In recent years, political legitimacy as a concept distinct from full justice has received much attention. Yet in addition to querying the specific conditions legitimacy requires, there is a more general question: What is legitimacy even about? How ought we identify and conceptualize these conditions? According to the regnant justificatory liberal (JL) approach, legitimate legal coercion is based on reasons all reasonable persons can accept and JL is explicated in terms of a hypothetical procedure. Alas, Part I explains why JL is inadequate. First, I argue that it de-legitimizes all coercion. Second, it undercuts the proposition that there are certain basic rights which must be protected for legitimacy. Third, I suggest that JL structurally involves paternalism. Where should theorists turn? My perhaps surprising proposal is that they turn to the Christian Reformed (CR) tradition of social thought. As I take it, this tradition is composed of such figures as Augustine and Calvin, Abraham Kuyper and Herman Dooyeweerd, and, more recently, Francis Schaeffer. It has long theorized such issues as church-state separation and permissible coercion, and is replete with conceptual resources. Thus, Part II reconstructs an alternative legitimacy framework out of these resources. The central CR insight is this: legitimacy is a function of preventing basic wrongs. Legal coercion is only necessary "by reason of sin". I develop this insight in terms of three ideas. First, those wrongs which must prevented as conditions of legitimacy are objective wrongs, obtaining universally regardless of consent. Second, they presuppose some view of basic teleology. A teleological view is needed to elaborate contentful basic rights non-arbitrarily, but only a basic teleological view insofar as legitimacy is distinct from full justice. Third, I suggest these wrongs are fruitfully understood as constituting an exogenous standard, one that is neither the product of actual nor hypothetical self-legislation. Part III brings JL and CR legitimacy into dialogue. Understanding legitimacy in terms of objective, teleological, and exogenous wrongs, respectively, helps us avoid each of the unacceptable consequences of JL covered in Part I. Legitimacy is better conceptualized in CR terms; preventing such wrongs is what legitimacy is about. / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2013-11-13 04:18:01.642

Increased international competitiveness to host sport mega-events indicates their perceived value in stimulating regional and national economic, social and cultural development. In the context of broader governmental public opinion management strategies, sport mega-events hold the potential to mobilize soft power resources of the host country, expressed in values, culture and policies, and engage with and influence the publics of other countries. This thesis investigates the significance of sport mega-events for the host country’s public diplomacy strategies and practice by exploring the concepts of public diplomacy, sport mega-events, soft power and national image within a multi-disciplinary conceptual framework. The analysis of scholarly literature, official and media reports reveals how aspects of reputation, credibility, and legitimacy guide both foreign public opinion and the practice of public diplomacy in conjunction with sport mega-events. Moreover, international reputation of the host nation, including status, prestige and image, appeared to benefit the most as a result of strategic application of sport mega-events to public diplomacy. This can be achieved by proving functional reputation though demonstration of financial and organizational success. Alternatively, social reputation of the host is at risk of sustaining considerable damage as a result of resistance from social activists groups, thus requiring extensive damage control efforts of the host country's image. The conclusions drawn from this study raise significant questions about the potential of sport mega-events being effectively used for public diplomacy and the experience of the host governments, revealing functional competence as having the greatest potential to influence public diplomacy strategy built around hosting sport mega-events.

<p>An abstract of a dissertation that examines different dimensions of legitimacy stemming from different sources, and how they condition the effects of each other. The traditional literature studies organizational legitimacy as a uni-dimensional phenomenon, however, there are multiple audiences with different systems of values that evaluate organizations and based on the fit with their values grant or withdraw legitimacy from the firm. This dissertation examines three different dimensions of legitimacy (i.e. social, market, and home country) and shows that they may substitute each other in affecting organizational outcomes. This is shown in a financial event study of additions and deletions from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, a qualitative study of the nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the emerging market of Russia, and a large-scale quantitative analysis of M&A deals, where the acquirer comes from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS).</p> / Dissertation

The aim of this thesis is to deepen the understanding about the function of control in the inspection process and to increase the knowledge about the legitimacy and impact from inspection on different types of social and welfare services. In the thesis the form and legitimacy of the inspection process are studied in two types of social services in Sweden: a less complex service where the task to investigate and make decisions about social care dominates (IAD), and a more complex service where the task to provide treatment interventions dominates (TI). The data consists of policy documents, inspection reports, casefile documentation, and interviews with inspectors, politicians, managers and social workers. The inspection process is discussed in relation to theories about control systems and legitimacy processes. Inspection is a policy instrument whose standards are derived from legislations and where those subject to the inspection are obliged to meet the demands made by the inspectorates. This form of disciplinary control has been questioned given that its complexity makes it hard to regulate the practice of social work through detailed rules. By including a less disciplinary form of control the instrument’s ability to impact on more complex aspects of social services are expected to increase. The results show a difference in how the inspection process is set up in the two types of services. In the IAD services the process takes the form of a disciplinary control system, whereas the process in TI services initially takes the form of a non-disciplinary system. In spite of the differences observed in the initial stages of the process, the results show that the judgments of inspectors in both types of services are almost exclusively based on information about concrete and detailed aspects. This entails that the judgements of inspectors in both types of services mostly take the form of statements on simple observable and concrete conditions, whereas judgments about more complex aspects are rarely made. The study also shows that although the propriety and relevance of the inspectors’ judgements are questioned more in TI organisations inspections seem to have greater validity and impact on TI than on IAD organisations. The results of the thesis point to two explanations. One explanation is that the costs of dealing with the problems underlying the identified deficiencies are lower for TI than IAD organisations. This in turn leads to greater acceptance of carrying out the proposed measures in TI than in IAD organisations. Another possible explanation is that the potential sanctions are greater for TI than IAD organisations.

Abstract Obviously, inside mediation through individuals or institutions emerged from the conflict situations becomes an alternative way to end armed conflict as it is regarded to have more local legitimacy with a higher sense of ownership. Surprisingly, researchers in peace and conflict studies have shown more interest to mediation processes dominated by outside mediators, while little has been known about the conditions that contribute to success of inside mediators. This thesis aims to contribute to this understudied research field by answering the question; under what conditions do mediators contribute to the ending of armed conflict in fragile states? In this thesis, I focus on the role of customary leaders, a form of inside mediators. The point of departure of this research question will be the distinction between the mediator’s involvements (Inside vs outside) and how their presence contribute to different outcomes. The variances will be explained with reference to two contending concepts of success and failure of mediation process. Success of mediators’ involvement can be measured by focusing on the following three areas; the initiation of peace process, conclusion of peace process and the sustainability of peace outcomes. The causal argument suggest that mediation processes dominated by inside mediators are more likely to end armed conflicts, as they have  more local legitimacy that can  engender a higher level of ownership, and sustain peace agreements as the actors feel engaged to the peace process. By testing this theory, this thesis applies the structured focused comparison method by selecting three cases of Southern, northwest and northeast regions in Somalia that have developed differently. The empirical findings of this thesis supports the hypothesis testes, as mediation processes dominated by inside mediators in Northeast and Northwest regions displayed a higher level of local ownership and legitimacy than the Southern regions. Finally, further researches on inside mediators success in a different countries is suggested in the future in order to know the level of inside mediators’ effectiveness in ending armed conflict.

This thesis investigates how peace operations work. It contributes to the larger study of peace operation effectiveness by analysing the processes through which these institutions influence local actors in postconflict societies. Looking beyond traditional concerns with mandates and resources, it aims to understand how a peace operation seeks to achieve its goals, focusing on why local populations might cooperate with or obstruct its activities. The thesis draws on theories of social power, compliance and legitimation to answer four central questions: what power do peace operations have to achieve their objectives? From where do peace operations derive power? How do local perceptions of an operation enable or constrain its effectiveness? How are peace operations legitimised at the local level, and with what effect? It begins by critically reviewing the academic literature, arguing that existing approaches are unable to account for important dimensions of peace operation effectiveness because they neglect the local setting in which operations pursue their goals, and the extent to which the achievement of those goals requires local cooperation. It then develops an analytical framework to examine the processes of coercion, inducement and legitimacy through which peace operations seek to shape the decisions and actions of local actors. This power-legitimacy framework is applied to study the effectiveness of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) and the Regional Assistance Mission in Solomon Islands (RAMSI). By comparing variation in local cooperation between and within these cases, the thesis shows that the way a peace operation is locally perceived is an important but often overlooked determinant of its effectiveness. In particular, when local actors perceive a peace operation to be legitimate, they are more likely to behave in ways that assist the operation to achieve its goals. The thesis concludes by discussing the implications of this finding for the future study and practice of peace operations.

One way to prompt people to act is to claim that one’s commands impose duties upon some persons to act and subsequently to command those persons. This is the approach of practical authority. The claim of practical authority is ingredient to a predominant conception of the state. This thesis argues that the state’s claim to practical authority is both unjustified and morally wrong; it defends philosophical anarchism. The philosophical anarchist argument advanced here begins with a defence of a presumption against practical authority. It then argues that no argument for the practical authority of the state overcomes that presumption. Thus the state’s claim to practical authority is unjustified. The philosophical anarchist’s position suggests that we rethink both the normative claim ingredient to the concept of the state and the relationship between states and persons. This thesis suggests that states claim legitimacy – that is, states claim that the potentially coercive legal directives that they enact are all-things-considered morally permissible. The thesis outlines the ideal of legitimacy in political philosophy, an ideal distinct from authority. An analysis of legitimacy requires an analysis of coercion. The thesis develops a specific account of the pro tanto wrongfulness of coercion that locates the wrongfulness of coercion not with the badness of the outcomes that the coercee faces but rather with the beliefs and intentions of the coercer. Two upshots emerge from that account. The first is that legal directives are not necessarily coercive. The second is that the conditions which render coercion pro tanto wrongful also render the state’s claim to practical authority wrongful. However, whereas coercion is justifiable by an appeal to reasons that defeat its pro tanto wrongfulness, the philosophical anarchist shows that the state’s claim to practical authority is not so justifiable. Therefore, the state’s claim to practical authority is decisively wrongful.

"Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de doctorat en droit (LL.D.)" / Depuis l'enchâssement constitutionnel de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, le contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité subit d'importantes critiques. Pour contester la légitimité démocratique de ce contrôle, des politologues et des juristes invoquent notamment le fait que les juges ne sont pas élus, qu'ils ne représentent pas la population, alors qu'ils imposent leurs préférences et leurs interprétations aux législateurs et gouvernements. En réponse à ces critiques, des théories de la légitimité de la justice constitutionnelle ont été élaborées. Ce débat doctrinal influence la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada, ce qui se traduit par l'élaboration de différentes normes de contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité. Ce choix entre l'activisme et la retenue judiciaires est déterminant dans le résultat d'un contrôle constitutionnel sous la Charte. Alors que les critiques du contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité témoignent d'une conceptualisation insuffisante du jugement juridique, les attitudes de retenue et d'activisme semblent également problématiques au plan philosophique et théorique. Devant cette situation, la justice constitutionnelle doit être placée dans la perspective de la démocratie délibérative. Il est de plus possible de préciser la fonction du contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité dans un système juridique. Se renouvelle ainsi l'explication des opérations d'interprétation et de limitation des droits et libertés ainsi que celles de sanction et de réparation en cas de violation. En adoptant une dimension contextuelle et systémique, le contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité prend la forme d'une institutionnalisation de la critique interne du système juridique et sert ainsi d'instance d'autoreproduction du droit. / Judicial review has been the object of substantial criticism since the enshrinement of the Canadian Charter ofRights and Freedoms. Political scientists and lawyers have contested the democratic legitimacy of judicial review by notably invoking that although judges are not elected and do not represent the population, they nevertheless impose their preferences and interpretations on legislators and governments alike. In response to this criticism, theories have been developed addressing the legitimacy of constitutional justice. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada has been influenced by this ideological debate, which has in turn, established different norms ofjudicial review. The choice between judicial activism and restraint is a determining factor resulting in judicial review under the Charter. While the criticisms ofjudicial review suffer from an inadequate conceptualization of legal judgment, attitudes of judicial restraint and activism seem equally problematic with respect to theoretical and philosophical issues. Under these circumstances, constitutional justice must be considered from the perspective of deliberative democracy. Moreover, it is possible to specify the function ofjudicial review within a legal system. This can generate renewed understanding of the approaches to interpretation and limitation of rights and freedoms, as well those applying to sanctions and reparation in case of a violation. The adoption of a contextual and systemic approach institutionalizes judicial review as an internaI review of the legal system and thus serves as an authority for the self-reproduction of the law.

Ce mémoire explore la relation qui lie démocratie et légitimité politique, dans une perspective épistémique. La démocratie, dans son acception la plus générale, confère à chacun la possibilité de faire valoir les intérêts qu'il estime être les siens et ceux de sa communauté, en particulier à l’occasion d’un scrutin. Cette procédure décisionnelle qu’est le vote consacre ainsi en quelque sorte la liberté et l’égalité dont profitent chacun des citoyens, et confère une certaine légitimité au processus décisionnel. Cela dit, si le vote n’est pas encadré par des considérations épistémiques, rien ne garantit que le résultat politique qui en découlera sera souhaitable tant pour les individus que pour la collectivité: il est tout à fait permis d’imaginer que des politiques discriminatoires, économiquement néfastes ou simplement inefficaces voient ainsi le jour, et prennent effet au détriment de tous. En réponse à ce problème, différentes théories démocratiques ont vu le jour et se sont succédé, afin de tenter de lier davantage le processus démocratique à l’atteinte d’objectifs politiques bénéfiques pour la collectivité. Au nombre d’entre elles, la démocratie délibérative a proposé de substituer la seule confrontation d’intérêts de la démocratie agrégative par une recherche collective du bien commun, canalisée autour de procédures délibératives appelées à légitimer sur des bases plus solides l’exercice démocratique. À sa suite, la démocratie épistémique s’est inspirée des instances délibératives en mettant davantage l’accent sur la qualité des résultats obtenus que sur les procédures elles-mêmes. Au final, un même dilemme hante chaque fois les différentes théories : est-il préférable de construire les instances décisionnelles en se concentrant prioritairement sur les critères procéduraux eux-mêmes, au risque de voir de mauvaises décisions filtrer malgré tout au travers du processus sans pouvoir rien y faire, ou devons-nous avoir d’entrée de jeu une conception plus substantielle de ce qui constitue une bonne décision, au risque cette fois de sacrifier la liberté de choix qui est supposé caractériser un régime démocratique? La thèse que nous défendrons dans ce mémoire est que le concept d’égalité politique peut servir à dénouer ce dilemme, en prenant aussi bien la forme d’un critère procédural que celle d’un objectif politique préétabli. L’égalité politique devient en ce sens une source normative forte de légitimité politique. En nous appuyant sur le procéduralisme épistémique de David Estlund, nous espérons avoir démontré au terme de ce mémoire que l’atteinte d’une égalité politique substantielle par le moyen de procédures égalitaires n’est pas une tautologie hermétique, mais plutôt un mécanisme réflexif améliorant tantôt la robustesse des procédures décisionnelles, tantôt l’atteinte d’une égalité tangible dans les rapports entre citoyens. / This study explores the relationship between democracy and political legitimacy in an epistemic perspective. Democracy, in its most general sense, gives everyone the possibility to defend its interests, especially during an election. This decision-making process that is the vote devotes somehow freedom and equality enjoyed by all citizens, and confers legitimacy in decision making. That beeing said, if the vote is not framed by epistemic considerations, there is no guarantee that the political outcome will be desirable for the community: it is quite possible to imagine that discriminatory, economically harmful or ineffective policies may emerge from such decision-making process, and take effect at the expense of all. In order to adress this problem, various democratic theories have emerged and have succeeded in an attempt to further link the democratic process to achieve political objectives beneficial to the community. In many of them, deliberative democracy has proposed to substitute the sole confrontation of interests of the aggregative democracy by a collective search for the common good, channeled around deliberative procedures referred to legitimize on more solid foundations democratic exercise. In the same vein, epistemic democracy was inspired by the deliberative bodies by putting more emphasis on the quality of the results than on the procedures themselves. Ultimately, the same dilemma haunts every time the different theories: is it better to build decision-making bodies, focusing primarily on procedural criteria themselves, at the risk of bad decisions managing their way through the process, or must we have from the outset a more substantial conception of what constitutes a good decision, this time at the risk of sacrificing the freedom of choice that is supposed to characterize a democratic regime? The thesis we will defend is that the concept of political equality can be used to resolve this dilemma, taken as well as a procedural criterion than as a pre-established political objective. Political equality is in this sense a strong normative source of political legitimacy. In the end, we hope to have shown that the achievement of substantial political equality by means of egalitarian procedures is not an hermetic tautology, but rather a reflexive mechanism improving the robustness of the decision-making procedures while achieving substantive equality in the relations between citizens.

Dans cette thèse, la fiabilité des provisions comptables environnementales est évaluée par une combinaison de méthodes de recherche quantitatives et qualitatives dans une perspective de triangulation des résultats. Tout d'abord, l'étude de la divulgation de ces provisions par les groupes cotés français révèle son insuffisance et sa dégradation sur la période 2005-2010. Ensuite, l'utilisation de tests d'adéquation à la loi de Benford pour les montants comptabilisés au bilan et de régressions multiples pour les impacts au résultat ne permettent pas de remettre en cause la fiabilité des provisions environnementales divulguées par le même échantillon de groupes cotés français. Ces résultats contrastent avec ceux des recherches antérieures validant l'utilisation discrétionnaire des provisions environnementales pour lisser le résultat et limiter l'émergence de coûts politiques. L'étude de cas multiple conduite au niveau des acteurs de ces mêmes groupes explique cette fiabilité des montants par celle de leur processus de détermination et les nombreuses pressions institutionnelles qui l'encadrent. Les résultats de cette thèse indiquent donc que certains choix comptables pouvant affecter le résultat de façon discrétionnaire sont davantage expliqués par les pressions institutionnelles subies que par la volonté des dirigeants d'améliorer leur situation personnelle. / In this dissertation, the reliability of environmental provisions is assessed through a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods to ensure a triangulation of the results. Firstly, the study of their disclosure by the French listed companies reveals its insufficiency and its degradation over the period of 2005-2010. Secondly, both compliance tests to Benford's law and multiple regression analyses do not undermine the reliability of environmental provisions disclosed by the same sample of French listed companies. These results contrast with previous research validating the use of discretionary environmental provisions to smooth earnings and to limit the emergence of political costs. Thirdly, the multiple case study conducted through semi-structured interviews with actors of these groups explains the reliability of environmental provisions by the one from their assessment process and the important institutional pressure that surrounds it. Therefore, the results of this dissertation suggest that some accounting choices that can discretionary affect earnings are better explained by institutional pressure than by the willingness of managers to improve their personal situations.