Contested World Orders

The project unites the expertise of the three Leibniz institutes involved, drawing upon their previous work on the authority of international organisations (WZB), the legitimacy claims of NGOs (HSFK), and the "rising powers" (GIGA). As a first step, the project developed its basic concepts for a joint publication. In addition to the topic of resistance, it also investigated the authority and legitimacy of these institutions. As a second step, the researchers created a database that systematically assesses forms of authority and corresponding contestations and legitimacy claims over time and in different fields.

In the framework of the project a high-ranking edited volume was published, under the guidance of the cooperation partners from the WZB. The contributions to that volume focus on the preferences and strategies of NGOs and BRICS states in eight different policy fields ranging from security to issues related to welfare. In their theoretical framework paper to the volume the authors from the WZB highlight three research questions: a) the extent of support or opposition of NGOs and BRICS for the aggregation of political authority by international institutions, b) their support or opposition to the institutionalisation of liberal policies and principles, and d) the distance of the actors’ preferences from the institutional status quo.Based on a (quantitative or qualitative) statement analysis, the case studies will reveal similarities and differences among and within the two sets of actors under scrutiny. The GIGA contributes three case studies in the policy fields of climate finance, health governance and the UN security council as well as an additional case study on regional governance. The GIGA researchers have developed the empirical datasets for these contributions. Preliminary results indicate that in the climate case, rising countries act defensively and often avoid further commitments, while in security they act offensively and claim more authority. In addition, in some policy fields Southern NGOs’ viewpoints may come closer to their government’s positions than to those of their Northern NGO allies.