Global Governance 24 (2018), 229 –248

Take Action Now: The Legitimacy of Celebrity Power in International Relations Lena Partzsch

Celebrities are able to mobilize a wide range of people on a global scale. In his Oscar acceptance speech, Leonardo DiCaprio urged his international audi - ence to work collectively to combat climate change. Another example of celebrity activism is Daryl Hannah’s support for biofuels and the campaign against the Keystone XL pipeline. In this article, I analyze the legitimacy of such celebrity power in international relations along three criteria (political im - pact, broad participation, and control and accountability). I argue that, as long as celebrities’ claims are vague and do not go further than UN consensus, celebrity power can be considered legitimate through the political impact. In addition, DiCaprio and Hannah contribute civil society perspectives to the inter - national agenda while, however, not necessarily voicing the most marginalized positions. Finally, by urging governments to comply to international agreements, as DiCaprio does, he holds governments accountable on behalf of the public. However, both DiCaprio and Hannah claim to speak on behalf of affected peo - ple who cannot hold the celebrities themselves accountable for their political ac - tion. This lack of control is problematic if celebrities convey more radical positions that are not generally endorsed by the international community, as Hannah KEYWORDS does when protesting against Keystone XL and promoting biofuels. : celebrity, climate change, legitimacy.

THE POLITICAL POWER OF CELEBRITIES IS GROWING IN INTERNATIONAL RELA - tions, and many of them are committed to environmental causes. They often mobilize a wide range of people and address governments to take action in fields such as climate politics. In his 2016 Oscar acceptance speech for his role in The Revenant , US actor Leonardo DiCaprio urged his international audi - ence to work collectively together and stop procrastinating on action against climate change. 1 Another example is US actress Daryl Hannah. Shortly before the 2015 climate summit in Paris, President Barack Obama announced his ad - ministration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, against which Hannah had campaigned for years. 2 This article discusses whether such celebrity power is legitimate or not and how celebrities may increase or hollow legiti - mate decisionmaking beyond the nation-state. One of the most intricate political tasks ahead is extending democracy to the global realm. Although far from democratic, the United Nations offers

229 230 The Legitimacy of Celebrity Power in International Relations the international order that comes closest to democratic norms with the principle of one country, one vote. Political interventions of nonstate actors, such as nonelected celebrities, are considered legitimate in this order only if these actors are authorized by states or intergovernmental organizations. This applies to UN goodwill ambassadors, such as DiCaprio, but most celebrities lack a formal authorization such as Hannah. We may argue that celebrities are individual citizens who speak and act only on their own behalf in international relations—they may even represent the cosmopolitan ideal of “world citizen.” 3 As (world) citizens, celebrities can base their actions on the constitutionally warranted freedom of expression. However, celebrities are no ordinary citizens. The increase of celebrity power is embedded in new forms of governance and the growing relevance of pri - vate authority in global politics. 4 Since celebrities generally have a significant impact in international relations, at least in some cases, 5 we need to ask questions about the legiti - macy of celebrity power. By celebrity power, I mean their “capability . . . to determine the actions and even the thoughts of others.” 6 In this article, I first outline the power of celebrities in international relations and introduce my two illustrative cases of DiCaprio and Hannah in more detail. This leads to the next section where I derive three criteria for evaluating the legiti - macy of celebrity power from the literature on nonstate actors’ legitimacy in global governance: (1) legitimacy through political impact; (2) legiti - macy through broad participation of the deme (total of potential citizens and affected people); and (3) legitimacy through control and accountability. These criteria reflect different dimensions of democratic decisionmaking, which are interrelated. I explain these interrelations when introducing the cri - teria. Using the three criteria, I then discuss the legitimacy of the two cases of DiCaprio and Hannah. Methodologically, I used the three criteria as codes with several questions as subcodes, spelled out in Table 1, to analyze a total of ninety documents. These documents are articles on, interviews with, and speeches of the two celebrities over the past decade (April 2006−March 2016). I found the documents through Internet searches, excluding all news items with less than five sentences. I argue that, as long as celebrities’ claims are vague and do not go father than UN consensus, celebrity power can be considered legitimate through their political impact. DiCaprio and Hannah contribute civil soci - ety perspectives to the international agenda while, however, not necessar - ily voicing the most marginalized positions. Therefore, their democratic legitimacy in terms of broader participation of the deme in international relations is ambivalent. By urging governments to comply to international agreements, as DiCaprio does, he holds governments accountable on behalf of the public. However, both DiCaprio and Hannah claim to speak on behalf of affected people who cannot hold the celebrities themselves