Justifying Delegitimation: African Critiques of Global Governance Institutions
Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport › Bidrag til bog/antologi › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Justifying Delegitimation: African Critiques of Global Governance Institutions. / Gregoratti, Catia; Stappert, Nora; Söderbaum, Fredrik.
Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences. red. / Magdalena Bexell; Kristina Jönsson; Anders Uhlin. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2022. s. 162-183.Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapport › Bidrag til bog/antologi › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Justifying Delegitimation: African Critiques of Global Governance Institutions
AU - Gregoratti, Catia
AU - Stappert, Nora
AU - Söderbaum, Fredrik
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - This chapter focuses on delegitimation and asks how far the institutional set-up of global governance institutions determines which normative justifications are raised to challenge their legitimacy. Specifically, it compares the normative justifications used by African states and civil society organizations to delegitimate the African Union (AU), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Kimberley Process. Such a focus not only responds to calls for Global International Relations, but also explores regional dynamics in delegitimation practices that are often overlooked in extant literature on legitimacy in global governance. The chapter draws on a range of statements made by African states and civil society organizations, additional documents, and qualitative interviews, enabling the comparative case studies to probe key institutionalist and structuralist theoretical expectations. It asks whether differing institutional set-ups or a shared history of colonialism results in continuing power hierarchies that shape normative justifications of delegitimation practices. The chapter highlights the importance of underlying power hierarchies for delegitimation practices, as it finds support for structuralist expectations across the three cases. However, it also outlines important synergies between institutionalist and structuralist expectations.
AB - This chapter focuses on delegitimation and asks how far the institutional set-up of global governance institutions determines which normative justifications are raised to challenge their legitimacy. Specifically, it compares the normative justifications used by African states and civil society organizations to delegitimate the African Union (AU), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Kimberley Process. Such a focus not only responds to calls for Global International Relations, but also explores regional dynamics in delegitimation practices that are often overlooked in extant literature on legitimacy in global governance. The chapter draws on a range of statements made by African states and civil society organizations, additional documents, and qualitative interviews, enabling the comparative case studies to probe key institutionalist and structuralist theoretical expectations. It asks whether differing institutional set-ups or a shared history of colonialism results in continuing power hierarchies that shape normative justifications of delegitimation practices. The chapter highlights the importance of underlying power hierarchies for delegitimation practices, as it finds support for structuralist expectations across the three cases. However, it also outlines important synergies between institutionalist and structuralist expectations.
M3 - Book chapter
SP - 162
EP - 183
BT - Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences
A2 - Bexell, Magdalena
A2 - Jönsson, Kristina
A2 - Uhlin, Anders
PB - Oxford University Press
CY - Oxford
ER -
ID: 334857579