In this section, the various hypotheses about the connection between participation modes and institutional legitimacy will be summarized. The main hypothesis of this dissertation argues that a positive relationship connects APO access and legitimacy perceptions. However, this relationship is dependent on the representativeness of APO participants and the general institutional design. This led to the basic hypothesis that the impact of degrees of access on perceptions of legitimacy is ambivalent. Access for APOs enables their concrete participation; this participation, however, is conditioned by the perceived authenticity of APO participants as well as the broader institutional setting. Only if APO participants are deemed representative and authentic, and the broader institutional set-up allows for meaningful APO participation, high(er) degrees of access for APOs will positively affect institutional legitimacy.
This hypothesis can be further specified as regards the several causal mechanisms that link participation – as enabled through access – and legitimacy. Four different mechanisms have been identified above; they vary with regard to whether they primarily depend on increased range or depth of access. Increasing the depth of access favors strong ownership resulting from the value that is given to participation itself.
Moreover, it enhances the equality of participants and, consequentially, trust building and perceived neutrality of the respective institution. In turn, an increased range of access positively affects accountability, which is enabled by higher transparency when NSAs are allowed as participants to a process. At the same time, both the range and depth of access may lead to increased problem-solving capacity when actors from different societal sectors cooperate. However, this mechanism is the most ambivalent, as increased diversity of participation may also lead to rising costs of agreement. In sum, if APO participants are deemed representative and the broader institutional set-up allows for meaningful APO participation, deep access for APOs will positively affect institutional legitimacy due to a higher degree of ownership by participants, trust building between them as well as perceptions of the institution as being neutral to specific interests.
Moreover, in this case broad access for APOs results in high transparency and accountability of the institution vis-à-vis its constituencies, whereas broad and deep access can increase institutional problem-solving capacity, but may also contribute to rising costs of agreement.
Which of the causal mechanisms appear empirically relevant, and which will provide most insight into the connection between the two variables APO access and perceptions of legitimacy will be subject to empirical investigation in the following chapters.
Moreover, the empirical investigation will shed light on how the mechanisms outlined above are connected, and whether in practice trade-offs exist between the various mechanisms. The analysis will also specify in how far the hypotheses might need adaptation, or whether there are alternative hypotheses that have not been taken into account so far. In this regard, it is possible that different constituencies base their legitimacy evaluations on different mechanisms. It is also important to bear in mind that legitimacy evaluations will be made on the grounds of perceptions. In other words, the relevance of mechanisms for constituencies is not based on the de facto neutrality, transparency, effectiveness etc. of the institution, but the perceptions of participants about these issues.
Before scrutinizing the empirical relevance of the mechanisms outlined above in Chapter six, the following Chapter four will explore access modalities for Indigenous peoples at the PFII and EMRIP, as well as corresponding degrees of legitimacy.
Chapter 4 4 Indigenous Access to the UN and Perceptions of Legitimacy
After having outlined my theoretical framework, the remaining chapters focus on its application to a concrete case, namely Indigenous access to Indigenous-specific UN institutions. As outlined in Chapter one, Indigenous peoples have gained far-reaching access to the UN. With the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, two institutions have been created which explicitly deal with issues related to Indigenous peoples and their specific rights and necessities to survive as distinct peoples. Both institutions offer access opportunities to IPOs which those have broadly taken advantage of. The first questions to answer in this context, and the main focus of this chapter, are thus: What access modes do institutions dealing with Indigenous issues offer to Indigenous peoples and their organizations, and to what degree are these institutions perceived as legitimate by the participating actors?
To answer this question, the chapter proceeds as follows: I will start by providing some background information on the PFII as well as on the EMRIP. Subsequently, I elaborate on the specific access opportunities for Indigenous peoples in these institutions, and on their respective degrees of open and inclusive access. The next section of the chapter analyzes legitimation patterns regarding both institutions. I will look at both statements made in the context of recent sessions and at behavioral indicators to allow for inferences regarding the perceived legitimacy of PFII and EMRIP. Finally, I will also elaborate on the broader institutional setting to establish whether the resulting
institutional leverage in fact impacts on the relationship between access modes and perceptions of legitimacy.
Before starting this endeavor, I will shortly dwell into how affectedness is understood and constructed when it comes to Indigenous participation at the United Nations. This includes a look at how Indigenous affairs are being framed by the UN, as well as a discussion of differences between Indigenous peoples and other affected actors. This will help us to better understand commonalities, but also differences between IPs and other groups of affected actors in global policy-making. Most importantly, by invoking self-determination, IPs claim a right to participate on all issues that affect them.