This article aims to explain the protean nature of the concept of “legitimacy,” arguing that its variability largely stems from denoting a quality of institutions that is both internally complex and sensitive to variations in institutional context. While this institutional-context sensitivity often leads to confusion and miscommunication, it is also what centers the concept’s meaning and use. To better understand legitimacy’s different forms of institutional-context sensitivity, and how they are interconnected, the article shifts from analysis and comparisons of concepts and theories of legitimacy to analysis and comparison of specific legitimacy arguments regarding specific institutions. It introduces a structured framework for analyzing legitimacy claims, beginning with the identification of the institutional level that the argument is directed at. This approach highlights how legitimacy assessments vary across higher and lower institutional levels—a crucial aspect of institutional-context sensitivity that has been underexplored in recent institutional legitimacy literature. The framework, comprising four steps of analysis and two supporting figures, advances our understanding of the complex nature of institutions’ legitimacy and underscores the importance of distinguishing between the legitimacy of an institution and the legitimacy within an institution. Throughout, the article illustrates the framework with examples drawn from scholarly debates on the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court.

Despite a trend of increasing multilevel government across the globe, there are surprisingly few studies on public support for decisions taken by different government levels. Decentralization is likely to boost government support because it increases congruence between citizens and their representatives. We argue that citizens’ preferences for subnational authority are key for their willingness to accept governmental decisions. Citizens who prefer decentralization are more supportive of subnational decisions, and their support for national decisions increases when subnational governments are involved in the decision-making process. We fielded a survey that asked 1,855 Norwegian respondents their willingness to accept decisions taken by their municipality, county, and national government to close an educational institution in their municipality. We find substantial empirical evidence for our hypotheses. Norway is a least-likely-case because government tiers enjoy high levels of trust. Therefore, the results have also important implications for the legitimacy of multilevel government in other countries.

International institutions underpinning the ‘liberal international order’ are increasingly contested by established Western powers. This article contributes to a better understanding of this novel challenge ‘from within’. We conceptualize four types of contestation frames according to (1) whether contesting states attribute the source of grievances to specific practices or the underlying principles of an international institution; and (2) whether they present their own nation or the international community as the subject of grievances. Combining these two dimensions, we distinguish between globalist-reformist, nationalist-reformist, globalist-revisionist and nationalist-revisionist contestation frames. These contestation frames are consequential as they open up or shrink the discursive space for contested institutions’ re-legitimation. Drawing on the Trump Administration’s contestation of the World Bank, NATO, the UNHRC, and the WTO, we demonstrate that contestation frames and defenders’ responses varied greatly across institutions, ranging from accommodative deliberations about institutional reforms to principled rejection and the justification of the status quo.