Why Use the Language of the Law in Global Politics? On the Legitimacy Effects of Claiming to Act Legally

Abstract

Why do actors use the language of international law in global politics? This chapter discusses answers to this question from the perspective of three different logics of action—consequentialism, appropriateness, and deference. It exposes how different explanations for the invocation of international law share assumptions about the law’s legitimacy effect, i.e., its impact on evaluative judgments about what is right and wrong. Typically: Do levels of approval decrease if a certain behavior is claimed to be illegal? This chapter discusses experimental studies that have inquired into the impact of invoking the law on public opinion, overall offering some support for the law’s legitimacy effect. But those studies are partially contradictory and require further refinement. The chapter argues that inquiries should pay closer regard to international law’s distinctive claim to authority, to the predispositions of non-US audiences, and to law’s function in enabling rather than constraining behavior. On this basis, the chapter makes suggestions for future experimental setups, closing with an outlook on the deep divides that have separated experimental methods from legal research of a more critical bent.