Description
The legitimacy of the Security Council as an institution or its decisions is a frequent topic for research. Instead of questioning the legitimacy (or otherwise) of the Security Council as an institution or its outputs this paper analyses the way that legitimation practices – as a feature of Council negotiations – shape the process and outcome of negotiations. I focus on two categories of legitimation practices. First, external legitimation practices, where states seek legitimacy from their key audiences, either by being seen to be ‘doing something’, even if the decision they pass cannot be implemented, or by maintaining consistent arguments. Second, internal legitimation practices, which are practices adopted by drafters to enhance the legitimacy of a decision, including seeking unanimity, seeking regional support, and repeating previously used language. I draw on examples from the case of Darfur to illustrate the impacts of these legitimation practices and show how they have constrained and enabled decision-making. Legitimation practices are a lens of analysis of Security Council negotiations which offer insights into how decisions are made and avenues for informal reform towards atrocity prevention.
