The strong connection between legitimacy and power, as well as legitimacy and international laws, has always been evident and historically predetermined. Many powerful economies rely on legal systems and regulations to coordinate their actions and impose an influence on other economies. Therefore, legitimacy has always been considered a source of power and control. The crisis of legitimacy in the United States is brightly represented in the articles by Kagan (2004; 2005). The scholar has highlighted important connections and relationships between these concepts to explain the nature of power and legitimacy and their relationship to international law. Judging from the articles, legitimacy has always been used as a powerful tool for control, which always been restricted by the international legal system. Such a controversy is the source of relationships both at local and at international levels.
The concept of legitimacy has a great impact on legal systems and order in a country. With regard to the U.S. system of law and regulation, legitimacy implies power and control on specific policies. In fact, because international law should be fundamental for other existing laws, the use of legitimacy for taking control over other economies is inappropriate. During the Cold War period, the United States, nevertheless, makes use of international law to approve their reforms and policies during the Cold War. According to Kagan (2004), “Legitimacy is a much a source of power as a force” (p. 66). Therefore, the claim about the reliance of the U.S. legitimacy on international law is false because the latter disapprove of the actions of the United States against other economies. Rather, Kagan (2005) asserts, “U.S. legitimacy derived primarily from the role the United States played as “leader of the free world” (p. 170). The power and legitimacy were often identified due to the bipolar nature of the Cold War because allied nations were not concerned about extreme power possessed by the United States. As a result, legitimacy can also serve as a substitute for various types of power. The end of the Cold War, therefore, has led to the development of a new power guided by legitimacy issues.
Because of historical circumstances, it is inappropriate to believe that U.S. legitimacy bases solely on adherence to the international role. In this respect, the nature of international law is questionable because it identifies international legitimacy as the one deprived of historical confrontation between giant economies during the Cold War. According to Kagan (2004), “a world without a universal standard of international law need not be without morality and justice” (p. 68). On the other hand, respect for international principles can hamper the search for justice and morality. International law can become a universal source of accepting and defining individual rights.
Legitimacy and international law are two identical definitions at a glance. However, the discrepancies can be noticed as soon as the concept of power is involved in the debate. In fact, the legitimacy of a specific country can become the source of conflict and disagreement at the international level. In order to conduct a successful foreign policy, the United States should adjust to the international principles that differ slightly from the legitimacy principles of the American government. It should be stressed that the concepts of legitimacy, power, and international laws should be reconsidered in the context of World War II and the Cold War because of the legitimacy of U.S. power, along with the U.S. global leadership should not be ignored.
Reference List
Kagan, R 2004, ‘America‘s Crisis of Legitimacy’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 83 no. 2, pp. 65-87.
Kagan, R 2005, ‘A matter of record: security, not law, established American legitimacy’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 84 no. 1, pp. 170-73.