitions of legitimacy. The first one is that the essence of legitimacy is procedure, and with the consent of the governed as its core. Jean-Marc Coicaud (2002) believes that legitimacy is the process of justifying rule and obedience. The second definition holds that the essence of legitimacy is its results, which should conform to the concepts of morality and justice; ethics, norms, fairness, and justice are the key to judging legitimacy (Charlesworth 2010). The third emphasizes that legitimacy is essentially a cognitive phenomenon—that is, the relationship between the actor and the international institution—“individuals think that they should abide by someone or a certain system out of their own moral beliefs” (Frank 1990). In this view, the essence of legitimacy is a kind of cognition, and different actors may have huge differences in their cognition regarding legitimacy (Clark 2007). The first and third definitions focus on the consent of those subjected to the international institution, and the second one focuses on conformity with normative standard. It is worth noting that social and normative approaches coexist and support each other in reality. The conformation of values and norms is certainly helpful for receiving the support of countries towards international organizations. This may become the new norm for the legitimacy of international organizations. Buchanan and Keohane (2006a, b), for example, believe that the divergence between these two standards of legitimacy is not absolute, but argue that institutional legitimacy includes legitimacy both in the normative and social sense. The definition and evaluation of legitimacy of international organization in this paper try to go beyond dichotomy and combine the social and normative standards.
From what has been examined thus far in terms of the criteria for judging legitimacy, combining normative and social standards seems reasonable. The source of legitimacy should, therefore, include not only normative factors such as values but also social factors such as national identity for example. This paper holds that the legitimacy of an international institution is the voluntary recognition of that institution by member countries based on values and common benefits. This concept has three elements: the recognition is voluntary; it is based on a certain standard; and the standard includes not only the consensual values but also the common benefit. Compared with the legitimacy of domestic institutions, the basis for legitimacy of international institutions includes common benefits and values. Common values as the base for legitimacy of an international institution are not always available, and therefore it is necessary to include common benefits as an alternate source of legitimacy.
The Sources of the Legitimacy of International Institutions
The legitimacy of an international institution is the relationship between countries and the international institution. Legitimacy is determined by what a country perceives as beneficial for it and thereby bringing voluntary recognition of that international institution. The source of legitimacy includes not only material but also social factors (Gutner and Thompson 2010). These factors include the normative standards (with values as the main content), the comparative benefits that the international institution brings to countries, the country’s formal recognition of the institution, and the recognition of the institution by other international institutions. The first two factors are the substantive reasons for any country to recognize an international institution, and the latter are the formative manifestations of that legitimacy. Analyzing the source of legitimacy is the basis for its evaluation; by judging how much the international regime draws on its sources of legitimacy, that legitimacy can be accurately evaluated.
Normative Standards
In order to receive approval from countries, the legitimacy of an international institution needs to be measured in accordance with common norms, its essence is whether the international institution or to what extent it conforms to international shared values. This normative standard may be “the pursuit of fairness and justice to achieve common social goals” (Zürn 2018) or it may be “minimal moral acceptability” and institutional integrity (Buchanan and Keohane 2006a, b).
(1) International Shared Values
The values represented by the institution are a substantive source of legitimacy. Methodologically or theoretically, the separation of phenomenon and values are neither possible nor desirable (Coicaud 2002). The values represented by an international institution need to be shared internationally, so that they can be recognized by most countries. There are, however, differences in the understanding of shared values. While scholars have put forward the idea of universal values (Manish, 2014), some believe that “various variants of democratic theory and practice are the only two possible sources of legitimate authority” (Bernstein and Coleman 2009). They equate Western liberal values with internationally shared values, and believe that international institutions must serve these values; otherwise, they cannot generate legitimacy. Legitimacy based on values that seems to be the innate feature of international institutions, and supporting international institutions has almost become an issue of “political correctness.”
(2) Tradition and Authority
For an international institution, tradition, authority, and values together constitute the normative standard. The source of legitimacy can be manifested in religion, tradition, and scientific authority (Best 2007). Tradition (including religion) has become a source of legitimacy because of its strong inertia, and this is more obvious in international institutions in the field of humanities, such as the world cultural heritage protection system and the Roman Catholic Church. The influence of tradition and religion is also reflected in their path dependence. An existing international institution is one kind of tradition. So long as the existing tradition remains acceptable, people generally seek solutions and improvements within it: “The existing rules and culture strongly shape decisions about the future, thus excluding some options” (Barnett and Finnemore 2019). It is much easier to improve an existing institution than to create a new one and the cost of maintaining an existing institution is also lower than creating a new one. The legitimacy of some international practices and many international laws stems from their historical origins. International practices and precedents also continue to constitute new traditions, thus becoming sources of legitimacy (Elliott 2010).
The popularization of scientific agency and spirit encourages trust in science and professionalism and countries can easily recognize an international institution with scientific authority. In reality, many international institutions, especially professional organizations and institutions, have gained national recognition of their legitimacy by projecting their scientific narratives and declaring their scientific stand and declaring their values to be neutral. When observed scientifically, the actions of international organizations are often considered legitimate because they are thought to be rational, technical, and relatively objective (Barnett and Finnemore 2019). The fundamental challenge while considering science as the source of the legitimacy lies in its fundamental assumption: “The problems faced by the international institution have neutral and objective solutions, and experts/science can provide such solutions” (Best 2007). This assumption is obviously problematic. Experts/science can provide an international institution with data analysis and different policy options for the same issue, but a decision will ultimately be made based on science, values, and political considerations.
Comparative Benefits
Reasons for recognizing international institutions may be either based on values or the comparative benefits brought to the country. One of the foundations of institutional legitimacy is the ability to provide public goods to the international community, as well as to get approval of various actors in that community (Ye and Tan 2005). A country’s voluntary approval contains expectations of interests: the country expects that the international institution will bring comparative benefits, which is one of the foundations for the establishment and existence of international institutions in general. Comparative benefits are, therefore, a source of legitimacy. These benefits vary greatly in different fields, some of which are shown as direct increase of income (e.g., economic development, foreign aid) and some as invisible benefits (e.g., reductions in national defense expenditure). Compared with domestic institutions, due to democratic and procedural deficits in international organizations, the most viable source of legitimacy for international organizations in the foreseeable future will be the comparative benefits they bring (Gutner and Thompson 2010).
National Recognition
Voluntary national recognition is essential for the legitimacy of international institutions. The consent of the countries affected is a source of legitimacy, but this is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for measuring that legitimacy (Buchanan and Keohane 2006a, b). The essence of a country’s recognition of an international institution is that the country transfers some of its own governance power and legitimacy to that international institution. The recognition of an international institution by major powers is particularly important as a source of legitimacy given current power structure of international society. Some Western scholars have also emphasized the importance of the recognition of democratic countries to the legitimacy of the international institutions (Tallberg et al. 2016). National recognition can illustrated by countries participation in establishment, implementation, modification, and improvement of international institution; those actions of participating countries have usually been confirmed by domestic legal procedures (Men 2005). Therefore, one of the key factors for a country to recognize the legitimacy of an international institution is proper domestic procedures.
Confirmation of Other International Institutions
One of the formal manifestations of legitimacy is that the actors follow the law. International institutions are among those who create international law, and their institutional norms are a manifestation of this. These institutions are carriers of humanity’s shared values, so the confirmation of an international institution by other international institutions—especially confirmation by an institution with greater legitimacy—is an indicator of institutional legitimacy that ensures the institution conforms to the provisions of the existing law. International institutions are closely related, and such nested relationships form a network of values and entities that support each other. An international institution serves its goal and plays its role not by compliance alone but by forming a mutually supportive institutional grouping (Manish 2014). If an international institution can be integrated into the broader group, its legitimacy is confirmed by the whole group.
How to Evaluate the Legitimacy of International Institutions
There is a consensus that the legitimacy of international institutions needs to be assessed by the standard of experience (Coleman and Bernstein 2009). There are different approaches to evaluative determine the legitimacy of international institutions; determining the objective of legitimacy assessment is therefore necessary.
Objective
Process-oriented assessment considers the processes of international institutions as the object to be evaluated. A process has an independent position and is a continuous practical interaction that produces social meaning (Qin 2009). The process of an international institution involves continuous interaction between the state and the institution. International institutional processes can be divided into input, operation, and output, which correspond to the different stages of the interaction between member states and the international institution. Input legitimacy refers to the establishment process while operational legitimacy refers to activities and operations and output legitimacy refers to results of the efforts undertaken by an institution. The overall legitimacy of an international institution involves interaction between member states and the institution, and this interactive process occurs repeatedly. The division of the three stages is therefore relative, and the process is simplified for assessment of legitimacy.
Indicators
Only by determining specific indicators can the evaluation be operational. On the basis of the input and output legitimacy, M̈ugge (2011) proposed five further indicators: for input, the effectiveness of democratic control over the formulation of policy goals and societal actors’ direct access to policymakingFootnote 2; and for output, the breadth of opinions considered and the institutionalized scope for deliberation,Footnote 3 the independence of experts, and comparative benefit. Keohane (2011) proposed a framework that includes six indicators (admittedly derived from the liberal democratic theory of domestic politics): compliance with minimal moral acceptability, inclusiveness, epistemic quality, accountability, compatibility of the international institution with the governments of democratic countries, and comparative benefits. Keohane’s evaluation criteria may thus be concluded as being perhaps too closely tied to the legitimacy of the domestic institution. M̈ugge’s input–output legitimacy evaluation ideas go beyond the constraints of value judgments and have a wider scope of application, and may be more enlightening for the establishment of a general evaluation standard for the legitimacy of international institutions.
There are two approaches to operationalize a concept for evaluation: (i) the evaluation of constitutive indicators and (ii) the substitutive indicators. Generally, a constitutive evaluation index is a more orthodox evaluatory method (Gilley 2006). Many scholars of international relations use both constitutive and substitutive indicators in their quantitative analysis. For example, Kinclová (2015) conducted an empirical study on the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions. The first-level indicators selected were mainly constitutive, but because of the difficulty of quantitative research in the social sciences for the actual operation process, the sub-level indicators were mainly substitutive indicators.
Evaluating the legitimacy of an international institution can also be carried out based on constitutive indicators. The legitimacy of the international institution has four sources which can be treated as constructive indicators: recognition by member states, conformation with values, generation of comparative benefits, and confirmation by other international institutions. Input, operation, and output legitimacy can be measured by the amount of legitimacy they draw from these four sources.
Operationalization of Legitimacy Evaluation
To measure the three dimensions of international institutional legitimacy, constitutive indicators for input, operation, and output legitimacy are selected. If constitutive indicators are difficult to obtain or quantify, substitutive indicators are used as an alternative. Indicators are selected based on three standards: the correlation between indicators and input, operation, and output legitimacy; the objectivity of the indicators; and the availability of the indicators and its maneuverability as a quantitative index. International organization is part of a formal international institution that presents a clearer structure and is taken as case for study for the sake of operationalization of indicators.
Input Legitimacy
Member State Recognition
For international organizations, state recognition is reflected in the country’s participation. The country’s recognition can thus be measured according to its participation rate in the organization, which can be used as an operational indicator of state recognition. If the eligibility of a member country is limited in the Charter of an organization, the participation rate of the international organization can be taken as the proportion of eligible countries joining the organization. If the eligibility of a member country is not limited, then the participation rate of the international organization can be taken as the proportion of countries joining the organization. The legitimacy of international organizations that countries clearly object to will be adversely affected. The participation rate of international organizations is equal to the number of participating countries divided by the number of eligible countries minus the number of opposed countries divided by the number of non-participating countries.Footnote 4
Normative Standards
International shared values, tradition, and authority constitute normative standards, and together they constitute a source of legitimacy, there are two specific operational indicators.
(1) Values That Meet Minimum Standards
Most international institutions are established to protect and serve certain principles and claims they represent the interests of the international community or defenders of social values (Barnett and Finnemore 2019). In practice, most of their professed values cannot become internationally shared values, so the values represented by international institutions can only meet the minimum standards. The key to legitimacy is not what actors should do, but what they should not do. This is one of the important differences between the legitimacy of international institutions vis-à-vis domestic institutions. For most international organizations, operational indicators that meet minimum standards can be set to not violate the Charter of the United Nations.Footnote 5
(2) The Authority of Science and Tradition
International institutions seek legitimacy by emphasizing their neutrality, impartiality, and objectivity, especially when competing with the state for legitimacy. Scientific authority and the scientific spirit can provide neutrality and objectivity. Experts can identify the problems in these fields, analyze the causes, and provide potential solutions. Science and knowledge not only provides legitimacy for international institutions, it also shapes institutional behavior, which is why most international institutions have strong research teams and publish a large number of research reports. Scientific teams and products are the external embodiment of the professionalism of international organizations, and should share at least half of the weight in terms of evaluation. Tradition (reflected in the length of time since establishment) and personal charm (reflected in the personal charisma of the organizational leaders) are not necessary factors for legitimacy, but they are bonus items that can be used to gain support.
Based on the above analysis, the operational indicators are set as follows: Normative standards = values + science/professionalism + tradition / personal charm. The operational indicators for each item are as follows: in accordance with the principle of minimum standards, normative values that must be evaluated by whether the purpose and principles of the international organization violate the UN Charter (they should not), science/professionalism by the organization’s professional research (research department and research publications), and tradition/personal charm by history of the organization, presence of a permanent secretariat/secretary or similar organs.
Confirmation by Other International Institutions
Two-thirds of current intergovernmental international organizations were not initiated by countries alone, but co-sponsored by existing international organizations (Johnson 2013). There are several different scenarios by which an international institution can receive recognition and legitimacy from other international institutions. The first is international institutions that derived from an established international institution and directly inherits the legitimacy of the “parent” institution. Examples of this include those organizations derived from the United Nations (e.g., UN Climate Change Conference or UN peace keeping force), from whom they inherit their legitimacy. Secondly when a superior international organization recognizes a lower organization, then legitimacy of the lower organization is enhanced.Footnote 6 For example, an existing international institution generally must not violate the spirit of the UN Charter failing which its legitimacy will be challenged. The third scenario is the mutual confirmation of legitimacy by cooperative international institutions.
Operation Legitimacy
Member State Status and Participation
Equality among nations is an international shared value and an important element of the democratization of international relations. At the very least, countries should have equal opportunities to express their views on a particular problem. However, international institutions also suffer from insurmountable democratic deficits, and equality can only be achieved in terms of equal participation. The status and participation of member states can be subdivided into three indexes: (i) whether countries have the opportunity to participate in all organizational activities, (ii) whether countries have equal opportunities to participate in organizational activities, and (iii) whether countries actually participate in those activities.
Decision-Making Mechanisms
The decision-making mechanism is a key factor affecting operational legitimacy. The most common decision-making mechanisms are the principles of unanimous consent; majority consent under one country, one vote; and majority consent under weighted voting. Unanimous consent generally means that there is no objection among all member states, and even if there are abstentions. The principle of majority consent is divided into a simple majority (more than 1/2) and an absolute majority (more than 2/3). The unanimous consent principle is equivalent to giving veto power to each member state, and weighted voting is equivalent to giving veto power to individual member states.
Institutional Quality
Whether the operation conforms to specific norms and procedures is the main embodiment its legitimacy. Institutional quality is used to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the institution (Dellmuth et al. 2019). Generally speaking, indicators for institutional quality here are inclusiveness, accountability, and transparency borrowed from domestic political legitimacy.
(1) Inclusiveness
Inclusiveness refers to the participation of sovereign states and other actors in the international institution. In addition to sovereign states, possible participants include citizens, sub-state actors, and international organizations (including international NGOs). Inclusiveness means participation of different actors in the operation, which means more potential sources of legitimacy. Empirical research indicates that the participation of non-state actors such as international NGOs and sub-state actors may enhance the legitimacy of international organizations and institutions (Agné et al. 2015; Pallas and Urpelainen 2012; Rocabert et al. 2019). To operationalize this concept, we regard the participation of non-state actors as the criterion for inclusiveness.
(2) Transparency
Transparency means that relevant information is made public, so that all parties—especially stakeholders—can obtain it and understand the institutional decision-making process (Buchanan and Keohane 2006a, b). Transparency is not only compatible with common values but also one of comparative benefits for member state. All parties can thus avoid becoming victims of secret diplomacy. Proactive information dissemination and diffusion is a method of self-legalization (Ecker-Ehrhardt 2018). The indicators of transparency therefore are selected based on information dissemination channels and content: channels to broadcast its information (a website or various publications such as white papers and magazines) and content to reveal meaningful information (publishes various annual, financial, project, special reports, etc.) which can indicate the capabilities of the international organization. These two aspects are equally important and each account for half of the weight of this indicator.
(3) Accountability
Accountability is a characteristic of domestic democratic institutions and considers who is held answerable to whom, about what, through what processes, by what standards, and with what effect (Mashaw 2006). The accountability of international institutions includes two meanings: first, the institution itself should be accountable (i.e., responsible for the people and missions entrusted to it) and secondly, the international institution should be able to hold the relevant countries accountable. Accountability is a complicated concept in politics, and its quantitative measurement is difficult. Because most international organizations are weak in accountability compared with domestic institutions, symbolic and easy-to-quantify items can be chosen as indicators, such as whether there are departments or personnel responsible for internal audits, whether relevant matters are reported to member states, and whether there are assessable aims.
Output Legitimacy
Symmetry of Rights and Obligations
One of the operational indicators of output legitimacy is the symmetry of rights and obligations among member states in the international institution. It varies greatly in terms of their abilities and powers of various actors, and the essence of output legitimacy is ensuring the symmetry of rights and obligation between international organizations and member states.
The symmetry of rights and obligations is more specifically reflected in various quasi-resolutions and agendas of international organizations with outcome of interest distribution. Generally speaking, member states agree to the relevant resolutions only when their rights and obligations are basically symmetrical. To measure these symmetries, the contribution of public products and the distribution of institutional benefits are the main manifestations, including the following quantifiable indicators: the proportion of powerful countries voluntarily assuming specific responsibilities; the proportion of states paying membership fees on time and in full; and the signing rate of various quasi-treaties and agendas formulated by the organization. Taking these three specific indicators as quantitative indicators of the symmetry of rights and obligations is realistic based on the availability of data and the operability of the concept.
Comparative Benefit
The measurement of this indicator should be linked to the specific task of the international organization and the issues to be addressed. International organizations protecting biodiversity should take improvements of biodiversity after the organization is established (the number of biological species increases or no longer decreases, or the decline rate of species slows down) as one of the comparative benefits. Organizations promoting regional peace should take efforts to reducing wars and conflicts (preventing the outbreak of wars, reducing the frequency of conflicts, and reducing the intensity of conflicts) after the establishment of the organization as one of comparative benefits. Perception of legitimacy by countries and their citizens is determined by institutional performance (Anderson et al. 2019). The quantitative measurement of comparative benefits must be carried out in conjunction with specific issues and specific organizations.
Irreplaceability
The output legitimacy of an international institution lies not only in whether it provides comparative benefits to the international community but also in its symbolic significance. If it is irreplaceable, the legitimacy of its output is relatively high, because that means it is the best option acceptable to all actors and it is the only option to institutionalized solutions to problems in the given area, regardless of its effectiveness.
To sum up, the operational indicators of the input legitimacy include national recognition, normative values, and confirmation by other international organizations. The operational indicators of operation legitimacy are member status and participation, the nature of the decision-making mechanism, and institutional quality. The operational indicators of output legitimacy are symmetry of rights and obligations, comparative benefits, and irreplaceability. By summarizing operational indicators, a framework (Table 1) to assess the legitimacy of international organizations can be derived.
Conclusion
The legitimacy of international institutions has become increasingly contested by various actors of international society. This paper sums up four sources of legitimacy: normative standards with values as the main content, comparative benefits, national recognition, and the confirmation of other international institutions. The difficulty of evaluating legitimacy lies in operationalizing these abstract concepts. Taking the process as the object of evaluation, operational indicators were selected for the input, operation, and output to develop an evaluation framework for the legitimacy of international institutions.
The evaluation framework is an attempt to unify the gap between social and normative approaches towards international organization; more precise evaluation is possible based on this framework to address ultimate questions concerning which international organizations are more legitimate. Any attempt to conduct accurate quantitative research and evaluate important actors in international relations faces great challenges, and quantitatively evaluating the legitimacy of international institutions is complex. The evaluation framework constructed in this paper is only a preliminary attempt, and the operationalization of indicators is its primary advantage. To revise this evaluation system, future research on three areas is essential: first, the accuracy of the framework, especially the selection of operational indicators and its quantitative evaluation, should be perfected; secondly, the framework should be further applied to evaluate existing international organizations to test its reliability and validity; and thirdly, the acquisition, maintenance, and disappearance of international institutional legitimacy should be dynamically assessed.
Notes
The USA withdrew from WHO, UN Human Rights Council, and Paris Agreement in 2020, 2018, and 2019, and rejoined them in 2021, 2022, and 2021, respectively.
That is, the absolute level of access (the overall openness of policymaking) and the access one group of actors enjoys relative to others (the relative level of access).
That is, the experts involved in policy formulation should not be influenced by special interest groups.
For a regional international organization like ASEAN, its membership is limited to Southeast Asia, and there are eleven countries eligible to join the ASEAN; for global organizations open to all nation-states, 193 countries are eligible to join (i.e., UN membership).
The UN Charter and its values are generally globally accepted values and can be treated as the basic values for evaluating other international organizations.
Here we draw lessons from the concepts, in legal terms, of superior, appositive, and subordinate law. According to the effectiveness rank of a law, it can be divided into these three categories. Generally speaking, the legal effect of a superior law is higher than that of the other two types; for example, a constitution is a superior law relative to other laws.
References
Agné, H., Dellmuth, L.M., & Tallberg, J. 2015. Does Stakeholder Involvement Foster Democratic Legitimacy in International Organizations? An Empirical Assessment of a Normative Theory. Review of International Organizations, 10(4), 465–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-014-9212-6.
Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. 2019. Rules for the World. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801465161.
Bernstein, S., & Coleman, W.D. 2009. Introduction: Autonomy, Legitimacy, and Power in an Era of Globalization. In Unsettled Legitimacy : Political Community, Power, and Authority in a Global Era, edited by Steven Bernstein and William Coleman, 1–25. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Best, J. 2007. Legitimacy Dilemmas: The IMF’s Pursuit of Country Ownership. Third World Quarterly, 28(3), 469–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701192231.
Binder, M., & Heupel, M. 2015. The Legitimacy of the UN Security Council: Evidence from Recent General Assembly Debates. International Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12134.
Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R.O. 2006a. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(4), 405–37.
Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R.O. 2006b. The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(04), 405–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2006.00043.x.
Charlesworth, H. 2010. Conclusion: The Legitimacies of International Law. In Fault Lines of International Legitimacy, edited by Hilary Charlesworth & Jean-Marc Coicaud, 439. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, I. 2007. International Legitimacy and World Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, W.D. (William Donald), & Bernstein, S.F. 2009. Unsettled Legitimacy: Political Community, Power, and Authority in a Global Era. 409.
Dellmuth, L.M., Scholte, J.A., & Tallberg, J. 2019. Institutional Sources of Legitimacy for International Organisations: Beyond Procedure versus Performance. Review of International Studies, 45(4), 627–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051900007X.
Dingwerth, K., Schmidtke, H., & Weise, T. 2020. The Rise of Democratic Legitimation: Why International Organizations Speak the Language of Democracy. European Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 714–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119882488.
Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. 2018. Self-Legitimation in the Face of Politicization: Why International Organizations Centralized Public Communication. Review of International Organizations, 13(4), 519–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-017-9287-y.
Elliott, L. 2010. Cosmopolitan Militaries and Cosmopolitan Force. In Fault Lines of International Legitimacy, edited by Hilary Charlesworth & Jean-Marc Coicaud, 313–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frank, T. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy among Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilley, B. 2006. The Meaning and Measure of State Legitimacy: Results for 72 Countries. European Journal of Political Research, 45(3), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00307.x.
Gutner, T., & Thompson, A. 2010. The Politics of IO Performance: A Framework. Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 227–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-010-9096-z.
Habermas, J. 1989. Communication and the Evolution of Society. 1st ed. Chongqing: Chongqing Press.
Held, D. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order.From the Modern State to Cosmopolitical Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. 2005. Calculation, Community and Cues: Public Opinion on European Integration. European Union Politics, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116505057816.
Hooghe, L., Lenz, T., & Marks, G. 2019. Contested World Order: The Delegitimation of International Governance. Review of International Organizations, 14(4), 731–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9334-3.
Hurd, I. 2019. Legitimacy and Contestation in Global Governance: Revisiting the Folk Theory of International Institutions. The Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9338-z.
Johnson, T. 2011. Guilt by Association: The Link between States’ Influence and the Legitimacy of Intergovernmental Organizations. Review of International Organizations, 6(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-010-9088-z.
Johnson, T. 2013. Institutional Design and Bureaucrats’ Impact on Political Control. Journal of Politics, 75(1), 183–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000953.
Keohane, R.O., MacEdo, S., & Moravcsik, A. 2009. Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism. International Organization, 63(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818309090018.
Keohane, R.O. 2011a. Global Governance and Legitimacy. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2011.545222.
Kinclová, L. 2015. Legitimacy of the ‘Humanitarian Military Intervention’: An Empirical Assessment. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 21(1), 111–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2014-0006.
Macdonald, T. 2018. Legitimating International Organizations. Edited by Dominik Zaum. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02003016.
Maier, M., & Adam, S. 2012. The Impact of Identity and Economic Cues on Citizens’s Support:An Experimental Study on the Effects of Party Communication in the Run-up TO 2009 European Parliament Elections. EuropeaN Union Politics, 13(4), 580–603.
Manish, G.P. 2014. Wolfgang Kasper, Manfred E. Streit and Peter J. Boettke: Institutional Economics: Property, Competition, and Policies, 2nd Ed. Public Choice, 160(3–4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-014-0160-8.
Morse, J.C., & Keohane, R.O. 2014. Contested Multilateralism. The Review of International Organizations, 9(4), 385–412.
M̈ugge, D. 2011. Limits of Legitimacy and the Primacy of Politics in Financial Governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290903025162.
Pogge, T. 2002. Moral Universalism and Global Economic Justice. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1(1): 29–58.
Rocabert, J., Schimmelfennig, F., Crasnic, L., & Winzen, T. 2019. The Rise of International Parliamentary Institutions: Purpose and Legitimation. Review of International Organizations, 14(4), 607–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9326-3.
Scherz, A. 2019. Tying Legitimacy to Political Power: Graded Legitimacy Standards for International Institutions. European Journal of Political Theory, 20(4): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885119838137.
Scholte, J.A. 2011. Building Global Democracy? Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steffek, J. 2003. The Legitimation of International Governance: A Discourse Approach. European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), 249–275+340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066103009002004.
Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. 2019. The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations: Introduction and Framework. Review of International Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9330-7.
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., & Squatrito, T. 2016. Democratic Memberships in International Organizations: Sources of Institutional Design. Review of International Organizations, 11(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-015-9227-7.
Vaubel, R. 2006. Principal-Agent Problems in International Organizations. Review of International Organizations, 1(2), 125–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-006-8340-z.
Zürn, M., & Stephen, M. 2010. The View of Old and New Powers on the Legitimacy of International Institutions. Politics, 30(SUPPL. 1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01388.x.
Zürn, M. 2018. A Theory of Global Governance:Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Dr. Peng Liu is responsible for writing the draft version and following up for the further refinement of the manuscript. Prof. Yun-Hua Cao is responsible for identifying some indicators for evaluation framework.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The research is funded by China National Social Science Fund (Research Grant No.: 21BGJ006). The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, P., Cao, YH. Going Beyond the “Normative vs. Social” Standard: A Preliminary Framework for Evaluating the Legitimacy of International Institutions. Soc 60, 402–412 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00826-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00826-z