The power of legitimacy in global collective action: Institutional crisis and change in arms control

This dissertation asks why some international institutions are more resilient than others in the face of crisis, especially in the field of arms control where the stakes and risks are so high. When an institution is threatened by noncompliance or other exogenous shocks, several possible forms of collective action exist: actors can choose to abandon the institution, rally to uphold the existing institution, or move to replace it with a better one. While all of these options are considered, the empirical analysis focuses primarily on collective action toward the replacement of an existing institution with an alternative one, which provides a straightforward measure of resilience. Specifically, the dissertation asks why states moved collectively to create a new institution in response to a perceived crisis in the case of multilateral efforts to regulate landmines and not in the case of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), where stakes are arguably much higher. I contend that the concept of institutional legitimacy---the belief that an institution ought to be obeyed---is uniquely capable of illuminating the questions posed above. Unlike conventional explanations that rely solely on material power and cost/benefit analysis, legitimacy reveals a complex interplay between norms and interests, material and social power, and ideas and agendas required not only to explain the variance in outcomes, but to understand why they happened in the way they did.; To identify potential causal pathways, I unpack the complex concept of legitimacy---considering procedural, substantive, and ideational dimensions---and ask if these dimensions of legitimacy might have different behavioral implications. I posit that an institution is most likely to face an existential crisis when causal and moral ideas change in a way that delegitimizes the existing institution by causing some members to alter their security interests and/or question their normative commitment to it. In subsequent case studies of global institutions to regulate landmines and nuclear weapons, respectively, I draw upon careful historical analysis, participant observation, and elite interviews to show how legitimacy can affect institutional resilience and change. I conclude by broadening the application of legitimacy and suggesting avenues for further research.