Make Up Post

This post will be expounding upon the concept of the term ‘legitimacy’ in relation to the state and the international system drawing from Milner’s The Assumption of Anarchy.  In political science and international relations legitimacy is defined as the belief that a certain ruler or institution has the right to govern. This definition suggests that the individual is not a mere passive creature. This is also evident in how as Milner argued there are more civil wars today then international wars. The belief that states cannot maintain authority without legitimacy hence is quite true. 

Now how is this legitimacy established by the states? Political legitimacy is essential to maintain authority within a state or within any relationship. Without this acceptance/approval of a certain institution there is very little chance that the institution would be able to perform. There are several ways a state establishes legitimacy domestically one of them is popular support was the reason that legitimized Hitler’s regime and that is the case with most regimes around the world. Without this civil wars ensue. The Arab Spring and various other revolutions are tantamount to the importance of recognized legitimacy. With a government that is considered legitimate there is a strong assumption that with it comes  social order which in turn leads to peace. 

Would it be possible to have an international government? Now due to the assumption of anarchy in the system, some argue that if there is an international institution that can govern the actions of the states we might be able to achieve peace. However, the government according to Weber is ‘the use of legitimate force’ thus can an international institution gain legitimacy in the international realm? One can say that the United Nations has to some extent been recognized as a legitimate international institution. Yet there have been major UN violations and a general discontent with it’s action (and in some instances it’s inaction) Moreover, the UN is not an international government. An international government in my opinion and of many others I assume, would never be able to gain legitimacy as it contradicts with the idea of state sovereignty. However, that leads to another question. Why are individuals ready to give up their sovereignty to a state government? There are various differing perspectives on why this is so. Some might say that it is not giving up their sovereignty but it’s a way to protect it. But then why won’t states in the international realm consider this course of action? For now I’ll end with these questions hoping by the end of this course I’ll have the answers to them.