Cracking the code: untangling the chessboard of (de)legitimization in the International Court of Justice 2024 using computational linguistics approaches

Abstract This computational linguistics study detects and analyses the utilization of (de)legitimization strategies employed in the hearings requested by South Africa at the International Court of Justice in January 2024. The analysis of the current work focuses on the argumentative strategies speakers employed to (de)legitimize actions or opponents. Speakers employ legitimization strategies to foreground a positive image by highlighting the positive traits. On the contrary, the delegitimization techniques emphasize faults or inconsistencies so that the counterparty or action is constructed as unjust, illegal, or immoral. In a general sense, legal discourse faces both legitimization and delegitimization techniques. More specifically, during the hearings in the courtroom, very often speakers get strategically involved in a battle of (de)legitimation to convince their target audience. Drawing on the theoretical approaches to (de)legitimization strategies by van Leeuwen (2007. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1(1). 91–112.) and Reyes (2011. Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society 22(6). 781–807), this paper discusses not only the linguistic mechanisms used in manifesting these strategies but also explains the functional purposes or goals they serve. This paper aims to contribute to the discussions on the reciprocal relationship between legitimization/delegitimization processes at play, achieved through the careful analysis of the interplay between communicative approaches and strategic maneuvers on one hand and an overview of informational retrieval usage and computational linguistics methods on the other. The findings of the present study provide further insight into the complexities inherent in the legal language analyzed and applied to computational linguistics (CL) approaches, while the real role played by intercultural communication becomes clear in relief in the strategies used toward legitimization and delegitimization. The initial results derived from a combined qualitative analysis and machine assessment emphasize the diverse employment of legitimization and delegitimization tactics by officials representing the 52 states in a direct and unequivocal fashion. These strategies predominantly revolve around the projection of a hypothetical future, moral evaluation, legitimization through emotions, authorization and rationalization, respectively.