It is no great surprise that in the contemporary world the use of deadly force by a political grouping or nation-state or on behalf of international society should raise troubling questions of legitimacy. The problem appears to be massively overdetermined and the intellectual challenge is to bring some order to a confused and confusing debate; to distinguish between short-term problems and deep-rooted changes in both understandings of legitimacy and patterns in the use of force; and try and identify where there might be scope for narrowing the very deep disagreements that have come to surround this question. This article argues, first, that the legitimacy problems surrounding the use of force can only be understood by considering the way in which changing understandings of international legitimacy have interacted with developments in both the generation of insecurity and the management of insecurity; and, second, that although the ideology, strategy and policies of the Bush administration have undoubtedly been central to recent debates, many of the most important aspects of the problem reflect broad and deep-seated developments within global politics. The article concentrates on questions of international rather than domestic legitimacy – although it needs to be recognised that sharply divergent national perspectives regarding the use of force are of course one aspect of the international problem. The article addresses three questions:

1. What do we mean by legitimacy and how have both conceptions of legitimacy and practices of legitimacy politics evolved in ways relevant to the use of force?

2. How have changes in both the nature and management of international security complicated the legitimacy challenges facing international society?

3. […]