Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T14:54:00.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Authority in International Relations

Contracted, Inscribed, or Reflexive?

from Part I - Theorizing Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2023

By
Michael Zürn
Edited by
Christopher Daase ,
Nicole Deitelhoff  and
Antonia Witt
Christopher Daase
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Nicole Deitelhoff
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and Goethe University Frankfurt
Antonia Witt
Affiliation:
Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, authority and rule are considered as analytical concepts to capture different forms of domination based on recognition. Both concepts involve the social paradox of voluntary subordination, particularly evident concerning global governance and International Organizations (IOs). The chapter discusses three theoretical solutions to the social paradox, thus three conceptualizations of authority. While contracted authority and inscribed authority represent the dominant conceptions in IR, they suffer from several shortcomings. Building on a critique of these variants, the chapter introduces reflexive authority as a third response, which understands authority in global governance as deriving from epistemic foundations that include the permanent monitoring of authorities. Reflexive authority relations involve enlightened and critical subordinates recognizing authority because they acknowledge their limitations. Instead of commands, authority holders send requests to constituencies, who monitor the authorities closely. This recognition of authority as worth observing leads to deference. Primary forms of contestations include non-compliance, delegitimation, and dissidence, which aim at different targets.

Keywords

Reflexive authoritycontracted authorityinscribed authorityepistemic authorityruledominancelegitimacyinternational organizationsglobal governance
Type
Chapter
Information
Rule in International Politics , pp. 33 - 60
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, Emanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel. J., and Sanford, R. Nevitt.. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen, Helfer, Laurence, and Madsen, Mikael. 2016. “How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts.” Law and Contemporary Problems 79(1): 1–36.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Avant, Deborah D., Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan K.. 2010. “Who Governs the Globe?,” in Avant, Deborah D., Finnemore, Martha, and Sell, Susan K. (eds.), Who Governs the Globe? New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Barker, Rodney. 2001. Legitimating Identities: The Self-Presentations of Rulers and Subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond (eds.). 2005. Power in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Finnemore, Martha. 2004. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, and Downs, George W.. 2009. “National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law.” European Journal of International Law 20(1): 59–72.Google Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas J., and Hall, Rodney B. (eds.). 2002. The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Julia. 2017. “‘Says Who?’ Liquid Authority and Interpretive Control in Transnational Regulatory Regimes.” International Theory 9(2): 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Daniel, and Payton, Autumn. 2008. “Voting Rules in International Organizations: Reflections of Power or Facilitators of Cooperation?” Paper presented at the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention, 2008, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Borchardt, Knut, Hanke, Edith, and Schluchter, Wolfgang (eds.). 2013. Max Weber Gesamtausgabe I/23. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Börzel, Tanja, and Zürn, Michael. 2021. “Contestations of the Liberal International Order: From Liberal Multilateralism to Postnational Liberalism.” International Organization 75(2): 282–305.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Breitmeier, Helmut, Young, Oran R., and Zürn, Michael. 2006. Analyzing International Environmental Regimes. From Case Study to Database. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. Basingstoke/London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith P. 1996. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooley, Alexander. 2005. Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Daase, Christopher, and Deitelhoff, Nicole. 2015. “Jenseits der Anarchie: Widerstand und Herrschaft im internationalen System.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 56(2): 299–318.Google Scholar
Daase, Christopher, Deitelhoff, Nicole, Kamis, Ben, Pfister, Jannik, and Wallmeier, Philip (eds.). 2017. Herrschaft in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Kevin E., Kingsbury, Benedict, and Engle Merry, Sally. 2012. “Indicators as a Technology of Global Governance.” Law & Society Review 46(1): 71–104.Google Scholar
de Wilde, Pieter, Leupold, Anna, and Schmidtke, Henning. 2016. “Introduction: The Differentiated Politicisation of European Governance.” West European Politics 39(1): 3–22.Google Scholar
de Wilde, Pieter, and Zürn, Michael. 2012. “Can the Politicization of European Integration Be Reversed?” Journal of Common Market Studies 50(S1): 137–153.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Empires. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1986. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1995. “Strategic Uses of Arguments,” in Arrow, Kenneth J., Mnookin, Robert H., Ross, Lee, and Tversky, Amos (eds.), Barriers to Conflict Resolution. New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 236–257.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1999. “Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constituent Assemblies.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 2: 345.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. 2014. “Authority and Reason-Giving.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89(2): 296–332.Google Scholar
Galtung, Johan. 1972. “Eine strukturelle Theorie des Imperialismus,” in Senghaas, Dieter (ed.), Imperialismus und strukturelle Gewalt. Analysen über abhängige Produktion. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 29–104.Google Scholar
Geis, Anna, Nullmeier, Frank, and Daase, Christopher (eds.). 2012. Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik. Rechtfertigung und Kritik politisch-ökonomischer Ordnungen (Leviathan Sonderband 40/27). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary, Lenz, Tobias, Bezuijen, Jeanine, Ceka, Besir, and Derderyan, Svet. 2017. Measuring International Authority. A Postfunctionalist Theory of Governance, Volume III. Corby: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max. 1987a [1936]. “Allgemeiner Teil,” in Horkheimer, Max (ed.), Studien über Autorität und Familie. Lüneburg: Dietrich zu Klampen Verlag, pp. 3–76.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max, ed. 1987b [1936]. Studien über Autorität und Familie. Lüneburg: Dietrich zu Klampen Verlag.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International Organization 53(2): 379–408.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2007. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hutter, Swen, and Grande, Edgar. 2014. “Politicizing Europe in the National Electoral Arena: A Comparative Analysis of Five West European Countries, 1970–2010.” Journal of Common Market Studies 52(5): 1002–1018.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith, and Simmons, Beth. 2015. “Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations.” American Journal of Political Science 59:1146–1161.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Paul. 1989. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kojéve, Alexandre. 1975. Hegel: Eine Vergegenwärtigung seines Denkens. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Krisch, Nico. 2017. “Liquid Authority in Global Governance.” International Theory 9(2): 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David A. 2010. “Rightful Rules: Authority, Order, and the Foundations of Global Governance.” International Studies Quarterly 54(3): 587–613.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles Edward. 1977. Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-Economic Systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52(4): 943–969.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Modelski, George. 1987. Long Cycles in World Politics. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Morse, Julia C., and Keohane, Robert O.. 2014. “Contested Multilateralism.” The Review of International Organizations 9(4): 385–412.Google Scholar
Münkler, Herfried. 2005. Imperien. Die Logik der Weltherrschaft – vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Nullmeier, Frank, Geis, Anna, and Daase, Christopher. 2012. “Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik: Rechtfertigung und Kritik politisch-ökonomischer Ordnungen,” in Geis, Anna, Nullmeier, Frank, and Daase, Christopher (eds.), Der Aufstieg der Legitimitätspolitik. Rechtfertigung und Kritik politisch-ökonomischer Ordnungen (Leviathan Sonderband) 40/27. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 11–40.Google Scholar
Peters, Birgit, and Karlsson Schaffer, Johan. 2013. “The Turn to Authority Beyond States.” Transnational Legal Theory 4(3): 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2016a. “Hierarchy in Practice: Multilateral Diplomacy and the Governance of International Security.” European Journal of International Security 1(1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2016b. International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2017. “Against Authority: The Heavy Weight of International Hierarchy,” in Zarakol, Ayşe (ed.), Hierarchies in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent, and Thérien, Jean-Philippe. 2018. “Global Governance in Practice.” Global Policy 9(2): 163–172.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2006. “The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception.” Minnesota Law Review 90(4):1003–1044.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2009. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1975. “International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends.” International Organization 29(3): 557–583.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 2004. “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain – Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10(4): 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmelzle, Cord. 2015. Politische Legitimität und zerfallene Staatlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schuppert, Gunnar Folke. 2010. Staat als Prozess: Eine staatstheoretische Skizze in sieben Aufzügen. Frankfurt, a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
Sending, Ole Jacob. 2015. The Politics of Expertise: Competing for Authority in Global Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sending, Ole Jacob. 2017. “Recognition and Liquid Authority.” International Theory 9(2): 311–328.Google Scholar
Sharman, Jason C. 2013. “International Hierarchies and Contemporary Imperial Governance: A Tale of Three Kingdoms.” European Journal of International Relations 19(2): 189–207.Google Scholar
Simmerl, Georg and Zürn, Michael. 2016. “Internationale Autorität: Zwei Perspektiven.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 23(1): 38–70.Google Scholar
Suchman, Marc C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” The Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610.Google Scholar
Tallberg, Jonas, Sommerer, Thomas, Squatrito, Theresa, and Jönsson, Christer. 2013. The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tallberg, Jonas and Zürn, Michael. 2019. “The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations: Introduction and Framework.” The Review of International Organization 14(4): 581–606.Google Scholar
Triepel, Heinrich. 1938. Die Hegemonie. Ein Buch von führenden Staaten. Stuttgart: Kohkhammer.Google Scholar
Venzke, Ingo. 2013. “Understanding the Authority of International Courts and Tribunals: On Delegation and Discursive Construction.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14(2): 381–409.Google Scholar
Viola, Lora A., Snidal, Duncan, and Zürn, Michael. 2015. “Sovereign (In)equality in the Evolution of the International System,” in Huber, Evelyne, Lange, Matthew, Leibfried, Stephan, Levy, Jonah, Nullmeier, Frank, and Stephens, John (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 221–236.Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, Armin, Dann, Philipp, and Goldmann, Matthias. 2010. “Developing the Publicness of Public International Law: Towards a Legal Framework for Global Governance Activities,” in von Bogdandy, Armin, Wolfrum, Rüdiger, von Bernstorff, Jochen, Dann, Philipp, and Goldmann, Matthias (eds.), The Exercise of Public Authority by International Institutions. Advancing International Institutional Law. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
von Bogdandy, Armin and Venzke, Ingo. 2014. In wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten globalen Regierens. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978 [1925]. “Chapter III. The Types of Legitimate Domination [Die Typen der Herrschaft],” in Roth, Guenther, and Wittich, Claus (eds.), Max Weber. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 212–301.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 2013. “Kapitel I. Soziologische Grundbegriffe,” in Borchardt, Knut, Hanke, Edith, and Schluchter, Wolfgang (eds.), Max Weber Gesamtausgabe I/23. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Soziologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 147–215.Google Scholar
Weingart, Peter. 2008. Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2014. A Theory of Contestation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael. 2018. A Theory of Global Governance. Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin, and Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias. 2012. “International Authority and Its Politicization.” International Theory 4(1): 69–106.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Tokhi, Alexandros, and Binder, Martin. 2021. “The International Authority Database.” Global Policy 12(4): 430–442.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×