As
Ian Hurd states in his article about the legitimacy of the Security Council, it
is only given legitimacy by states’ perception of power. Perception is a
formation of social and cultural values that influence the thought process of a
person or state. The Security Council is a desirable position that is
considered to have authority. However, this authority comes from perception, a
function of constructivism. Its legitimacy is a socially constructed ideal that
can be altered through cultural changes and can overturn the respect with which
the Security Council is seen.
Over
time, global culture has turned the Security Council into a symbol of power. When the UN was first
created, the Security Council was truly a group of states that had more say,
more authority, and more influence than others, making it a clear goal to
attain. Membership connotes status and recognition because the Council has
powers that others don’t have. This influences peoples’ perceptions of it,
making them think that it is legitimate because it is a desirable, hard to
attain position.
However,
over the years, non-member states have had a larger role in Council meetings,
participating more. This increase of participation devalues the special
privileges of membership. Now, while the Council still no doubt has influence,
it can be argued that its legitimacy exists because of the historical perception
of power instead of the Council’s real power. Since non-members can have an
arguably equal influence in the Council, membership has lost its value. Despite
this fact, membership is still associated with authority and power through
symbolism, granting the Council a legitimacy that is constructed by history but
has the potential to be quickly dissolved.
Constructivism
stresses that thoughts are created by social interaction, and that history is
mutable. This ideal is clearly seen through the example of the Council.
Historically it had power, and now that power remains but is being altered
through social perception. Identity plays a central role in constructivism and
can change as a person or state becomes part of a larger group. This change occurs
as a state enters the Council and begins to be influenced by other identities
within the group. Here, power identities come into play: identities that change
based off changes in the balance of power. Since the Security Council only has
value due to its symbolic power, states have a false sense of power balance
shifts.
The
Security Council itself acts in part as a constructivist body: the members have
a collective security pact to protect one another, which creates a group of
states that are part of a larger group whose identities change as a result of
new and different influences. This socialization can make change difficult,
which is why the Council sometimes is ineffective at making quick decisions.
Because
of many contributing factors, the Council only has symbolic legitimacy because
of its symbolic power that stems from authentic power from the past. By looking
at constructivist theory, one can understand how the Council is socially
constructed and how its authority only comes from perception.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteDo you think it matters that the UN's power only stems from perception? To me, I think that the power of the UN lies within the fact that is the only place where nations can form a global community to discuss international issues. At the end of the day as long as people perceive the UN as powerful, it can create diplomacy and communication amongst members and even non-members with the common aim of promoting global discussion and peace.
I don't disagree with you. I think it is very valuable to have an international forum like the UN to discuss issues. That in itself is a form of power. What I tried to argue was that since power is from perception it is very fragile and could be lost at any time. This is not to say power will disappear, but that it could. Right now perception is still working in to favor the Council and promote diplomacy and communication, and hopefully it will continue to.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting analysis of the Security Council's power.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think this power is in fact not very fragile because the UN is the most widely recognized international political institution. Since so many countries rely on its power, the UN and the Security Council are unlikely to lose their positions anytime in the near future. Armed UN operations such as the Gulf War in 1991 or more recently Libya 2011 are direct results of the UN's influence. This in turn strengthens its power because countries see the UN as a serious institution that has the ability to execute (military) power.
Emma,
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying however, adding on to Maddie’s comment, doesn’t the UN have actual power that doesn’t solely lie in its perception? For example the security council has the power to deploy the blue helmet soldiers, this is a very real measure of power that I don't think is necessarily based on perception. However I do think that your ideas are very legitimate and interesting. Can you give an example of something that would bring about the change in perception that will make the UN less legitimate?