It is commonplace to say that international organizations (IOs) face a legitimacy crisis because they are perceived as undemocratic, unaccountable, and inefficient. Plausible as it may seem, this still must count as a conjecture. In this article, I review the rapidly growing literature that has explored this connection empirically. I follow three strands of research that approach the legitimacy of IOs from different angles. The first strand explores individual beliefs through observational and experimental surveys. The second strand analyzes public discourses, mapping arguments deployed to (de-)legitimize IOs. The third strand studies political action related to legitimacy, such as protest voting, street demonstrations, and withdrawal of member states from IOs. The empirical evidence shows that citizens expect fair procedures and balanced outcomes also in international politics; that legitimation discourses revolve around democratic standards and not only performance; and that institutions respond to protests. It is less clear, however, how the three dimensions of (de-)legitimation interact. I argue that we need to triangulate them more systematically to see the connections between beliefs, arguments, and political action at work. I suggest in-depth case studies, sensitive to the context and content of legitimation debates, that cover these three dimensions and their interactions simultaneously.

中文翻译：

---

国际组织合法性的三角测量：信念、话语和行动

人们普遍认为，国际组织（IO）面临合法性危机，因为它们被认为不民主、不负责任且效率低下。尽管看起来似乎有道理，但这仍然只能算是一个猜想。在本文中，我回顾了快速增长的实证探索这种联系的文献。我遵循三个研究方向，从不同角度探讨国际组织的合法性。第一部分通过观察和实验调查探索个人信仰。第二部分分析公共话语，映射用于使国际组织合法化（去）合法化的论点。第三部分研究与合法性相关的政治行动，例如抗议投票、街头示威以及成员国退出国际组织。经验证据表明，公民在国际政治中也期望公平的程序和平衡的结果；合法性话语围绕民主标准而不仅仅是绩效；以及机构对抗议做出回应。然而，尚不清楚合法化（去）合法化的三个维度如何相互作用。我认为，我们需要更系统地对它们进行三角测量，以了解信念、论点和政治行动之间的联系。我建议进行深入的案例研究，对合法性辩论的背景和内容敏感，同时涵盖这三个维度及其相互作用。