The Limits Of Legitimacy

When the U.S. Supreme Court announces a decision, reporters simplify and dramatize the complex legal issues by highlighting dissenting opinions and thus emphasizing conflict among the justices themselves. This often sensationalistic coverage fosters public controversy over specific rulings despite polls which show that Americans strongly believe in the Court’s legitimacy as an institution. In The Limits of Legitimacy, Michael A. Zilis illuminates this link between case law and public opinion. Drawing on a diverse array of sources and methods, he employs case studies of eminent domain decisions, analysis of media reporting, an experiment to test how volunteers respond to media messages, and finally the natural experiment of the controversy over the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Zilis finds that the media tends not to quote from majority opinions. However, the greater the division over a particular ruling among the justices themselves, the greater the likelihood that the media will criticize that ruling, characterize it as "activist," and employ inflammatory rhetoric. Hethen demonstrates that the media’s portrayal of a decision, as much as the substance of the decision itself, influences citizens’ reactions to and acceptance of it. This meticulously constructed study and its persuasively argued conclusion advance the understanding of the media, judicial politics, political institutions, and political behavior.

As the world’s coastal states go about dividing up the ocean floor, the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf plays an increasingly important role. The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf: Law and Legitimacy examines the Commission from two different but interrelated perspectives: a legal analysis of the Commission’s decision-making; and a study of normative legitimacy related to the Commission and its procedures. Insights into the history of the development of the concept of the continental shelf in the law of the sea are offered, including an explanation of how the institutionalized method for ascertaining continental shelf limits in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea came into being. Through a deep-ranging analysis of the Commission and its work, the book introduces a framework for assessing best practices, and will serve as a useful reference for academics, scientists and policymakers alike.

The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums brings together diverse perspectives on referendums, constitutionalism, liberalism, and democracy in ways that challenge the conventional wisdom, prompt new answers to enduring questions, and urge reconsideration of how we evaluate the legitimacy of referendums.

The possibility of democracy-enhancing uses and anti-democratic abuses of referendums reveals a paradox: mechanisms of democracy can be exploited to do violence to the basic principles of democracy. The Limits and Legitimacy of Referendums seeks to identify standards we might use to assess the democratic legitimacy of a referendum when we cannot rely on the norms of traditional liberal democracy. This innovative book explores how referendums manage the tension between liberalism and democracy, and whether this device holds promise for reconciling these two commitments. A range of scholars from around the world expose how referendums may be abused on one hand to achieve short-term political or even personal gains, and how, on the other, they may aspire to reflect the best traditions of deliberative, innovative, democracy-enhancing popular decision-making. Structured around three big questions, this book seeks to identify what makes a referendum legitimate. First, why have referendums on issues of fundamental political importance become so frequent around the world? Second, who are - or who should be - the people that make decisions about a political community's future? And third, are referendums an effective and reliable mechanism of popular sovereignty or democratic choice? These essays - written for scholars, public lawyers, political actors and citizens - bring together diverse perspectives on referendums, constitutionalism, liberalism and democracy in ways that challenge the conventional wisdom, prompt new answers to enduring questions, and urge reconsideration of how we evaluate the legitimacy of referendums.

"Most chapters in this volume were first presented at a symposium held at the University of Bern in December 2006"--Page ix.

Examining the interplay between the domestic, regional and global aspects of the crisis of legitimacy of global governance, this book theoretically questions and empirically analyses the "crises of legitimacy" in global governance with respect to various mechanisms, actors, and issues. It expertly sheds lights on contemporary legitimacy contestations and crises by analysing conceptual, theoretical and empirical aspects of the legitimacy in global governance. The specific issues and case studies collected in this volume survey the evolving nature of legitimacy and legitimization processes in global governance with historical, and theoretical analysis. Perspectives on specific actors and issues provide vital insights for understanding several commonalities and differences of legitimacy crises faced at various global governance mechanisms. Improving the understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of current global governance bodies by showing several legitimacy contestations and crises at global and regional level, this book will be of great interest to scholars of international relations, globalization, international Political Economy, regionalism, and general global governance studies.

In Extra-Legal Power and Legitimacy: Perspectives on Prerogative, Clement Fatovic and Benjamin A. Kleinerman examine the costs and benefits associated with how governments have yielded extra-legal powers in times of emergency.