Power is a complicated subject. Even if we ignore the many types of power based in some form of energy (electric, fossil, solar, wind, nuclear, etc.), that leaves the state of, forms of, nature of, and consequences of, power in other realms of society to a scope of discussion that can occupy many hours of debate (which scholars often do). These discussions can produce many delightful hours of intellectual masturbation. Regardless of which locus of focus one settles into in the many splendid taxonomies of power that have been produced by legions of graduate students and their mentor-professors, at the essence of all power is the issue of legitimacy. Legitimacy is what makes power powerful.

In legal discourse, legitimacy is generally granted by authority as agreed to in, and proclaimed by, law. We point to a (hopefully) well written and clear law to assess the legitimacy of an act—of the expression of power. At the state and local (domestic) level of our societies, power is made legitimate by norms and laws backed by authority and resources which flow to entities based on their legitimacy. We empower the legitimate and reject the illegitimate by withholding our recognition and compliance.

At the domestic level of analysis, these touchstones (of norms and laws) are generally acknowledged and honored. And while we do organize into groups like political parties to contend for legitimate power through political processes like elections, the state of power and its legitimacy are protected within the guardrails of systems we honor. This practice is at the core of civil society; it is what puts civil at the heart of civilization. In the human ascent from the cave to the stars, we have learned (often the hard way) that our welfare depends upon our capacity for cooperation, and while competition is also important to sort out best products and practices, we must also cooperate to apply those products and practices to achieve the highest possible state of our well-being, especially with the public goods that animate the common good. So far, pretty simple.

At the international level, the legitimacy of power is a much more precarious subject. The first thing taught in graduate school about the nature of the international system, before diving into philosophers like Thucydides, or Machiavelli, or Hobbes, or Rousseau, or Kant, is that it is anarchical: there exists no highest authority recognized by the states that make up the system. The international system is a semi-organized anarchy. Moreover, there is no touchstone—no document or court or tribunal—against which legitimacy may be staked. Although we do create many fora like the International Criminal Court and the United Nations to attempt international governance, no nation-state carries any obligation of compliance beyond their willingness to do so. Even treaties, which are the foundation of international law (along with norms) can be violated without recourse; there is no enforcement mechanism. In the international system, it is like rock climbing hoping that the next crag of rock you grasp holds and doesn’t send you […]