Can transparency strengthen the legitimacy of international institutions? Evidence from the UN Security Council

IF 3.4 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Peace Research Pub Date : 2023-03-22 DOI:10.1177/00223433221123996
Vegard H. Tørstad
{"title":"Can transparency strengthen the legitimacy of international institutions? Evidence from the UN Security Council","authors":"Vegard H. Tørstad","doi":"10.1177/00223433221123996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can transparency enhance the legitimacy of international institutions? As transparency has become a widely applied procedural standard in international politics, a range of institutions have implemented transparency reforms under the presumption that increased transparency can elicit support among relevant audiences. This article evaluates whether increased transparency in the UN Security Council leads to enhanced legitimacy perceptions among UN member-states. The article first traces the history of Security Council reform since 1990 and draws on interviews with diplomats and observers to describe a transparency reform the Council enacted in 2006. Next, the article uses longitudinal content analysis to empirically probe the legitimation effects of that transparency reform. The empirical analysis is based on an original dataset of 4,303 legitimacy statements made by UN member-states in annual UN General Assembly debates over the periods 1990–2006 and 2006–18. The findings cast doubt over the potential of transparency reform to improve the Council’s legitimacy; instead they suggest that increasing the direct participation of the wider UN membership may be a more viable legitimation strategy. This article contributes to existing international legitimacy literature by providing empirical evidence on the relationship between transparency and legitimacy, and by demonstrating which institutional features that affect the perceived legitimacy of the Security Council.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Peace Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221123996","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Can transparency enhance the legitimacy of international institutions? As transparency has become a widely applied procedural standard in international politics, a range of institutions have implemented transparency reforms under the presumption that increased transparency can elicit support among relevant audiences. This article evaluates whether increased transparency in the UN Security Council leads to enhanced legitimacy perceptions among UN member-states. The article first traces the history of Security Council reform since 1990 and draws on interviews with diplomats and observers to describe a transparency reform the Council enacted in 2006. Next, the article uses longitudinal content analysis to empirically probe the legitimation effects of that transparency reform. The empirical analysis is based on an original dataset of 4,303 legitimacy statements made by UN member-states in annual UN General Assembly debates over the periods 1990–2006 and 2006–18. The findings cast doubt over the potential of transparency reform to improve the Council’s legitimacy; instead they suggest that increasing the direct participation of the wider UN membership may be a more viable legitimation strategy. This article contributes to existing international legitimacy literature by providing empirical evidence on the relationship between transparency and legitimacy, and by demonstrating which institutional features that affect the perceived legitimacy of the Security Council.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
透明度能增强国际机构的合法性吗?来自联合国安理会的证据
透明度能提高国际机构的合法性吗?由于透明度已成为国际政治中广泛应用的程序标准,一系列机构在假定提高透明度可以获得相关受众的支持的情况下实施了透明度改革。本文评估了联合国安理会透明度的提高是否会提高联合国成员国对其合法性的认知。本文首先回顾了1990年以来安理会改革的历史,并通过对外交官和观察员的采访描述了安理会2006年实施的透明度改革。其次,本文采用纵向内容分析的方法,实证探讨了透明度改革的正当性效应。该实证分析基于联合国成员国在1990-2006年和2006 - 2018年期间联合国大会年度辩论中发表的4303份合法性声明的原始数据集。调查结果使人对透明度改革提高安理会合法性的潜力产生怀疑;相反,他们提出,让更广泛的联合国成员国直接参与,可能是一种更可行的合法化策略。本文提供了关于透明度与合法性之间关系的经验证据,并展示了哪些体制特征影响了人们对安全理事会合法性的认识,从而对现有的国际合法性文献作出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Journal of Peace Research is an interdisciplinary and international peer reviewed bimonthly journal of scholarly work in peace research. Edited at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), by an international editorial committee, Journal of Peace Research strives for a global focus on conflict and peacemaking. From its establishment in 1964, authors from over 50 countries have published in JPR. The Journal encourages a wide conception of peace, but focuses on the causes of violence and conflict resolution. Without sacrificing the requirements for theoretical rigour and methodological sophistication, articles directed towards ways and means of peace are favoured.
期刊最新文献
It’s not just about jobs: The significance of employment quality for participation in political violence and protests in selected Arab Mediterranean countries Mapping advocacy support: Geographic proximity to outgroups and human rights promotion Divided loyalty: Are broadly recruited militaries less likely to repress nonviolent antigovernment protests? How critical junctures shape secessionist movement cohesion: Strategies, framing processes, and interorganizational relations before and after the 2017 referendum in Catalonia To compete or strategically retreat? The global diffusion of reconnaissance strike
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1