Abstract
I have been kindly asked by the organizers of this Symposium to deal with a vast, difficult and, possibly, impossible topic. This is why I will first explain why I will not deal with my assigned topic. Then I will try to deal with it. And finally, if time and your patience allow, I will try to draw some conclusions — here again wider than my assigned topic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
”Why a Quest for Legitimacy?”, UC Davis Law Review 21 (1987), 535 or “Legitimacy in the International System”, AJIL 82 (1988), 705–759; for a more recent presentation: “The Power of Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Power: International Law in an Age of Power Disequilibrium”, AJIL 100 (2006), 88–106.
See e.g.: Myres S. McDougal and Harold D. Lasswell, “The Identification and Appraisal of Diverse Systems of Public Order”, AJIL 53 (1959), 1 et seq.; Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal, Jurisprudence for a Free Society, nature”. However it seems now to be well established that legitimacy is part of the legal debate in the international sphere even though there are some uncertainties, to say the least, about the precise meaning of the word — which I interpret in less of an idealistic way than the previous speakers even if, like them, I accept that legitimacy is subject-oriented; but I will return to this in a few minutes. 1992; see also: Inis L. Claude, “Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations”, International Organization 20 (1966), 367–379.
J.H.H. Weiler, “The Geology of International Law — Governance, Democracy and Legitimacy”, ZaöRV 64 (2004), 550.
“Cours général de droit international public”, Recueil des cours, vol. 207 1987-VII, 11–463.
See below in this book E. de Wet, “The Legitimacy of United Nations Security Council Decisions in the Fight against Terrorism and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Some Critical Remarks”, p. 131 et seq.; G. Abi-Saab, “The Security Council as Legislator and as Executive in its Fight Against Terrorism and Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Question of Legitimacy”, p. 109 et seq.
A. Buchanan and R.O. Keohane, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions”, in this volume, at p. 36.
Op. cit., note 3, at 561.
See ibid., at 548. See also, for various views: Hans Kelsen, Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts, 2nd ed., 1928; “Sovereignty and International Law”, Georgetown Law Journal 48 (1960), 627; Charles Chaumont, “Recherche sur le contenu irréductible du concept de souveraineté internationale de l’État”, Hommage d’une génération de juristes au Président Basdevant, 1960, 114–151; P. Guggenheim, “La souveraineté dans l’histoire du droit des gens”, Mélanges offerts à H. Rolin. Problèmes de droit des gens, 1964, 134–146; M. Virally, “Une pierre d’angle qui résiste au temps: avatars et pérennité de l’idée de souveraineté” in: I.U.H.E.I., Les relations internationales dans un monde en mutation, 1979, 179–195; J. Verhoeven, “L’État et l’ordre juridique international”, RGDIP 82 (1978), 749–774; A. Truyol-Serra, “Souveraineté”, Archives de philosophie du droit 35 (1990), 313–326; J. Combacau, “Pas une puissance, une liberté: la souveraineté internationale de l’État”, Pouvoirs 67 (1993), nℴ 7,47–58.
“Une politique qui a réussi” (Émile Giraud, “Le droit positif — ses rapports avec la philosophie et la politique”, note 11, 234).
R. Wolfram, “Legitimacy of International Law from a Legal Perspective: Some Introductory Considerations”, 1 et seq.; A. Buchanan and R.O. Keohane, “The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions”, at 25, both in this volume.
“Fairness in the International Legal and Institutional System — General Course on Public International Law”, Recueil des cours, vol. 240, 1993-III, 41–44.
See Joseph Gold, The Stand-by Arrangements of the IMF, 1970 or Patrick Daillier et Alain Pellet, Droit international public (Nguyen Quoc Dinh), 7th ed., 2002, at 1080. Contra: Dominique Carreau et Patrick Juillard, Droit international économique, 2nd ed., 2005, at 594.
As very aptly explained by professor Ian Hurd in an illuminating article, “legitimacy … refers to the normative belief by an actor that a rule of law or institution ought to be obeyed. It is a subjective quality, relational between actor and institution, and defined by the actor’s perception of the institution” (“Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics”, International Organization 53 (1999), at 381 — italics in the original text).
See Alain Pellet, “The Normative Dilemma: Will and Consent in International Law-Making”, Australian Yearbook of International Law 12 (1992), 22–53.
This second part of my presentation is directly inspired by a paper I prepared for the United Nations Foundation during the elaboration of the Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (A/59/565, 2 December 2004): “Legitimacy, Legality and the Use of Force” (reproduced on the website of the United Nations and Global Security Initiative — http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/pdf/ Pellet_legit_use_of_force.pdf).
See above, Wolfrum, note 14, at p. 24 and Buchanan and Keohane, note 14, at p. 47 respectively.
See ICJ, CR 2006/10, 6 March 2006 (Condorelli), at 26, para. 34; see also, e.g.: CR 2006/2, 27 February 2006 (Van den Biesen), at 46–47, para. 62–64 or at 51, para. 75; CR 2006/8, 3 March 2006 (Van den Biesen), at 57, para. 72–73 or at 59–60, para. 82–83; CR 2006/34, 20 April 2006 (Van den Biesen), at 28, para. 1 and at 29–30, para. 6–7 and ibid., (Ollivier), at 70, para. 20; see also the pleadings by Serbia and Montenegro trying to prove that assistance by the FRY to RS “was perfectly compatible with the (…) provisions of the United Nations Charter” (CR 2006/17, 13 March 2006 (Brownlie), p. 23, para. 222); see also CR 2006/16, 13 March 2006 (Brownlie), at 44–45, para. 129.
Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. 1996, p. 110, para. 210.
See the Court’s Judgment of 6 November 2003 in the Oil Platforms case, ICJ Rep. 2003, p 187, para. 51, or pp. 191–192, para. 64.
See Alain Pellet, “Inutile Assemblée générale?”, Pouvoirs 109 (2003), 43–60, esp. at 52–53.
An Agenda, for Peace. Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping, UN Doc. A/47/277 and S/24111, 31 January 1992.
Supplement to an Agenda for Peace: Position Paper of the Secretary-General on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/50/60-S/1995/1, 3 January 1995.
See Wolfrum, note 14, at p. 19 et seq.
See Buchanan and Keohane, note 14, at p. 42 et seq.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pellet, A. (2008). Legitimacy of Legislative and Executive Actions of International Institutions. In: Wolfrum, R., Röben, V. (eds) Legitimacy in International Law. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 194. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77764-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77764-9_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-77763-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-77764-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)