Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:41:57.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimacy, metacoordination and context-dependence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2019

Pietro Maffettone  and
Luke Ulaş Open the ORCID record for Luke Ulaş [Opens in a new window]
Pietro Maffettone
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy
Luke Ulaş*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that the process of deriving legitimacy criteria for political institutions ought to be sensitive to features of the political context in which that process is to occur. The paper builds on Allen Buchanan’s ‘Metacoordination View’ of legitimacy, which we explicate in the first section. While sympathetic to Buchanan’s practical approach, we believe the idea of a metacoordination process to be underspecified across two dimensions, which we explain in the second section: (i) constituency and (ii) normativity. Both dimensions admit of differing specifications. In the third section, we suggest that how best to fill in these dimensions in any one instance depends upon the political context in which the metacoordination process is to occur. We highlight three relevant elements of a political decision context – criticality, institutional time point, and motivational landscape – and illustrate their significance by way of reference, respectively, to the World Health Organization, the European Economic and Monetary Union, and the Bank of International Settlements. The ‘context-dependence’ of the metacoordination process, and therefore of legitimacy, entails the possibility that institutions that are similar, even identical, in terms of their nature and function may nevertheless be held to differing legitimacy criteria in differing political contexts.

Keywords

legitimacymetacoordinationcontext-dependencepractice-dependenceAllen Buchanan
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 81 - 109
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, N.P. 2018. “Institutional Legitimacy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 26(1):84–102.Google Scholar
Agius, Maria. 2010. “Dying a Thousand Deaths: Recurring Emergencies and Exceptional Measures in International Law.” Goettingen Journal of International Law 2(1):219–242.Google Scholar
Aslett, Kevin, and Caporaso, James. 2016. “Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Why the Eurozone Will Survive.” Economies 4(4):21.Google Scholar
Benai, Ayelet, Schemmel, Christan and Ronzoni, Miriam. 2011. “Global and Social Justice: The Possibility of Social Justice Beyond States in a World of Overlapping Practices.” In Social Justice, Global Dynamics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives , edited by Benai Schemmel and Miriam Ronzoni, 46–60. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Besson, Samantha. 2016. “State Consent and Disagreement in International Law-Making: Dissolving the Paradox.” Leiden Journal of International Law 29(2):289–316.Google Scholar
Boin, Arjen, ‘t Hart, Paul, Stern, Eric and Sundelius, Bengt. 2016. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brunnermeir, Markus K., James, Harold and Landau, Jean-Pierre. 2016. The Euro and the Battle of Ideas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2004. Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2013. The Heart of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2018. Institutional Legitimacy. In Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, vol. 4, edited by David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne and Steven Wall, 53–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen, and Keohane, Robert O.. 2006. “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions.” Ethics and International Affairs 20(4):405–437.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, Waever, Ole and de Wilde, Jaap. 1997. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 1996. The Rule of the Many. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2010. “Democratic Legitimacy and International Institutions.” In Philosophy of International Law, edited by Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas, 119–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2011. “Is Democratic Legitimacy Possible for International Institutions?” In Global Democracy: Normative and Empirical Perspectives, edited by Daniele Archibugi, Mathias Koenig-Archibugi and Raffaele Marchetti, 69–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2012. “The Legitimacy of International Institutions.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, edited by Andrei Marmor, 380–94. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, Vivien, and Logister, Louis. 2005. “State of the Art: Addressing the INGO ‘Legitimacy Deficit’.” Political Studies Review 3(2):175–192.Google Scholar
Eichengreen, Barry. 2008. “The Breakup of the Euro Area.” In Europe and the Euro, edited by Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi, 11–52. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Erman, Eva, and Müller, Niklas. 2016. “What Distinguishes the Practice-Dependent Approach to Justice?” Philosophy and Social Criticism 42(1):3–23.Google Scholar
Erman, Eva, and Müller, Niklas. Forthcoming. “How Practices Do Not Matter.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.Google Scholar
Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2012. The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2013. “Transnational Justice and Democracy: Overcoming Three Dogmas of Political Theory.” In Political Equality in Transnational Democracy, edited by Eva Erman, 41–60. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2014. Justification and Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fossen, Thomas. 2013. “Taking Stances, Contesting Commitments: Political Legitimacy and the Pragmatic Turn.” Journal of Political Philosophy 21(4):426–450.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 2010. “Who Counts? Dilemmas of Justice in a Postwestphalian World.” Antipode 41(1):281–297.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilabert, Pablo, and Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2012. “Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration.” Political Studies 60(4):809–825.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35(1):40–68.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2016. “Enfranchising All Subjected, Worldwide.” International Theory 8(3):365–389.Google Scholar
Gross, Oren, and Aoláin, Fionnuala Ní. 2002. Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hall, Edward. 2015. “Bernard Williams and the Basic Legitimation Demand: A Defence.” Political Studies 63(2):466–480.Google Scholar
Hanrieder, Tine, and Kreuder-Sonnen, Christian. 2014. “WHO Decides on the Exception? Securitization and Emergency Governance in Global Health.” Security Dialogue 45(4):331–348.Google Scholar
Hoekman, Bernard, and Kostecki, Michel. 2001. The Political Economy of the World Trading System: WTO and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, Aaron. 2005. “Constructing Justice for Existing Practice: Rawls and the Status Quo.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 33(3):281–316.Google Scholar
James, Aaron. 2013. “Why Practices?” Raisons Politiques 51:43–62.Google Scholar
James, Aaron. 2014. “Reply to Critics.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 44(2):286–304.Google Scholar
Jubb, Robert. 2016. “Recover It from the Facts As We Know Them’: Practice-Dependence’s Predecessors.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 13(1):77–99.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O., Macedo, Stephen and Moravcsik, Andrew. 2009. “Democracy-Enhancing Multilateralism.” International Organization 63(1):1–31.Google Scholar
Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2017. “How to Diagnose Democratic Deficits in Global Politics: The Use of the ‘All-Affected Principle’.” International Theory 9(2):171–202.Google Scholar
Levi, Margaret, Sacks, Audrey and Tyler, Tom. 2009. “Conceptualizing Legitimacy, Measuring Legitimating Beliefs.” American Behavioral Scientist 53(3):354–375.Google Scholar
Matheson, Craig. 1987. “Weber and the Classification of Forms of Legitimacy.” British Journal of Sociology 38(2):199–215.Google Scholar
Meckled-Garcia, Saladin. 2013. “The Practice-Dependence Red Herring and Better Reasons for Restricting the Scope of Justice.” Raisons Politiques 51:97–120.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2014. “Is There a ‘Democratic Deficit’ in World Politics? A Framework for Analysis.” Government and Opposition 39(2):336–363.Google Scholar
Mundell, Robert A. 1961. “A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas.” American Economic Review 51(4):657–665.Google Scholar
Peter, Fabienne. 2008. Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ronzoni, Miriam. 2009. “The Global Order: A Case of Background Injustice? A Practice-Dependent Account.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(3):229–256.Google Scholar
Rosen, Michael. 1996. On Voluntary Servitude: False Consciousness and the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Enzo, and Sleat, Matt. 2014. “Realism in Normative Political Theory.” Philosophy Compass 9(10):689–701.Google Scholar
Sangiovanni, Andrea. 2008. “Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.” Journal of Political Philosophy 16(2):137–164.Google Scholar
Sangiovanni, Andrea. 2016. “How Practices Matter.” Journal of Political Philosophy 24(1):3–23.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Tim. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1996. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sleat, Matt. 2013. Liberal Realism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2016. The Euro and Its Threat to the Future of Europe. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2011. “Global Justice and Practice-Dependence: Conventionalism, Institutionalism, Functionalism.” Journal of Political Philosophy 19(4):399–418.Google Scholar
Varoufakis, Yanis. 2016. And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe, Austerity and the Threat to Global Stability. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Weatherford, Stephen. 1992. “Measuring Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 86(1):149–166.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2005. In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar