Description
The question of political legitimacy is central to the study of governance, shaping how authority is both enacted and contested. Yet the field of International Studies remains dominated by a state-centric paradigm that positions the nation-state as the sole legitimate authority. This framework marginalises non-state systems of rule—such as rebel governance—as inherently illegitimate and frames areas of limited statehood as fundamentally ungoverned. While recent literature increasingly acknowledges non-state forms of governance, it often fails to interrogate how epistemic authority operates within these contexts. This paper explores how knowledge production and epistemic systems underpin the international recognition regime, sustaining narratives that exclude non-state authorities from legitimacy frameworks and reproducing epistemic injustice. Moving beyond the functionalism and orientalism inherent in much of the Western-centric literature on rebel governance, the paper demonstrates how international expert and academic discourses delineate the boundaries of political legitimacy by depoliticising rebel rule. Rebel authority is often reduced to the management of resources serving insurgent interests, while the symbolic and normative dimensions through which rebel governance can articulate alternative political orders remain overlooked. By foregrounding epistemic struggles over recognition, this study contributes to broader debates on knowledge and power in International Studies, demonstrating how dominant discourses and the politics of knowledge not only reflect but actively shape the contours of political legitimacy.
