China’s leadership in the United Nations: Image management and institutional legitimacy

Sabrina B. Arias & Rachel Hulvey

Review of International Organizations2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-025-09604-4article
ABDC C
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

Abstract The public in democratic states increasingly views China as a threat. As China takes on leadership roles in key United Nations (UN) agencies, we examine how such positions affect its image in democratic societies where collaboration with China is often met with skepticism or rejection. We argue that a rising power can use IO leadership to improve its image among foreign publics. However, these efforts may have negative effects on the perceived legitimacy of IOs, which may be subsequently viewed as subject to major power capture. We test these expectations in pre-registered survey experiments in Brazil—a China-friendly case—and France—a China-skeptical case—finding that while China’s leadership of the UN enhances its image in the skeptical country context, it negatively affects IO legitimacy in both populations. To a lesser extent, US leadership of IOs also reduces their legitimacy, suggesting publics are also concerned about great power control of IOs broadly. These findings advance our understanding of China’s image management and IO legitimacy, contributing to broader debates on China’s growing role in global governance.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-025-09604-4

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sabrina2025,
  title        = {{China’s leadership in the United Nations: Image management and institutional legitimacy}},
  author       = {Sabrina B. Arias & Rachel Hulvey},
  journal      = {Review of International Organizations},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-025-09604-4},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

China’s leadership in the United Nations: Image management and institutional legitimacy

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.