The Legitimacy of International Regimes

Helmut Breitmeier

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781138259119
• eBook ISBN: 9781351886840
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

How legitimate are outcomes, outputs and impacts of global environmental regimes? Can non-state actors contribute to improve the output- and input-oriented legitimacy of global environmental governance? Helmut Breitmeier responds to these questions, balancing the volume with both theoretical and empirical chapters. The theoretical and conceptual chapters illustrate the relevance and meaning of legitimacy as well as the impact of non-state actors on environmental governance. They also describe various methodological issues involved with the coding of 23 environmental regimes. The empirical chapters are based on the findings of the International Regimes Database (IRD). They explore whether problem-solving in international regimes is effective and equitable and the influence of a regime's contribution to how states comply with international norms. These chapters also analyze whether non-state actors can improve the output- and input-oriented legitimacy of global governance systems.

Chapter 1
Introduction

How can social order beyond the level of the nation-state emerge, be maintained, or further develop under conditions of profound change? The changes occurring in world politics in the past few decades require a new mix between coercion, self-interest, or legitimacy as the possible modes by which order can be established beyond the nation-state. These three modes of social order are not fully congruent with the categorization of power, interest, or knowledge as variables which are usually used for explaining outcomes and behavioral changes in world politics (Hasenclever, Mayer and Rittberger 1997; Levy, Young and Zürn 1995; Young and Osherenko 1993). This traditional categorization, however, seems no longer justified as far as the mode of knowledge is concerned. The more the character of politics in multi-level governance systems approximates, even though not fully equals, to the pluralist character of domestic politics, the less it remains plausible that studies of domestic or international order rely on partly different understandings with knowledge considered to become relevant on the international level and legitimacy to unfold mainly in domestic politics. Further on, the more international law will constrain the autonomy of political decision-making within the nation-state or will permeate the lifeworld of the people on the domestic level, the more will it become necessary to establish grounds based on social reason which justify to follow or implement international legal norms.¹

Though this study focuses on legitimacy and will move away from the traditional understanding of knowledge as a basic causal variable that accounts for social order, many insights gained from knowledge-based theories cannot simply be abandoned in searching for components which make up legitimacy as a concept. The various knowledge-based approaches on international institutions were subsumed by Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer and Volker Rittberger (1997, 136–210) under the labels of “weak” and “strong” cognitivism. They called these approaches “cognitive” because these theories prefer an interpretive to the traditional behavioral approach to politics. Cognitive theories explain outcomes and behavioral change as a result of inter-subjective meanings and shared understandings. How far can we tie in cognitive theories in developing a conception of legitimacy that applies to global governance systems? The theories subsumed under weak cognitivism depict a narrow part of the real world of international politics as they consider knowledge to become relevant mainly for the re-evaluation of state interests. They highlight the epistemic foundations on which grounds for legitimacy must be based. These approaches take into account that consensual knowledge produced by networks of scientific and technical experts about cause-effect-relationships sets the benchmark for assessing the quality of policies. They lead us to ask how far global governance is capable of learning or can absorb new ideas and adapt to new requirements arising from constant change in world politics (Adler and P. M. Haas 1992; Goldstein and Keohane 1993; E. B. Haas 1990; P. M. Haas 1990; Mitchell, Clark, Cash and Dickson 2006). However, weak cognitivist theories inhere an elitist approach of international policymaking. They mainly describe the collaboration between, or the strategies taken by, scientific and technical experts or epistemic networks which facilitate change in the minds of policymakers.

The theories merged under the label of strong cognitivism take the assumption as a starting-point that the normative environment of international politics in which states became embedded shape the identities of, or contribute to socialize, states in international society. They also allude to the potential inherent to globalized public spheres for establishing a discursive setting through which an integrating global civil society can communicate, become aware of its collective will and reach consensus on the rightness of arguments and the appropriateness of international policies (Bohman 1998; Risse 2000). Unlike weak cognitivist approaches, these theories are much more able to cope with the new reality of an emerging global civil society influencing political decision-making on the level beyond the nation-state. The distinction between weak and strong cognitivism offers a way to rearrange the multitude of cognitivist theories under the umbrella of two broader strands of literature. But it is questionable whether the original meaning of knowledge applies to all of the theories which were labeled as “cognitivist” equally.² Strong cognitivism considers the interplay between international norms and evolving pluralism in world politics. It focuses on cognition and communication as processes that determine perceptions and preferences by states. But it ignores the traditional meaning of the knowledge as a relevant causal factor.

This book deals with the following questions: How far do the policies and procedures of international regimes justify obedience in world politics? Did institutional mechanisms contribute to improving the legitimacy of international institutions? How far can non-state actors have an effect on the legitimacy of international environmental regimes? These questions extensively preoccupied students of international politics and political decision-makers for a number of reasons. The internationalization of policymaking described by international lawyers, political scientists or sociologists under the terms of global juridification or legalization suggests the rise of new systems of political rule on the transnational level. Policymaking on the domestic level has been confronted with a number of questions that apply to international institutions likewise: Which benefit arises from governance systems? Would the state of the world be better or worse without institutions? How far are outcomes and impacts produced by institutions acceptable to social groups or states? Do global governance systems consider the demand for transnational democracy?

Within the past few decades world politics has experienced a strong increase of governance systems for the protection of the environment. The complexity of global governance systems and their interconnection with domestic politics imply that obedience to global governance can be realized only if a transition from hierarchical or state-dominated forms of international governance towards horizontal forms of global governance will be made. Such horizontal forms consider the potential which global civil society can provide for the achievement of outputs, outcomes, and impacts in world politics. Many approaches dealing with emerging global civil society or with different types of non-state actors in world politics implicitly or explicitly demand such a transition. The prime hypothesis which will be followed in this study draws a causal connection between the activities of non-state actors and legitimacy: Only if non-state actors can develop political activities and give effect to their problem-solving potential, it will be possible to improve the legitimacy of global governance systems. This causal connection is now commonly accepted by policymakers and appears as a commonplace in the declarations adopted by intergovernmental conferences. But we still lack knowledge whether this causal assumption is confirmed by the reality. We also lack a common understanding about the concept of legitimacy: Why can social order in world politics emerge if global governance systems fulfill grounds for legitimacy? What does the idea of legitimacy mean? Do non-state actors have an impact on outcomes and impacts in world politics? These questions will comprehensively be dealt with in the different chapters of this book.

In the following, the term of non-state actors will be used as a conceptual framework for exploring the influence of various types of actors other than the state. This implies that attention will not be limited to non-profit activist interest groups, but analysis will consider a broad spectrum of non-state actors. This study is not biased in favor of a single type of non-state actor. It takes into account that transnational politics is characterized by heterogeneous interests of different types of non-state actors. This study is also aware that non-state actors alone can hardly solve all the complex issues that exist in world politics. The political monopoly of the international society of states has eroded since World War II, but the state continues to play an important role in global governance systems. One should not be blind to the problems that can arise from strengthened participation of non-state actors in political processes. The empirical chapters of this book will illustrate how far non-state actors can influence processes and outcomes of global governance.

The International Regimes Database

The prime hypothesis will be confronted with empirical findings which can illustrate the impact of non-state actors on the legitimacy of global governance. Most of the empirical parts of this study will be based on the results of the International Regimes Database (IRD). Twenty-three international environmental regimes have been coded for the IRD (Breitmeier, Young and Zürn 2006). This database emerged in the context of a multi-year collaborative project between American and German scholars (Breitmeier, Levy, Young and Zürn 1996a and 1996b). This project was carried out in two stages. In a first step, a comprehensive data protocol was developed by Marc A. Levy, Oran R. Young, Michael Zürn and myself when we were involved with the so-called IEC-project at IIASA in Laxenburg (Austria). When the coding of 23 international environmental regimes began in fall 1998, the project entered into a second stage. The coding of these regimes has been carried out by international case study experts. Well-defined criteria have been used for dividing these regimes into 92 sub-cases. These criteria have been used to distinguish so-called “regime elements” as smallest units of analysis. Regime elements were identified with coding case study experts if the existence of separate institutional arrangements (e.g., conventions, protocols, annexes, or relevant soft law agreements) allowed to separate a regime into various components. These criteria also provide for the distinction of different periods in the lifecycles of regimes. They were used for identifying important watersheds (e.g., the moment of the development of new institutional arrangements) in the lifecycles of regimes. Fourteen of the 23 regimes coded came into existence more than two decades ago. The IRD provides a tool for analyzing regimes from a historical-comparative perspective. This tool became publicly available to the social science community (see Breitmeier, Young and Zürn 2006). Empirical analysis will also use another less comprehensive data set which was collected independently of the IRD. This separate data-set will be used for exploring the procedures provided by environmental regimes for participation of non-state actors. The collection of these separate data on procedures for participation became necessary when this individual research project about the impact of non-state actors on global governance has been launched after the development of the IRD-codebook had been concluded. The separate data-set on procedures for participation will be used for empirical analysis in chapter 10, but it is less relevant to analysis carried out in other empirical chapters.

Outline of the Book

Theoretical and empirical chapters balance one another in this book. Four theoretical and conceptual chapters will illustrate the relevance and meaning of legitimacy, the impact of institutional mechanisms and non-state actors on environmental governance, or describe various methodological issues involved with the coding of 23 environmental regimes. Chapter 2 explores which consequences arise from changes in world politics for the evolution of social order beyond the nation-state. It will be argued that change in world politics needs to strengthen legitimacy as a mode of social order in world society. The dependent variable of legitimacy will be operationalized in chapter 3. The concept of legitimacy used in this study will be differentiated from Max Weber’s traditional concept of legitimacy who understood the subject in terms of people’s belief in legitimacy. Instead, legitimacy will be understood as a concept that is based on grounds that justify obedience to social order in world politics. These grounds are connected to the fulfillment of various outputs, outcomes and impacts of international regimes or of normative requirements that constitute politics in the modern era. The concept of the legitimacy of international regimes is based on five grounds that justify obedience. These grounds involve that obedience to the policies of international institutions will be justified i) if they improve our knowledge about the causes and effects of problems and about the policy options which can be used for problem-solving, ii) if they strengthen compliance, iii) if they change the state of the world in issue-areas towards a more desirable direction, iv) if they contribute that the distribution of costs and benefits will become acceptable to affected social groups or states, and v) if they provide procedures which allow participation by emerging civil society. The independent variable which focuses on possible contributions of non-state actors will be operationalized in chapter 4. This chapter distinguishes between various types of non-state actors and illustrates their activities and conflicting interests in international regimes. It will become obvious that non-state actors can promote or constrain the achievement of grounds for legitimacy in world politics. The question concerning the contribution of non-state actors to the fulfillment of various grounds for legitimacy will be answered in two different steps. First, it will be explored whether the international institution had an effect and whether institutional mechanisms existed which could be used by non-state actors for influencing the legitimacy of regimes. A second explanation considers participation by non-state actors in political processes. It will be explored how far non-state actors affected outcomes and impacts in institutional mechanisms or shaped discussions in transnational public spheres. Chapter 5 builds the bridge between theoretical chapters and empirical analysis. It describes the guidelines used, and it illustrates the experiences made, during the development of case structures for the coding of regimes.

In the five empirical chapters that follow it will be explored how far the prime hypothesis is confirmed by empirical reality. Chapters 6–10 will present results of empirical analysis. It will be explored in these chapters how far various grounds for legitimacy have been fulfilled. It will be explored whether institutional mechanisms influenced observed outputs, outcomes and impacts and whether non-state actors contributed to achieving observed levels of change in our dependent variable. Chapter 6 will explore whether a reduction of uncertainties in the cognitive setting took place in regimes. It will be measured whether regimes were affected by change regarding the understanding about the nature of the problem, the completeness of information about policy options, or the capacities which enable members to participate in social practices. Chapter 7 will illustrate how far compliance as another ground for legitimacy has been achieved in regimes. Two different measurements will be made. It will be measured how far compliance has been achieved on the level of all members of single regimes. Another measurement directs attention on compliance behavior of single important states in a regime. Chapter 8 uses two different approaches for measuring changes in the state of problems managed by environmental regimes. The study of goal-attainment focuses on exploring whether goals which were established in the constitutive legal agreements of regimes have been fulfilled. The study of problem-solving directs the view on the measurement of the improvement, worsening, or continuation of the status quo in the state of environmental problems. Chapter 9 pays attention to the distributional consequences of regimes. Analysis will focus on patterns that determined the financing of the management or administration of regimes, and on the distribution of costs or benefits in issue-areas. Finally, chapter 10 explores whether a number of basic rights which characterize our concept of transnational democracy are provided in the rules of procedures of regimes and whether these rights were used by non-state actors. In some respects, this chapter has an explorative character since the total of regimes covered is less comprehensive than in other empirical chapters.

1 See also Hurd (1999, 380) who argues that the mode of legitimacy has been neglected by the scientific research of international politics. A growing number of studies produced by political scientists or lawyers which evaluate the legitimate character, or reflect on the prospects of improvements of the legitimacy of governance on the global level or within regional institutions like the European Union signals that such neglect is no longer tenable (Bodansky 1999; Cutler 2001; Habermas 1998; Wolf 1997).

2 For example. Ernst B. Haas (1990. 21) defined consensual knowledge as "generally accepted understandings about cause-effect-linkages about any set of phenomena considered important by society, provided only that the finality of the accepted chain of causation is subject to continuous testing and examination through adversary procedures".

Chapter 2
International Regimes in a World of Change: Why Legitimacy?

What do we understand by a social order at the level beyond the nation-state? The term of a social order refers to the regularity, predictability, or stability of patterns of behavior in social life. The quality of social order can be determined by assessing whether governance systems lead to the fulfillment of specific goals underlying a social order. Hedley Bull (1977, 4) pointed out that social order “is not any pattern or regularity in the relations of human individuals or groups, but a pattern that leads to a particular result, an arrangement of social life such that it promotes certain goals or values” [emphasis by author]. Social order is desirable only if the goals which it fulfills are compatible with social reason. The different international orders that emerged in the past few centuries considered the state as a main actor which dominates interactions and the creation of outcomes in international politics.¹ The idea of the state as a main actor in international politics emerged with the Westphalian model of order. This type of international order was established after the political chaos a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 International Regimes in a World of Change: Why Legitimacy?
• 3 What is, and How Can We Measure, the Legitimacy of Regimes?
• 4 Non-State Actors and the Legitimacy of International Regimes
• 5 Regimes, Case-Design, and Coding Procedure
• 6 Regimes and the Reduction of Uncertainties
• 7 Regimes and Compliance
• 8 Regimes and the Management of Environmental Problems
• 9 Distributional Consequences of Environmental Regimes
• 10 Non-State Actors and Participation in Regime Polities
• 11 Conclusion
• References
• Index