Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: how organising betrays core missions of INGOs

International non‐governmental organisations (INGOs) are prominent actors in the international arena, aiming to improve the life of disadvantaged people. However, INGOs often do not succeed in doing this. Consequently, INGO legitimacy is regularly questioned. Increased transparency and tightened accountability mechanisms are often‐mentioned solutions to this problem. Based on an analysis of four dimensions of INGO legitimacy—normative, regulatory, cognitive and output legitimacy—we argue that this is not necessarily adequate. We conclude that INGO mission statements create a normative source of legitimacy, but that this, in itself, is not enough to ground INGO legitimacy: it also needs to be institutionalised and organised. However, as a result of power relations and resulting pressures for accountability and transparency, as defined by their external stakeholders, INGOs experience a permanent struggle to reconcile their mission with the requirements for regulatory, cognitive and output legitimacy. The more these stakeholders press for increased organisation of INGO work, the more the pursuit of the core objectives of INGOs is obstructed. We illustrate this argument with the case of the post‐Tsunami humanitarian intervention (2004/2005). Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Identity,procedures and performance: how authoritarian regimes legitimize their rule

ABSTRACT

Constructing convincing legitimacy claims is important for securing the stability of authoritarian regimes. However, extant research has struggled to systematically analyse how authoritarians substantiate their right to rule. We analyse a novel data set on authoritarian regimes’ claims to legitimacy that is based on leading country experts’ assessments of 98 states for the period 1991–2010. This analysis provides key new insights into the inner workings and legitimation strategies of current non-democratic regimes. Closed authoritarian regimes predominately rely on identity-based legitimacy claims (foundational myth, ideology and personalism). In contrast, elections fundamentally change how authoritarian rulers relate to society. In their legitimacy claims, electoral authoritarian regimes focus on their ‘adequate’ procedures, thereby mimicking democracies. All regimes also stress their purported success in proving material welfare and security to their citizens.     

No right to unilaterally claim your territory: on the consistency of Kantian statism

The paper examines the consistency of recent Kantian justifications of state authority through reflection on the normative implications of states’ territorial nature. I claim that their conceptual structure leaves these accounts unable to close the justificatory gap that emerges at the transition from legitimate authority simpliciter, to legitimate state authority. None of the strategies Kantian statists have come up with in order to solve this problem – based on the proximity, occupancy and permissive principles – provides the needed grounds on which to carve up the earth’s surface into jurisdictional domains. Yet, I conclude that this does not require Kantians to cede statist grounds altogether but to take a distinctly ‘global perspective’ on states.     

Celebrity-led development organisations: the legitimating function of elite engagement

The past decade has seen a frontier open up in international development engagement with the entrance of new actors such as celebrity-led organisations. We explore how such organisations earn legitimacy with a focus on Madonna’s Raising Malawi and Ben Affleck’s Eastern Congo Initiative. The study draws from organisational materials, interviews, mainstream news coverage, and the texts of the celebrities themselves to investigate the construction of authenticity, credibility, and accountability. We find these organisations earn legitimacy and flourish rapidly amid supportive elite networks for funding, endorsements, and expertise. We argue that the ways in which celebrity-led organisations establish themselves as legitimate development actors illustrate broader dynamics of the machinery of development.     

刑事涉案财物处置的监察调查制度构建与完善

我国《监察法》非常重视涉案财物调查程序之正当性,针对搜查、扣押等调查工作确立了强制录音录像制度。但是,目前刑事涉案财物调查体系制度定位仍存在偏差,如未能体现其财产保全价值;监察机关能否对刑事涉案财物进行实体处分,立法方面语焉不详;利害关系人之权利保障机制尚不健全。应当以人财并重理念及程序正义原则为指导,强调对物调查之财产保全价值;检察机关应成为财产保全及实体处分的决定主体,加强检察权对监察权的制衡与监督;细化和完善利害关系人之程序性权利,构建以检察机关为主体的程序救济机制。     

论行政立法回避制度的正当性

行政立法回避制度是我国行政立法程序发展与完善的重大突破.该制度是行政立法机关主动探寻防止部门利益法制化途径的一次尝试,作为一种新生制度,其是否具有法理上的正当性和制定法上的合法性是法学界首先必须予以解决的理论问题.     

公共政策合法化的价值分析

公共政策合法化具有合法地位和合法性的双重目的,这就要求合法化程序和政策方案必须分别遵循合规律性、合目的性、合法律性的价值标准。其中,合规律性既要求合法化的程序设计符合合法化的内在规律,又要求政策方案遵循人类社会的发展规律;合目的性既要求合法化程序保障民意表达,又要求政策方案体现民意、维护民利;合法律性既要求将合法化程序法律化,为相关的合法化提供制度保障,又要求政策方案遵循有关的法律原则,符合法律的具体规定。     

新加坡人民行动党执政理念评析

新加坡人民行动党的执政理念可分为三个层面:政党政治理念--国家利益至上,民族团结和睦;政府管理理念--"好政府"与"强政府";社会发展理念--经济发展先于民主政治。从整体来说,人民行动党执政理念是基于新加坡的具体国情,由李光耀等人在长期的执政实践中逐渐形成的,实践已经证明,新加坡人民行动党的执政理念对于人民行动党执政能力的建设,对于执政绩效的创建与提升有着重要的导向意义,是人民行动党宝贵的精神财富。但同时,随着执政环境的变化,特别是在世界民主浪潮冲击下,其局限性也日益显露出来。     

夫妻一方对他方自杀而“见死不救”之刑事责任新探——从“宋福祥故意杀人案”之判决理由谈起

"罪刑法定原则"与"罪刑相适应原则"已经成为我国刑法的基本原则。"宋福祥故意杀人案"之判决理由欠缺合理性与合法性,夫妻一方对他方自杀而"见死不救"的不应当承担刑事责任。在刑事审判中,法官应"以事实为根据,以法律为准绳",以作出正当的个案裁判为己任,在审判中真正做到符合"罪刑法定原则"与"罪刑相适应原则",才能切实保障公民的合法权益,维护社会的和谐稳定,也才能真正实现依法治国。     

论国际法的正当性

国际法的正当性关注国际法本身的正义问题。现代国际法正日益面临正当性危机。危机主要表现在国际组织的结构和国家权限、国际法规则的实施与适用、国际民主的程度的减弱等方面。评估正当性不仅涉及到价值的判断、解构,而且更需要论证价值的重新建立。正当性理论实际上是正义理论在国际法中的应用,但对正当性的论证不能将其用作违法行为的正当化辩解。