This thesis examines how regimes emerging from conflict or authoritarian rule seek international legitimacy, with a focus on the case of Syria. It provides a comparative analysis of the strategies employed by the Bashar al-Assad regime (2011–2024) and the transitional government under Ahmed al-Sharaa (2025–present) to establish legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.

By applying a hybrid theoretical framework that combines constructivist and critical international relations (IR) theories, the study argues that legitimacy is not merely a legal or institutional status but a dynamic, performative process shaped by discourse, norm alignment, and global power structures.

The thesis employs thematic textual analysis to examine the internal and external legitimacy strategies of each regime. It draws on primary sources, such as media interviews, official speeches, and constitutional texts. The analysis reveals that the Assad regime bases its legitimacy claims on various narratives centered on national sovereignty, the fight against terrorism, and the preservation of state institutions. These themes were strategically used to appeal to influential geopolitical actors, even as the regime faced sustained international criticism for alleged human rights violations. In contrast, the transitional government under Al-Sharaa adopted a discourse of democratic renewal and inclusion, combining internal reform with external alignment to international norms, an effort aimed at securing conditional recognition from the global community.

The findings reveal that international legitimacy is not evenly distributed or determined solely by normative alignment. Instead, it is shaped by geopolitical interests, power relations, and how regimes construct and perform their claims to authority. This thesis contributes to a deeper understanding of how both authoritarian and transitional regimes engage in the international contest for recognition and legitimacy.