This article provides a novel systematic exploration of ways and extents that institutional characteristics shape legitimacy beliefs toward multistakeholder global governance. Multistakeholderism... Show moreThis article provides a novel systematic exploration of ways and extents that institutional characteristics shape legitimacy beliefs toward multistakeholder global governance. Multistakeholderism is often argued to offer institutional advantages over intergovernmental multilateralism in handling global problems. This study examines whether, in practice, perceptions of institutional purpose, procedure, and performance affect legitimacy assessments regarding this form of global governance. The analysis focuses on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), one of the largest and most institutionally developed global multistakeholder arrangements. Evidence comes from a mixed-methods survey of 467 participants in ICANN. We find that this representative sample accords high importance in principle to many institutional features, and also rates the actual institutional operations of ICANN quite highly on various counts. Moreover, many institutional characteristics associate significantly with participants' legitimacy beliefs toward ICANN. However, not all institutional qualities have this significance, and the relevance of individual- and societal-level circumstances indicates that institutional sources do not provide a full explanation of legitimacy. The article contributes refinements to theory of legitimacy in global governance; demonstrates the value of mixed-methods survey work in this field; supplies unique original data and analysis; and identifies implications for the politics of (de)legitimation around multistakeholderism. Show less
This chapter examines global tax governance. By assuming that the term global tax governance is used to impose outcomes on people, the question that should be asked would be, if this is true, and... Show moreThis chapter examines global tax governance. By assuming that the term global tax governance is used to impose outcomes on people, the question that should be asked would be, if this is true, and countries still follow these outcomes by the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD), under what conditions can the model of global tax governance be feasible and legitimate for both developed and developing countries? The chapter begins by looking at the recent international tax standards, mainly exchange of information and BEPS as developed by the OECD with the political mandate of the G20. It then addresses the use of soft law vs. hard law to introduce international tax standards, before considering the role of developing countries in the BEPS Inclusive Framework and the peer review of the BEPS Minimum Standards. Finally, the chapter studies the validity of the outcome of these international tax standards and discusses the role of the actors in global tax governance. Show less
Contesting the nature of right to resist continues to be of concern to those in power, for it poses the fundamental question about their legitimacy. From to Antigone to the Occupy Wall Street... Show moreContesting the nature of right to resist continues to be of concern to those in power, for it poses the fundamental question about their legitimacy. From to Antigone to the Occupy Wall Street movement, individuals and communities have expressed their grievances and resisted oppression through a myriad of strategies. And although those taking the streets use the language of rights and appeal to a higher law to vindicate their claims, resistance has usually been considered a political, or rather, a security affair. The thesis vindicates the place of the ius resistendi in the normative order and uses legal probe to evince that there are no reasons why it could not be considered a legal right, except for political opportunity. The thesis challenges some basic postulates of liberal legal theories and develops a broader conception of rights, one in which reserved rights are part of a democratic normative system that performs in a manner consistent with its fundamental values. A primary, indeterminate right, the ius resistendi, I contend, embodies the Arendtian right to have rights. Show less
Tallberg, J.; Bäckstrand, K.; Scholte, J.A.; Sommerer, T. 2023
This report from the SNS Democracy Council provides a thorough assessment of whether the current system of global governance is fit for purpose. Do current international organizations hold the... Show moreThis report from the SNS Democracy Council provides a thorough assessment of whether the current system of global governance is fit for purpose. Do current international organizations hold the power required to develop, implement, and enforce global policies? Do these institutions wield this power with sufficient effectiveness to reduce transboundary problems? And do they possess legitimacy as governing bodies in the eyes of citizens and elites? This report explores these themes in a comparative perspective, mapping and analyzing patterns across a broad range of international organizations in areas such as development, finance, health, human rights, security, and trade. As an illustration, the report also offers an in-depth analysis of power, effectiveness, and legitimacy in respect of global climate governance. Show less
A key aspect of institutions for conflict resolution is their legitimacy. What legitimacy entails, however, is essentially contested and depends in part on whether one takes a legal, normative, or... Show moreA key aspect of institutions for conflict resolution is their legitimacy. What legitimacy entails, however, is essentially contested and depends in part on whether one takes a legal, normative, or social perspective. The current special issue aims to gain a better understanding of legitimacy within the context of institutions for conflict resolution by examining (1) whether and, if so, how studying institutions for conflict resolution through the lens of legitimacy can deepen our understanding of these institutions, and (2) whether and, if so, how studying legitimacy in the specific context of institutions for conflict resolution can enrich our understanding of legitimacy. After introducing the term ‘institutions for conflict resolution’ and detailing current approaches to legitimacy, this Introduction assesses what the potential cross-fertilisation between both concepts may look like. We do so based on the papers included in this special issue, which showcase the diversity of ways in which legitimacy of institutions for conflict resolution may be researched, as they focus on different types of conflicts that take place within different fields of law and involve different kinds of institutions. Finally, we take stock of the insights yielded by the papers included in this issue, and reflect on directions for further research on legitimacy, institutions for conflict resolution, and their cross-fertilisation. Show less
De EU heeft Polen financiële sancties opgelegd wegens problemen met de onafhankelijkheid van de rechterlijke macht. De sancties bedragen meer dan € 300 miljoen en het bedrag blijft groeien. Hoe... Show moreDe EU heeft Polen financiële sancties opgelegd wegens problemen met de onafhankelijkheid van de rechterlijke macht. De sancties bedragen meer dan € 300 miljoen en het bedrag blijft groeien. Hoe worden de sancties door de Poolse bevolking ervaren? Worden ze als gerechtvaardigd en aanvaardbaar beschouwd? Show less
Toshkov, D.D.; Mazepus, H.; Yordanova, N.; Piqani, D. 2022
The EU has imposed financial sanctions on Poland for problems with judicial independence. The sanctions amount to more than €300 mill., and the sum continues to grow. How are the sanctions... Show moreThe EU has imposed financial sanctions on Poland for problems with judicial independence. The sanctions amount to more than €300 mill., and the sum continues to grow. How are the sanctions perceived by the Polish population? Are they considered justified and acceptable, and by whom? Show less
Dellmuth, L.; Scholte, J.A.; Tallberg, J.; Verhaegen, S. 2022
Citizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance offers the first full comparative study of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. Empirically, it provides a... Show moreCitizens, Elites, and the Legitimacy of Global Governance offers the first full comparative study of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. Empirically, it provides a comprehensive analysis of public and elite opinion toward global governance, building on two uniquely coordinated surveys covering multiple countries and international organizations. Theoretically, it develops an individual-level approach, exploring how a person's characteristics in respect of socioeconomic status, political values, geographical identification, and institutional trust shape legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. The book's central findings are three-fold. First, there is a notable and general elite-citizen gap in legitimacy beliefs toward global governance. While elites on average hold moderately high levels of legitimacy toward international organizations, the general public is decidedly more skeptical. Second, individual-level differences in interests, values, identities, and trust dispositions provide significant drivers of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs toward global governance, as well as the gap between them. Most important on the whole are differences in the extent to which citizens and elites trust domestic political institutions, which systematically shape how they assess the legitimacy of international organizations. Third, both patterns and sources of citizen and elite legitimacy beliefs vary across organizations and countries. These variations suggest that institutional and societal contexts condition attitudes toward global governance. The book's findings shed important light on future opportunities and constraints in international cooperation, suggesting that current levels of legitimacy point neither to a general crisis of global governance nor to a general readiness for its expansion. Show less
This article undertakes an empirical investigation of the relationship between structural inequalities and legitimacy beliefs in global governance. Normative theory often emphasises inequality as a... Show moreThis article undertakes an empirical investigation of the relationship between structural inequalities and legitimacy beliefs in global governance. Normative theory often emphasises inequality as a major source of injustice in global politics, but we lack empirical research that examines the implications of inequality for legitimacy in concrete situations of global governance. This paper draws on large mixed-method survey evidence regarding inequality perceptions and legitimacy beliefs at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a key site of global Internet governance that has given particular priority to issues of diversity and inclusion. Our analysis arrives at four main findings. First, participants in ICANN do perceive substantial structural power asymmetries and often find them to be problematic. Second, persons on the perceived subordinate side of these power stratifications tend to observe larger inequalities and to find them more problematic than persons on the perceived dominant side. However, third, these perceptions and concerns about inequality almost never associate with legitimacy beliefs towards ICANN, even among people in structurally subordinated positions and among people who express the greatest worries regarding power inequalities. Fourth, in forming legitimacy perceptions, participants at ICANN generally prioritise other aspects of institutional purpose, procedure and performance, unconnected with inequality. This lack of a relationship between perceptions of inequality and legitimacy beliefs suggests that, however sympathetic policy elites at ICANN might be towards greater equality in principle, they are unlikely to give it precedence in practice. Show less
According to Chiao in his contribution to this book, the desirability of the use of AI in sentencing should be evaluated by comparing computers to the status quo ante, rather than to an unrealistic... Show moreAccording to Chiao in his contribution to this book, the desirability of the use of AI in sentencing should be evaluated by comparing computers to the status quo ante, rather than to an unrealistic, and in any case unrealized, ideal. Although we agree that changes to the legal process such as adopting algorithmic sentencing methods can be beneficial when the change is an incremental improvement over the status quo, in order to assess whether the change is an improvement, we need to know what this “ideal” is toward which improvements are aimed. Therefore, the question whether AI is better at making sentencing decisions than human judges is approached differently in this chapter. We compare human with AI judges by evaluating the extent to which they are able to make a legitimate sentencing decision: Is legitimacy better achieved by machine than by human judges? Show less
This policy brief recommends the introduction of a “G20+” to lead the way on a post-pandemic socio-economic recovery that is effective, sustainable, and equitable. The “G20+” would harness the... Show moreThis policy brief recommends the introduction of a “G20+” to lead the way on a post-pandemic socio-economic recovery that is effective, sustainable, and equitable. The “G20+” would harness the group’s formidable economic and political clout, while addressing its current deficits as regards legitimacy, representativeness and connections to the wider multilateral system. The policy brief sets out specific priority actions for the “G20+” to pursue, both in the short and medium-term, and outlines which institutional innovations are needed to achieve these ends. Moreover, it sketches a strategy for launching the “G20+”, starting with Italy’s G20 Presidency in 2021. Show less
Dellmuth, L.; Scholte, J.A.; Tallberg, J.; Verhaegen, S. 2021
Scholars and policy makers debate whether elites and citizens hold different views of the legitimacy of international organizations (IOs). Until now, sparse data has limited our ability to... Show moreScholars and policy makers debate whether elites and citizens hold different views of the legitimacy of international organizations (IOs). Until now, sparse data has limited our ability to establish such gaps and to formulate theories for explaining them. This article offers the first systematic comparative analysis of elite and citizen perceptions of the legitimacy of IOs. It examines legitimacy beliefs toward six key IOs, drawing on uniquely coordinated survey evidence from Brazil, Germany, the Philippines, Russia, and the United States. We find a notable elite–citizen gap for all six IOs, four of the five countries, and all of six different elite types. Developing an individual-level approach to legitimacy beliefs, we argue that this gap is driven by systematic differences between elites and citizens in characteristics that matter for attitudes toward IOs. Our findings suggest that deep-seated differences between elites and general publics may present major challenges for democratic and effective international cooperation. Show less
This article examines levels and patterns of legitimacy beliefs toward one of today’s most developed global multistakeholder regimes, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN... Show moreThis article examines levels and patterns of legitimacy beliefs toward one of today’s most developed global multistakeholder regimes, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Two complementary surveys find that levels of legitimacy perceptions toward ICANN often rank alongside, and sometimes ahead of, those for other sites of global governance, both multilateral and multistakeholder. Moreover, average legitimacy beliefs toward ICANN hold consistently across stakeholder sectors, geographical regions, and social groups. However, legitimacy beliefs decline as one moves away from the core of the regime, and many elites remain unaware of ICANN. Furthermore, many participants in Internet governance express only moderate (and sometimes low) confidence in ICANN. To this extent, the regime’s legitimacy is more fragile. Extrapolation from mixed evidence around ICANN suggests that, while multistakeholder global governance is not under existential threat, its legitimacy remains somewhat tenuous. Show less
Elites are central in creating, operating, defending and contesting international organisations (IOs), but little research is available about their attitudes toward these bodies. To address this... Show moreElites are central in creating, operating, defending and contesting international organisations (IOs), but little research is available about their attitudes toward these bodies. To address this gap, this article offers the first systematic and comparative analysis of elite perceptions of IO legitimacy. Building on a unique multi-country and multi-sector survey of 860 elites undertaken in 2017–19, we map and explain elite legitimacy beliefs toward three key IOs in different issue-areas: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Integrating public opinion research and international relations theory, the article advances an explanation of elites’ legitimacy beliefs that emphasises their satisfaction with the institutional qualities of IOs. We contrast this argument with three common alternative explanations, which respectively highlight utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues. The analyses show that elites’ satisfaction with institutional qualities of IOs is most consistently related to legitimacy beliefs: when elites are more satisfied with democracy, effectiveness and fairness in IOs, they also regard these IOs as more legitimate. These findings suggest that the prevailing debate between utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues approaches neglects the importance of institutional satisfaction as an explanation of attitudes toward IOs. Show less
Upon receipt of a right to be forgotten request, private actors like Google are responsible for implementing the balancing test between competing rights of privacy and data protection and free... Show moreUpon receipt of a right to be forgotten request, private actors like Google are responsible for implementing the balancing test between competing rights of privacy and data protection and free expression and access to information. This amounts to private jurisprudence that data subjects, lawyers, and interested parties could, theoretically, game to their advantage. This paper critiques this process and argues two separate, but related points. (1) Search engines have become the sole arbiter of the rights to privacy and data protection under Articles 7 and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, when safeguarding should be a responsibility of state authorities. (2) As private actors face litigation if their decision is not acceptable to the data subject, the right to access information and the public's right to know is compromised. Search engines exert considerable power over access to and Internet usage, yet nevertheless benefit from frameworks that permit a lack of adherence to similar human rights standards as public actors or agencies. As such, empowering search engines as decision-makers over conflicting fundamental rights is problematic. Rather than allow the content of the right to be forgotten to be fleshed out by private actors, the significant body of existing jurisprudence should form the basis for public guidelines on how to implement the right to be forgotten. An analysis of case law of national courts, the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU reveals two related matters: it is possible to reverse engineer how search engines determine which requests will be actioned and those which will be denied. This paper argues a) collectively the body of jurisprudence is of sufficient standing to develop a public and transparent balancing test that is fair to all stakeholders and b) private actors should no longer be resolving the conflict between competing fundamental rights. The paper closes by positing a framework, loosely based on ICANN's Uniform Domain Resolution Procedure for resolving conflict between conflicting cyber property rights that provides transparency and accountability to the right to be forgotten and removes search engines as arbiters of the balancing test in select cases. Show less
Although the literature shows a bewildering variety of typologies of representative democracy, the most important distinctions can be subsumed under a basic dichotomy with, on the one hand, a... Show moreAlthough the literature shows a bewildering variety of typologies of representative democracy, the most important distinctions can be subsumed under a basic dichotomy with, on the one hand, a populist-majoritarian model, and on the other hand a liberal/consensual model. That latter model comes in two varieties: a liberal model based on the division of power, and a consensual model based on the sharing of power. The search for the best model is hampered by the fact that so many criteria are biased in favour of a particular model, and by the ambition to find a universally valid answer, ignoring the interaction of the institutional architecture with the structure and culture of society. Show less
With the issuing of guidance documents the European Commission assists the Member States in the implementation of Union law. This thesis seeks to unravel the process of governance through guidance... Show moreWith the issuing of guidance documents the European Commission assists the Member States in the implementation of Union law. This thesis seeks to unravel the process of governance through guidance by tracing its role and legal implications in the Dutch legal order.The first part explores the use of guidance documents by Dutch authorities and courts. Along the lines of five types of guidance and four perspectives on their binding force, different roles of guidance are discerned. National courts act as counterbalancing or facilitating actors by reinforcing or downplaying the role of guidance documents in implementation processes.The second part assesses the implications in the light of legal principles. To this end, it formulates four ‘promises’, or ideal effects, that outline how the use of guidance documents could contribute to a predictable, consistent and transparent implementation process, whilst respecting the rule of EU hard law. The analysis finds that, in practice, these ‘promises of guidance’ are not always fulfilled: a gap between promise and practice exists.The findings thus show how the issuing and use of guidance risks to challenge the rule of law that is so fundamental to the EU legal order. This thesis therefore invites to rethink governance through guidance. Show less
