{"title":"拉美国家日益扩大的民主差距:政体争论的内生来源。","authors":"Christian Kreuder-Sonnen, Berthold Rittberger","doi":"10.1057/s41268-022-00275-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Liberal International Order (LIO) is under pressure from various angles. To account for this phenomenon, a recent trend is to focus on endogenous sources of contestation-institutional properties of the order that create negative feedback effects. In this article, we seize on and extend an endogenous explanation centring on the LIO's political structure and institutional design. While existing research stipulates a connection between the rising authority of liberal international organisations (IOs) and their increasing politicisation, we still lack a clear understanding of the reasons behind the growing rejection of the order at the level of mass publics. We argue that the LIO's institutional setup contains a widening 'democracy gap' denoting a disconnect between the participatory legitimation requirements for the exercise of political authority and the technocratic legitimation rationale characterising IOs. By creating a <i>justification deficit</i>, the democracy gap incites growing political dissatisfaction and, by implying a <i>responsiveness deficit</i>, it turns policy contestation into outright polity contestation. We probe the plausibility of our theoretical argument in case studies of the EU and the international regimes on trade and human rights, and subsequently discuss the analytical and normative implications of our argument.</p>","PeriodicalId":46698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Relations and Development","volume":"26 1","pages":"61-85"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490710/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The LIO's growing democracy gap: an endogenous source of polity contestation.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Kreuder-Sonnen, Berthold Rittberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41268-022-00275-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Liberal International Order (LIO) is under pressure from various angles. To account for this phenomenon, a recent trend is to focus on endogenous sources of contestation-institutional properties of the order that create negative feedback effects. In this article, we seize on and extend an endogenous explanation centring on the LIO's political structure and institutional design. While existing research stipulates a connection between the rising authority of liberal international organisations (IOs) and their increasing politicisation, we still lack a clear understanding of the reasons behind the growing rejection of the order at the level of mass publics. We argue that the LIO's institutional setup contains a widening 'democracy gap' denoting a disconnect between the participatory legitimation requirements for the exercise of political authority and the technocratic legitimation rationale characterising IOs. By creating a <i>justification deficit</i>, the democracy gap incites growing political dissatisfaction and, by implying a <i>responsiveness deficit</i>, it turns policy contestation into outright polity contestation. We probe the plausibility of our theoretical argument in case studies of the EU and the international regimes on trade and human rights, and subsequently discuss the analytical and normative implications of our argument.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Relations and Development\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"61-85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9490710/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Relations and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-022-00275-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Relations and Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-022-00275-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The LIO's growing democracy gap: an endogenous source of polity contestation.
The Liberal International Order (LIO) is under pressure from various angles. To account for this phenomenon, a recent trend is to focus on endogenous sources of contestation-institutional properties of the order that create negative feedback effects. In this article, we seize on and extend an endogenous explanation centring on the LIO's political structure and institutional design. While existing research stipulates a connection between the rising authority of liberal international organisations (IOs) and their increasing politicisation, we still lack a clear understanding of the reasons behind the growing rejection of the order at the level of mass publics. We argue that the LIO's institutional setup contains a widening 'democracy gap' denoting a disconnect between the participatory legitimation requirements for the exercise of political authority and the technocratic legitimation rationale characterising IOs. By creating a justification deficit, the democracy gap incites growing political dissatisfaction and, by implying a responsiveness deficit, it turns policy contestation into outright polity contestation. We probe the plausibility of our theoretical argument in case studies of the EU and the international regimes on trade and human rights, and subsequently discuss the analytical and normative implications of our argument.
期刊介绍:
JIRD is an independent and internationally peer-reviewed journal in international relations and international political economy. It publishes articles on contemporary world politics and the global political economy from a variety of methodologies and approaches.
The journal, whose history goes back to 1984, has been established to encourage scholarly publications by authors coming from Central/Eastern Europe. Open to all scholars since its refoundation in the late 1990s, yet keeping this initial aim, it applied a rigorous peer-review system and became the official journal of the Central and East European International Studies Association (CEEISA).
JIRD seeks original manuscripts that provide theoretically informed empirical analyses of issues in international relations and international political economy, as well as original theoretical or conceptual analyses.