Abstract
International norms are influential when they are seen as legitimate, and recent American behaviour may undermine the legitimacy of norms on the use of force. I examine three kinds of legitimacy crisis that might arise from American revisionism. First, the US threatens to delegitimate the norms that it challenges, particularly on military preemption. Second, it threatens to undermine its own influence by disassociating American power from one source of legitimation. Finally, it may negate the basic idea of American hegemony as that term is understood in constructivist scholarship and so transform the structure of the international system. Any of these might lead to a crisis, though of different kinds. The American challenge to the customary law on preemption threatens to delegitimize both the existing norms and the social basis of US power, while also attempting to legitimize American interests and new understandings of the norms. It therefore shows the productive and destructive aspects of the power of legitimation in world politics. Legitimation is the link between states and the normative structures of international society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a critique of ‘choice’ and norms, see Toope (2003, 303–304). On the social needs of states, see Wendt (1999).
On legitimation, norms and interests, see also Finnemore (2004), Hurd (2007).
The audience might of course be multiple and conflicted rather than singular and coherent.
To do so, they assume that the US has, until recently, been ruling ‘with right’.
Letter from Mr. Webster to Mr. Fox, April 24, 1841, excerpt in Harris (1991, 848).
For instance, Harris (1991), Arend (2003), Sofaer (2003), and Schachter (1989).
This is sometimes called ‘prevention’ rather than ‘preemption’ (see for instance Hastedt, 2006, 361–362) but the two are conceptually identical; they differ only in the time between the act and its provocation. Also, Freedman (2003).
On Great Powers, compare Schweller (1996) with Mearsheimer (2001). Also Simpson (2004).
The Scotia case, US, Supreme Court, 1872, 14 Wall. (81 US) 170. Cited in Von Glahn (1996, 15).
On customary law, see Brownlie (2003).
Cf. Cortell and Davis Jr (2000, 69) who see justification as a byproduct of ‘regret’ about ‘deviation or violation’ of norms. To them, justification is important for rule-breakers and not for rule-followers.
Thomas (1999) takes a similarly structural approach to human rights norms in Eastern Europe.
References
Ackerman, D. (2002) ‘International Law and the Preemptive use of Force against Iraq’, www.house.gov/radanovich/documents/CRSReportIraqInternationallaw.html (accessed June 6, 2006).
Arend, A.C. (2003) ‘International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force’, Washington Quarterly 26(2): 89–103.
Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (2005) ‘Power and International Politics’, International Organization 59(1): 39–75.
Brooks, S.G. and Wohlforth, W.C. (2005) ‘International Relations Theory and the Case Against Unilateralism’, Perspectives on Politics 3(3): 509–524.
Brooks, S.G. and Wohlforth, W.C. (2007) The Challenge of American Primacy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brownlie, I. (2003) Principles of Public International Law, 6th edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bukovansky, M. (2002) Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Byers, M. (2005) War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict, New York: Grove Press.
Charney, J.I. (1986) ‘The Power of the Executive Branch of the United States Government to Violate Customary International Law’, American Journal of International Law 80(4): 913–922.
Clark, I. (2005) Legitimacy in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Claude Jr, I.L. (1967) ‘Collective Legitimation as a Political Function of the United Nations’, in I.J. Claude Jr (ed.) The Changing United Nations, New York: Random House.
Coicaud, J.-M. (2002) Legitimacy and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cortell, A.P. and Davis Jr, J.W. (2000) ‘Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda’, International Studies Review 2(1): 65–90.
Cronin, B. (2001) ‘The Paradox of Hegemony: America's Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations’, European Journal of International Relations 7(1): 103–130.
Finnemore, M. (2004) The Purpose of Intervention, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Freedman, L. (2003) ‘Prevention, not Preemption’, Washington Quarterly 26(2): 105–114.
Harris, D.J. (1991) Cases and Materials on International Law, 4th edn., London: Sweet and Maxwell.
Hastedt, G.P. (2006) American Foreign Policy: Past, Present, Future, 6th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Heisbourg, F. (2003) ‘A Work in Progress: The Bush Doctrine and its Consequences’, Washington Quarterly 26(2): 75–88.
Hook, S.W. and Spanier, J. (2004) American Foreign Policy Since World War II, 16th edn., Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Hurd, I. (2005) ‘The Strategic Use of Liberal Internationalism: Libya and the UN Sanctions, 1992–2003’, International Organization 59(3): 495–526.
Hurd, I. (2007) After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power at the United Nations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kagan, R. (2002) ‘Multilateralism, American Style’, Washington Post, September 13.
Kane, J. (2001) The Politics of Moral Capital, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krasner, S. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Krisch, N. (2003) ‘More Equal than the Rest? Hierarchy, Equality and US Predominance in International Law’, in M. Byers and G. Nolte (eds.) United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, L.L. (2003) ‘Multilateral Organizations After the US-Iraq War of 2003’, in I. Abrams and W. Gungwu (eds.) The Iraq War and its Consequences: Thoughts of Nobel Prize Laureates and Eminent Scholars, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Mearsheimer, J.J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton.
Mitzen, J. (2006) ‘Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma’, European Journal of International Relations 12(3): 341–370.
Nye, J. (2002) The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone, New York: Oxford University Press.
Philpott, D. (2001) Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Raymond, G.A. (1997) ‘Problems and Prospects in the Study of International Norms’, Mershon International Studies Review 41(2): 205–245.
Reus-Smit, C. (1999) The Moral Purpose of the State, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (2004) American Power and World Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rice, C. (2005) Remarks at the American Bar Association's International Rule of Law Symposium, Washington, DC: US State Department, November 9.
Risse, T. and Sikkink, K. (1999) ‘The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms Into Domestic Practices: Introduction’, in T. Risse, S.C. Ropp and K. Sikkink (eds.) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rupert, M. (2003) ‘Globalizing Common Sense: A Marxist Gramscian (re-)Vision of the Politics of Governance/Resistance’, Review of International Studies 29(Special Issue): 181–198.
Sands, P. (2005) Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules — From FDR's Atlantic Charter to George W. Bush's Illegal War, New York: Viking.
Schachter, O. (1989) ‘Self-Defense and the Rule of Law’, American Journal of International Law 83(2): 259–277.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2003) The EU, NATO, and the Integration of Europe: Rules and Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweller, R.L. (1996) ‘Neorealism’s Status Quo Bias: What Security with Dilemma?’, Security Studies 5(3): 90–121.
Simpson, G. (2004) Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skidelsky, R. (2003) ‘The American Contract’, Prospect, June 19.
Smith, C. and Mekhennet, S. (2006) ‘Algerian Tells of Dark Odyssey in US Hands’, New York Times, July 7.
Sofaer, A.D. (2003) ‘On the Necessity of Pre-Emption’, European Journal of International Law 14(2): 209–226.
Thomas, D.C. (1999) ‘The Helsinki Accords and Political Change in Eastern Europe’, in T. Risse, S.C. Ropp and K. Sikkink (eds.) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toope, S. (2003) ‘Powerful but Unpersuasive? The Role of the United States in the Evolution of Customary International Law’, in M. Byers and G. Nolte (eds.) United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–361.
Von Glahn, G. (1996) Law Among Nations: An Introduction to Public International Law, 7th edn., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Voeten, E. (2005) ‘The Political Origins of the UN Security Council's Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force’, International Organization 59(3): 527–558.
Walt, S. (2002) ‘Keeping the World “Off Balance”: Self-Restraint in American Foreign Policy’, in G.J. Ikenberry (ed.) America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 121–154.
Wendt, A. (1987) ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization 41(3): 335–370.
Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hurd, I. Breaking and Making Norms: American Revisionism and Crises of Legitimacy. Int Polit 44, 194–213 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800184
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800184