International Legitimacy

AbstractWight defined international legitimacy as ‘the collective judgment of international society about rightful membership of the family of nations’. International legitimacy derived mainly from prescription and dynasticism, the customary rule of hereditary monarchs, until the American and French Revolutions instituted the popular and democratic principle of the consent of the governed. The increasing reliance on popular politics led to the triumph of national self-determination in the 1919 peace settlement, with certain exceptions, notably the decision not to conduct a plebiscite in Alsace-Lorraine. New principles, such as territorial contiguity and integrity, influenced decisions about the legitimacy of the frontiers of the states formed from the breakup of European colonial empires after the Second World War. India, for example, referred to the principle of territorial integrity to justify the acquisition of Hyderabad and Goa. Critics of colonial arrangements have regarded them as illegitimate and unacceptable by definition. A state seeking independence via secession can succeed in its bid for self-determination only if it can gain sufficient external support. Therefore Biafra’s bid failed while that of Bangladesh succeeded. Communist principles of legitimacy emphasize the self-determination of the proletariat under the guidance of the Communist party. Legitimacy principles are subject to pragmatic constraints, and in practice governments generally recognize whoever controls state power.