The political origins of the UN Security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force

Abstract Since, at least, the Persian Gulf War, states have behaved “as if ” it is costly to be unsuccessful in acquiring the legitimacy the UN Security Council con-fers on uses of force+ This observation is puzzling for theories that seek the origins of modern institutional legitimacy in legalities or moral values+ I argue that when governments and citizens look for an authority to legitimize the use of force, they generally do not seek an independent judgment on the appropriateness of an inter-vention but political reassurance about the consequences of proposed military adven-tures+ Council decisions legitimize or delegitimize uses of force in the sense that they form widely accepted political judgments on whether uses of force transgress a limit that should be defended+ These judgments become focal points in the collabo-ration and coordination dilemmas states face in enforcing limits to U+S+ power while preserving mutually beneficial cooperation+ In this article, I discuss the implications for the Council’s legitimacy and theories of international legitimacy+ In a 1966 article, Claude observed that the function of collective legitimization in global politics is increasingly conferred on international organizations ~IOs!, an