Disentangling institutional contestation by established powers: Types of contestation frames and varying opportunities for the re-legitimation of international institutions

Abstract International institutions underpinning the ‘liberal international order’ are increasingly contested by established Western powers. This article contributes to a better understanding of this novel challenge ‘from within’. We conceptualize four types contestation frames according (1) whether contesting states attribute source grievances specific practices or underlying principles an institution; and (2) they present their own nation community as subject grievances. Combining these two dimensions, we distinguish between globalist-reformist, nationalist-reformist, globalist-revisionist nationalist-revisionist frames. These consequential open up shrink discursive space for institutions’ re-legitimation. Drawing on Trump Administration’s World Bank, NATO, UNHRC, WTO, demonstrate that defenders’ responses varied greatly across institutions, ranging from accommodative deliberations about institutional reforms principled rejection justification status quo.