From Power to Legitimacy: Rethinking Authority in Twenty-First Century International Relations

Authors

  • Nawid Aria Jami University, Herat, Afghanistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61227/inisiatif.v5i2.828

Keywords:

International Authority, Legitimacy, Constructivism, Power, International Order

Abstract

Current issues of international relations have seen increased challenges to conventional perceptions of authority that are predominantly premised on material power, with states endowed with considerable military and economic means finding themselves unable to achieve compliance, while lesser entities wielding little power exert considerable influence. The existing literature provides explanations for the nature of authority based on military and economic power without adequately addressing the issue of legitimacy’s importance in building authority at the international level. This paper explores how legitimacy has increasingly become an important source of international authority in the modern world and what the significance of this development is for the international system. This study aims to create an understanding based on the concept of legitimacy and how it impacts the establishment and implementation of international authority in international relations. Based on constructivism, which sees authority as an intersubjective concept that requires recognition, the research uses qualitative conceptual analysis to build a new legitimacy-based framework. The research is based on documentation that comes from a thorough search through peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, edited collections, theoretical writings, documents of international organizations, policy papers, and treaties via JSTOR, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Out of the total number of around 80 pieces of literature found, 65 pieces of documentation were selected for the purpose of the research, and thematic analysis was conducted on the material. The paper asserts that although material capabilities are still required, they become inadequate to produce legitimate international authority unless complemented by legitimacy resulting from norms, institutions, identities, and acceptance. It explains the dynamics through which the legitimacy from norms, institutions, identities, and performance comes into play along with material capabilities and intersubjectivity to produce legitimate international authority. Three main contributions of the paper include a new conceptualization of international authority based on legitimacy, reconsideration of the power-legitimacy connection, and contribution to constructivist literature on authority in the context of modern times.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adeniji, G. (2022). Constructivist school in international relations and security studies. Ekpoma Review Journal, 9.

Ali, J., Mu, R., & Yaqub, M. (2025). The shifting global geo-political landscape: China, Russia and the US in a new era of competition. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 29(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2025.3.02

Aria, N. (2025). Exploring the possibility of overcoming the anarchic nature of the international system through a constructivist approach. IUP Journal of International Relations, 19(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.71329/IUPJIR/2025.19.1.7-20

Aria, N. (2025). Shaping the world order: The strategic logic behind the foreign policies of great powers. Panoply Journal, 6. https://doi.org/10.71166/rxtvge22

Aria, N. (2025). The power of ideas: A constructivist reinterpretation of security in international relations. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(3), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.62810/jssh.v2i3.120

Arlen, G., Scherz, A., & Vestergren, M. (2023). New perspectives on the legitimacy of international institutions and power. Journal of Social Philosophy, 54(3), 445–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12554

Arnold, T. D. (2025). De-dollarization and global sovereignty: BRICS’ quest for a new financial paradigm. Human Geography, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/19427786241266896

Ayodele, O. (2025). The emerging BRICS financial architecture: A catalyst for global governance reform? Politikon, 52(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2025.2503106

Behravesh, M. (2011). Constructivism: An introduction. E-International Relations.

Bell, D. A., & Wang, P. (2020). Just hierarchy between states: On the need for reciprocity. In Just hierarchy: Why social hierarchies matter in China and the rest of the world. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691200897.003.0004

Bottoms, A. (2019). Understanding compliance with laws and regulations: A mechanism-based approach. In M. Krambia-Kapardis (Ed.), Financial compliance (pp. 1–45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14511-8_1

Buira, A. (2005). The Bretton Woods institutions: Governance without legitimacy? (Working Paper No. 180). Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick.

Chandler, D. (2004). The constructivist thesis. In Constructing global civil society (pp. 25–56). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005846_2

Cho, Y. C. (2009). Conventional and critical constructivist approaches to national security: An analytical survey. The Korean Journal of International Relations, 49(3), 75–96.

Chu, S. (2022). Dissociation via alternative institutions: The establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and US–China conflict. Historical Social Research, 47(2), 109–137. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.47.2022.18

Clark, I. (2007). International legitimacy. In Legitimacy in international society (pp. 15–44). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219193.003.0002

Clark, I. (2011). Legitimacy and the institutional forms of hegemony. In Hegemony in international society. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556267.003.0004

Dagher, R. (2018). Legitimacy and post-conflict state-building: The undervalued role of performance legitimacy. Conflict, Security & Development, 18(2), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2018.1447860

Dehnavi, E. A., Ardam, S. M., Barzyan, M. G., & Parvaresh, A. (2021). Security from the perspectives of realism, Copenhagen, liberalism with a little taste of technology. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology, 18(6), 489–511.

Deng, Y. (2024, April 26). China grapples with the institutional future of the Belt and Road Initiative. East Asia Forum. https://doi.org/10.59425/eabc.1714125600

Devitt, R. (2011, September 1). Liberal institutionalism: An alternative IR theory or just maintaining the status quo? E-International Relations.

Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2016, December 3). The global crisis of multilateralism. E-International Relations.

Farrell, S. (2020). Compliance in international law: The role of legitimacy and effect on states’ material power. Bellarmine Law Society Review, 11(1), Article 2.

Garlick, J., & Qin, F. (2024). China’s “do-as-I-do” paradigm: Practice-based normative diplomacy in the global South. The Pacific Review, 37(5), 985–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2023.2290619

Hong, Y. (2015). Bipolar (dis)order. In Cold War Germany, the Third World, and the global humanitarian regime (pp. 13–48). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316155257.002

Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081899550913

Hurd, I. (2019). Legitimacy and contestation in global governance: Revisiting the folk theory of international institutions. The Review of International Organizations, 14(4), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-018-9338-z

Ikenberry, G. J. (2009). Liberalism in a realist world: International relations as an American scholarly tradition. International Studies, 46(1–2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/002088171004600213

Imerman, D. (2018). Contested legitimacy and institutional change: Unpacking the dynamics of institutional legitimacy. International Studies Review, 20(1), 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix039

Jongen, H., & Scholte, J. A. (2022). Inequality and legitimacy in global governance: An empirical study. European Journal of International Relations, 28(3), 667–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221098218

Jung, H. (2019). The evolution of social constructivism in political science: Past to present. SAGE Open, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019832703

Kang, D. C. (2012). Authority and legitimacy in international relations: Evidence from Korean and Japanese relations in pre-modern East Asia. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pos002

Kentikelenis, A., & Voeten, E. (2021). Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018. The Review of International Organizations, 16(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-020-09404-y

Khan, A., Irshad, M. K., & Khan, I. U. (2025). The rise of non-state actors in global governance: Challenges and opportunities. Pakistan Journal of Social Science Review, 4(6), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17559408

Krauthammer, C. (2002). The unipolar moment revisited. The National Interest, (70), 5–17.

Kustermans, J., & Horemans, R. (2022). Four conceptions of authority in international relations. International Organization, 76(1), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000381

Lake, D. A. (2013). Authority, coercion, and power in international relations. In M. Finnemore & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: State power in a contemporary world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.003.0004

Lake, D. A. (2026). Crisis of legitimacy: Deep contestation, inequality, and the liberal international order. In A. Wiener, D. A. Lake, & T. Risse (Eds.), Deep contestations of the liberal international order. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198981022.003.0004

Liu, P., & Cao, Y. (2023). Going beyond the “normative vs. social” standard: A preliminary framework for evaluating the legitimacy of international institutions. Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00826-z

Mahmood, R. M. (2025). Power in international relations: Insights from realist and liberal theories. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 21(8), 27. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2024.v21n8p27

Malpas, J. (2012). Donald Davidson. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.). Stanford University.

Mastanduno, M. (1997). Preserving the unipolar moment: Realist theories and U.S. grand strategy after the Cold War. International Security, 21(4), 49–88. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.21.4.49

Meyerle, J. (2021). Implications of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. CNA.

Mihoubi, F. (2025). The Russian-Ukrainian war's impact on international power balances. Revue Algérienne des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques, 62(3), 234–249.

Mikail, E., & Aytekin, C. (2016). Identity in security studies. Open Journal of Political Science, 6, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2016.64030

Minatti, W. (2024). Legitimate governance in international politics: Towards a relational theory of legitimation. Review of International Studies, 50(4), 662–681. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210524000111

Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking preferences seriously: A liberal theory of international politics. International Organization, 51(4), 513–553.

Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251–287. https://doi.org/10.1162/00208180151140577

Özdamar, Ö., & Shahin, E. (2021). Consequences of economic sanctions: The state of the art and paths forward. International Studies Review, 23(4), 1646–1671. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viab029

Phillips, A. (2023). The Peace of Westphalia. In M. Bukovansky, E. Keene, M. Neufeld, & C. Reus-Smit (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of history and international relations. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198873457.013.36

Reus-Smit, C. (2014). Power, legitimacy, and order. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 7(3), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pou035

Reus-Smit, C. (2007). International crises of legitimacy. International Politics, 44(2–3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800182

Ryan, J. (2026, January 31). After degradation: A roadmap for U.S. democratic repair (Report No. 270). Toda Peace Institute.

Savu, L.-M. (2021). Realism, liberalism and constructivism in the pursuit of security. Proceedings of the 17th International Scientific Conference Strategies XXI, 17(1). National University of Political Sciences and Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.53477/2668-2001-21-02

Silva, F. B. da. (2026). China’s Belt and Road and the Global South: A normative challenge to the liberal international order. World Affairs, 189(2), e270065. https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.70065

Scherz, A., & Suttle, O. (2025). Legitimate international authority and institutional diversity. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2025.2499356

Schwarz, R., & Rudyak, M. (2023). China’s development co-operation (OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers No. 113). OECD Publishing.

Steinberg, R. H. (2022). The rise and decline of a liberal international order. In D. L. Sloss (Ed.), Is the international legal order unraveling? Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197652800.003.0002

Steffek, J. (2007). Legitimacy in international relations: From state compliance to citizen consensus. In A. Hurrelmann, S. Schneider, & J. Steffek (Eds.), Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 175–192). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230598393_9

Stephen, M. D., & Scherzinger, J. (2026). Is China building a rival international order and how would we know? (Draft paper presented at the 18th PEIO Annual Conference).

Stephen, M. D. (2021). China’s new multilateral institutions: A framework and research agenda. International Studies Review, 23(3), 807–834. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viaa076

Tábor, Á. (2020). Identity crisis in U.S. foreign policy: Discourses of greatness and exceptionalism after 2008. Corvinus Journal of International Affairs, 5(2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.14267/cojourn.2020v5n2a2

Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security seeking under anarchy: Defensive realism revisited. International Security, 25(3), 128–161.

Tallberg, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Scholte, J. A. (Eds.). (2018). Legitimacy in global governance: Sources, processes, and consequences. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826873.001.0001

Tucker, P. M. W. (2026). The significance of legitimacy for the future of the international system. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 19, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-025-00440-9

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.

Whalan, J. (2013). Power, legitimacy, and their relationship. In How peace operations work: Power, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672189.003.0003

Woods, N., Betts, A., Prantl, J., & Sridhar, D. (2013). Transforming global governance for the 21st century (Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper No. 2013/09). United Nations Development Programme.

Zürn, M. (2018). The rise of the global governance system: A historical-institutionalist account. In A theory of global governance: Authority, legitimacy, and contestation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198819974.003.0006

Additional Files

Published

2026-09-01

 


How to Cite

Aria, N. (2026). From Power to Legitimacy: Rethinking Authority in Twenty-First Century International Relations. Inisiatif : Jurnal Dedikasi Pengabdian Masyarakat, 5(2), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.61227/inisiatif.v5i2.828

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.