Performing Legitimacy Online: A Comparative Analysis of Contested States’ Digital Diplomacy

This thesis explores how contested states utilise digital diplomacy to gradually construct legitimacy in state-to-state relationships. By comparing detailed extreme case studies of Palestine and Taiwan, it examines the online content produced by their Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), including political statements and social media posts (X) from January 2022 up to and including December 2023. Through discourse analysis, the research finds that both contested states employ distinct strategies to establish legitimacy tailored to their unique circumstances. Taiwan emphasises its democratic values and operational capabilities, often adopting a confident and even humorous tone. In contrast, Palestine appeals to legal standards and moral arguments, stressing the injustice of its situation despite gaining significant international recognition.While differing in tone and focus, both extreme cases converge on leveraging digital diplomacy to assert legitimacy through various discursive strategies such as isomorphic mimicry, humour, moral framing, and normative stratification. These techniques enable them to highlight conventional markers of statehood, strategically align themselves with Western liberal values established by the Liberal International Order (LIO), and condemn their counterpart nations as violators of those same principles. This thesis challenges traditional theories (declaratory and constitutive) of recognition by demonstrating that legitimacy is not only something granted by others or based on fixed criteria; it can be actively shaped through strategic online communication. This underlines the increasingly complex and relational character of legitimacy in today's international political landscape.