- JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
- 国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)
- vol.2003, no.132, pp.90-103,L10, 2003-02-28 (Released:2010-09-01)
The monumental works by Inis Claude Jr. have led many scholars of International Relations to regard collective legitimization as one of the most important mechanism for the institutionalization of international relations. This paper explores the enhancement of international institutions by focusing on the US collective legitimization in the Dominican intervention (1965) and the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).This paper argues that collective legitimization enhances institutionalization of international relations in two different ways: constraining the US decision about its military actions, and expanding the roles and functions of the formal international organizations. In the case of the Dominican intervention in 1965, due to opposition by other countries in the region, the US failed to continue deployment of its troops, especially the Army and Air Force, as it wished. The US also reluctantly accepted a Brazilian general for the commander of the Inter-American Peace Forces even though it wanted an American commander. In addition to these constraints, as a result of creation of Inter-American Peace Forces, the roles and functions of the OAS were expanded into peace-keeping operations and humanitarian military operations, neither of which was within the scope of the Charter of the OAS.A comparison of the Dominican Intervention in 1965 with the Cuban Missile Crisis shows there are two strategies of collective legitimization: assertive (offensive) legitimization and negative (defensive) legitimization. Assertive legitimization is a strategy whereby the United States tries to show the legality and justice of its military actions by gaining formal support from international institutions. Negative legitimization is a strategy whereby the United States tries to show the legality and justice of its military actions by denying the claim of an enemy or counterpart such as Cuba or the USSR. In the Dominican Intervention, the United States utilized assertive legitimization. The OAS, which legitimized the US position, was institutionalized considerably; but the UN, which was bypassed by the US, was not institutionalized. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, on the other hand, the United States chose negative legitimization. Neither the UN, nor the OAS was institutionalized. From these empirical analyses, this paper provides a new hypothesis that assertive legitimization by the United States enhances institutionalization of international relations more than negative legitimization.