The rise of populists to power in many states around the world has caused concern among defenders of multilateralism and the so-called liberal international order. Due to their frequent attacks on established international organizations (IOs), populists are often falsely portrayed as unilateralists. Our article addresses the apparent contradiction that populist leaders delegitimate certain IOs but actively legitimate others, and examines on what grounds they do so. We study speeches by three populist leaders from different continents: Viktor Orbán, Hugo Chávez and Rodrigo Duterte. The analysis shows that their (de)legitimation of IOs relies on representational claims, which critically interrogate on whose authority IOs speak, in whose interest they act, who they are made up of and what they stand for. Using the representational frames of popular sovereignty and popular identity, the three leaders have subverted conventional liberal arguments that legitimate IOs with regard to their performance or procedures. Based on these insights, we argue that instead of criticizing populists for being unilateralists (which they rarely are), stakeholders of established IOs should meet the populist challenge by engaging in more fundamental debates over the very purpose and mandate of IOs.

中文翻译：

---

国际组织的民粹主义（去）合法化

民粹主义者在世界上许多国家的崛起引起了多边主义和所谓的自由国际秩序捍卫者的担忧。由于他们经常攻击已建立的国际组织（IO），民粹主义者经常被错误地描绘成单边主义者。我们的文章解决了民粹主义领导人使某些 IO 合法化但积极使其他 IO 合法化的明显矛盾，并研究了他们这样做的理由。我们研究了来自不同大陆的三位民粹主义领导人的演讲：Viktor Orbán、Hugo Chávez 和 Rodrigo Duterte。分析表明，他们对 IOs 的合法化（去）合法化依赖于代表性的主张，这些主张批判性地询问 IOs 代表谁的权威、他们为谁的利益行事、他们由谁组成以及他们代表什么。三位领导人使用人民主权和人民认同的代表性框架，颠覆了传统的自由主义论点，这些论点认为 IOs 在其绩效或程序方面是合法的。基于这些见解，我们认为，既有国际组织的利益相关者不应批评民粹主义者是单边主义者（他们很少这样做），而是应该通过就国际组织的真正目的和任务进行更根本的辩论来应对民粹主义的挑战。