Autokratien, Demokratien und die Legitimität internationaler Organisationen

Abstract

This article addresses a central gap within empirical legitimacy research, which results from the systematic negligence of non-democratic regimes and their evaluations of international institutions. In particular, it seeks to clarify divergent theoretical assumptions on the influence of the regime type on patterns of (de-)legitimation of global governance. Do states externalize legitimacy standards in line with their own domestic practices of legitimation? Or is their international legitimacy discourse part of a process of global convergence? This article uses qualitative content analysis to compare the legitimacy standards democratic, autocratic and hybrid regimes refer to in their assessments of the United Nations General Assembly. The empirical results reveal a surprisingly high consistency among the three regime types' legitimacy judgments. The study thereby provides empirical evidence against the transfer thesis and in support of the assumption of a global convergence in the patterns of legitimation of global governance. (English)