This dissertation deals with the effects of access opportunities for one particular type of non-state actors, namely APOs, in one specific issue area, namely Indigenous issues, and one organizational setting, namely the core United Nations. In this context, it aims at doing some groundwork for a theory which can explain the impact of APO access on perceptions of legitimacy in global policy-making.
However, as with any piece of research, there are some limitations worth noting. This most importantly concerns the generalizability of the case study. As a single case study, it is necessarily unrepresentative of wider populations (George & Bennett 2005: 32).
However, as outlined above, a number of reasons added to the eligibility of Indigenous access to UN institutions as a particularly interesting case.41 With regard to the data collected, it would surely have been worthwhile to attend more sessions of the PFII and EMRIP in order to get into the issue more deeply, create deeper confidence and maybe get access to even more intimate information. However, mainly due to financial constraints, this was beyond the scope of this dissertation. Moreover, one major limitation consists in the fact that it has been practically impossible to conduct interviews with those actors most critical about Indigenous participation at the UN, as these actors abstain from participating in sessions of the PFII and EMRIP. Especially with regard to states, only supportive states were willing to be interviewed, whereas others declined my request or (even more frequently) did not reply to it. I therefore had to rely on asking other participants to explain the absence of these actors as a proxy.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the study will hopefully offer some valuable information regarding how access for Indigenous actors to UN Indigenous-specific institutions impacts on perceptions of legitimacy.
The dissertation proceeds as follows. In Chapters two and three, I will elaborate on the theoretical model for my research. Chapter two deals with the dependent variable of this study, namely perceived legitimacy. It asks what legitimacy in global governance is, and highlights differences and similarities between empirical and normative approaches to legitimacy. Opting for an empirical approach in the context of this dissertation, the chapter then proceeds in developing a model which operationalizes transnational
41 Further information on the case selection can be found in the Appendix.
legitimacy and highlights how different degrees of legitimacy may be assigned to specific institutions. Chapter three is concerned with the theoretical framework needed to understand the effects of APO access on legitimacy. I will define the independent variable of this dissertation, APO access. Moreover, I will specify my hypothesis about the connection between APO access and legitimacy, and identify a number of causal mechanisms that possibly connect the two variables.
In Chapters four to six, I will turn to the empirical analysis of access for Indigenous peoples to the UN and perceptions of legitimacy. Chapter four analyzes access structures for IPs at both the PFII and EMRIP, and relates this to perceptions of legitimacy of relevant constituencies. It finds that deep and broad access for IPs does not translate into specifically high perceptions of legitimacy. The chapter therefore points to the necessity of analyzing access opportunities for IPs within a broader context of other dimensions of institutional design, as these factors together determine the influence of IPs within policy-making on issues affecting them, and perceptions of legitimacy rather seem to be connected to influence than solely to access. Chapter five then takes a close look at how access opportunities relate to concrete participation by IPOs. It describes which IPOs are present at sessions of the PFII and EMRIP and looks at some of the most visible actors within the movement. Subsequently, the chapter identifies a number of significant condition variables that impact on which IPOs can access the United Nations, including the availability of resources and capacities, allies, and state policies towards Indigenous peoples. It argues that while claims regarding (a lack of) moral authority of IPOs are regularly brought forward in connection with perceptions of legitimacy, all participating actors should assume a responsibility in helping IPOs to overcome challenges to their participation and strengthening legitimate Indigenous participation.
Chapter six dwells upon the causal relationship between Indigenous participation and perceptions of legitimacy and outlays the mechanisms at work. It highlights that different mechanisms are at play which build upon divergent ideas about the main benefits and prospects of access for Indigenous actors. Moreover, it points to attitudes towards other constituencies which range from supportive to hostile as one factor which shapes interaction especially between states and Indigenous peoples in Indigenous-specific UN institutions, and impacts on perceptions of legitimacy. The Conclusion then sums up the main arguments of the dissertation and finishes by outlining some implications both for policy and for further research. Lastly, the Appendix presents the
methodological questions that had to be tackled during the research process in greater detail. While knowledge about the detailed methodological choices is not essential to understanding the results of this study, the Appendix serves to make the research process more transparent and reproducible.
In sum, this dissertation finds that in spite of particularly high degrees of open and inclusive access for IPOs, both the PFII and EMRIP only count with medium degrees of legitimacy. In part, this can be explained by the effect of two condition variables which constrain Indigenous participation at the UN, namely institutional leverage and the resources and capabilities of IPOs. While institutional leverage shapes how IPO access translates into the possibility to shape policies, the resources and capabilities of IPOs determine who de facto gets a say within the UN even when access modalities are very favorable for APOs. At the same time, I show how different expectations regarding IPO participation at the UN and enduring skeptical attitudes towards cooperation by some actors constitute a complicated environment for UN institutions in the area of Indigenous affairs to maneuver, which might turn it impossible for them to ultimately satisfy all interests. These results suggest that APO access is no silver bullet to strengthen institutional legitimacy. This is not to say that APO access cannot contribute to positive perceptions of legitimacy at all, but to highlight that it only does so under certain conditions.
Chapter 2 2 Legitimacy and Legitimation Beyond the
State
As one consequence of increasing density of governance beyond the state, recent years have witnessed a growing interest in legitimacy and questions related to it by both the academia and the broader public (Hurrelmann et al. 2007b: 1). From a normative perspective, it has been argued that recent changes in the architecture of global governance have led to a democratic deficit; others, in turn, have taken the proliferation of global protest movements as an indicator for reduced acceptance of the current world order by a broader public. Thus, the discussion surrounding the legitimacy of global governance has so far mostly been led against the backdrop of its perceived deficiencies (Steffek 2003: 249).42
At the same time, due to its multifaceted and dynamic nature as well as its conceptual ambiguity, legitimacy has been considered as an “essentially contested concept”, in other words, we lack a general accepted standard use of the term (Hurrelmann et al. 2007a).
As a consequence, “a number of theoretical and methodological issues regarding the concept of legitimacy, and notably its application to post-national governance, remain contested” (Hurrelmann et al. 2007b: 2). This is not to say that research on legitimacy is impossible, but that researchers applying the concept need to carefully develop a convincing framework for analysis. This will be the task for this chapter.
42 Contrary to this mainstream argument, Moravcsik (2004) argues with a view to the European Union that when assessed with regard to real-world criteria (and not with regard to ideal standards), one cannot diagnose a general legitimacy crisis of IOs.