Rule of Law from the Bottom-up and the Inside-out: Evaluating the legitimacy of a “hybrid approach” NGO

Abstract

Within the broader literature on civil society organisations (CSOs) there are a number of discussions and debates concerning how to disentangle, dimensionalise, and evaluate the complex concept of legitimacy. Scholars have presented different “dimensions”, “components”, and “types” of legitimacy, as well as suggestions for how to evaluate legitimacy based on the “roles” a CSO should play within a given context. This thesis seeks to analyse and corral these different theoretical and heuristic takes on CSO legitimacy into a theoretical framework, and then apply them to one specific case in order to explore how legitimacy can be evaluated empirically within this framework. The chosen case is International Bridges to Justice (IBJ), an international non-governmental organisation (INGO) that uses a “hybrid approach” to both provide legal assistance directly to indigent accused individuals, and to help strengthen and enforce already-passed legal reforms in the countries where it operates. Using this method, this thesis identifies some ambiguities which may arise when applying discrete theoretical categories to complex empirical case studies. It also notes the significance of “trade-offs” to the legitimacy of CSO approaches, and recognises that an array of CSO approaches is important to the legitimate strengthening of various rights.