International legitimacy and the United Nations Security Council (Iraq, Somalia)

This paper explores the distinctions between self-interest and legitimacy as motivating factors for why states take action in the context of the United Nations Security Council. Most scholars of international relations assume that states act at all times in a self-interested manner, but this assumption is challenged here by the idea that at least in some circumstances, the legitimacy of a situation, from the perspective of a particular state, can be a more significant motivator than self-interest. Two cases of Security Council action are studied here: the case of Iraq from 1990 to 2001, and the case of Somalia from 1992 to 1995. These cases are utilized to provide evidence for a hypothesis that legitimacy is distinguishable from self-interest. Since the Security Council is typically conceived as a realm in which realpolitik is the most important motivating factor, cases involved Council action provide an interesting test for the legitimacy hypothesis.