Legitimacy in the International System

One of the interesting issues that was raised in the class last night was the sources of legitimacy in the international realm. In an anarchic international system, there is no coercive force which can claim to define legitimacy.

States often decide on legitimacy issues by referencing interpretations of international norms, individual ideas and interests, or following the demands of their dominant trade partners or allies. As G. John Ikenberry writes, "leaders and diplomats frequently invoke the notion of "legitimacy" -- indeed, debate over the recent wars in Kuwait, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq was dense with claims and counterclaims about the legitimacy of military action.”[1] The line is increasingly blurred by the addition of non-state actors, raising additional questions of the source and scope of moral and legal legitimacy.

Two case studies are of particular interest:

Sanctions in Iraq

The UN Security Council imposed a “near total financial and trade embargo” on Iraq, beginning on August 6, 1990, and lasting until May 2003.[2] George Lopez and David Cortright argue that the sanctions destroyed Iraqi weapons programs and forced Saddam Hussein to accept nuclear inspectors.[3] The side effects of the sanctions were shortfalls in food, medicine, and medical care, which significantly affected the poor and led to a six-fold increase in the infant and child mortality rate.[4] The negative effects of these sanctions lead to a heated discussion on the legitimacy of UN sanctions. The organization Voices in the Wilderness was fined $20,000 for providing medicine and humanitarian aid to Iraq, allegedly violating UN sanctions.[5]

Blockade of Gaza

Hamas took power of the Gaza strip in 2007, causing Egypt and Israel to seal their borders and create a blockade of the area.[6] The UN Secretary General and the UN Human Rights Council have condemned the blockade as a violation of human rights. In 2010, Israel raided six civilian ships in international waters attempting to run the blockade of Gaza, killing nine activists in the process.[7] The UN Human Rights Council report determined that Israel’s actions were illegitimate, that the blockade violated international law, and that the use of force by Israeli commandos was excessive and unjustified. The U.S. complained about the wording and Israel cried foul.

Legitimacy plays a key role in evaluating each of these policy issues. In the case of sanctions in Iraq, the international community had authorized the policy, but many might fairly argue that it was illegitimate morally. In the Blockade of Gaza, the international community condemned the acts, but Israel asserted it was legitimate in using military force to attack civilian ships in international waters. Powerful states claim that these situations represent “criminal” acts of the non-state actors, but their claims to legitimacy are extremely murky, within the context of the anarchic international system.  

---

[1]  G. John Ikenberry, “Legitimacy in International Society,” Foreign Affairs, October 2005 (Accessed online 03 March 2015, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60856/g-john-ikenberry/legitimacy-in-international-society)

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

[3] George A. Lopez and David Cortright, “Containing Iraq: Sanctions Worked,” Foreign Affairs,  July/August 2004

[4] “Iraq Sanctions: Humanitarian Implications and Options for the Future,” Global Policy Forum, August 6, 2002 (Accessed online 03 March 2015, https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170-sanctions/41947-iraq-sanctions.html)

[5] Anderson, Gary L., and Kathryn G. Herr, eds. Encyclopedia of activism and social justice. Sage Publications, 2007, p. 1441

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid