Post-legitimacy and post-legitimisation: a convergence of Western and non-Western intervention

ABSTRACT

This contribution makes the point that we have entered an era of post-legitimisation whereby intervening states invest little energy into justifying their international interventions. Non-Western intervening states are often accused of offering very minimal justifications for their presence and actions overseas. Where justificatory statements are made, they are often short and bland. In an interesting convergence, leading proponent states of the liberal peace have followed suit and no longer offer lengthy justifications of their actions. At the high-point of liberal internationalism in the 1990s and the early 2000s, immense diplomatic capital was expended on justifying intervention. Now that is not the case. Where justification is made, it deploys the language of security and stabilisation.

KEYWORDS:

• Legitimacy
• legitimisation
• intervention
• stabilisation
• liberal peace

Acknowledgements

EU Horizon 2020 project EUNPACK, grant agreement number 693337; British Academy, Tackling the UK’s Global Challenges Programme.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Holland and Aaronson, ‘Dominance through Coercion’.

2. Blair, ‘The Doctrine of the International Community’.

3. https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-embassy-tripoli

4. EEAS, ‘EU Support to Libya’.

5. Trump, ‘Speech on Afghanistan’.

6. Khalilzad, ‘Trump Shouldn’t Forget’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Roger Mac Ginty

Roger Mac Ginty is Professor in the Durham Global Security Institute at the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University. He edits the journal Peacebuilding (with Oliver Richmond) and the book series ‘Rethinking Political Violence’. His main research interest is in the relationship between bottom-up and top-down approaches to research.