Authority or Agenda: New Evidence on the Determinants of Right-Wing Populist Contestation of the Liberal International Order

Over the past decade, research on right-wing populism (RWP) has expanded, yet the international implications of RWP itself remain underexplored. A key claim is that contestation of the liberal international order (LIO) stems from international organizations’ (IOs) authority and liberal agendas (Börzel & Zürn 2021), though this has not been systematically tested. This article addresses that gap through a theory-driven, cross-national expert survey in thirteen countries. We conceptualize RWP as a blend of populist and right-wing traditions, generating distinct expectations about reactions to IO authority and agendas across human rights, trade, and security domains. To develop these expectations, we draw on recent scholarship that highlights both the diversity and the commonalities among RWP actors. While prior research has shown substantial variation in RWP foreign policy positions, many authors identify their contestation of the LIO as a central unifying feature. We therefore build on the concept of “liberal intrusiveness,” which combines IO authority with issue areas, especially human rights and rule of law, as a source of friction for RWP actors. This framework allows us to formulate domain-specific hypotheses about when and why RWP governments are likely to support or oppose particular IOs. Empirically, our expert survey provides the first systematic, comparative measure of RWP contestation across a wide set of IOs. The results show that contestation is driven mainly by agenda: friction arises over human rights and rule of law, while trade attitudes are more mixed. In security, greater IO authority can even increase approval. Overall, RWP contestation reflects ideological conflict with liberal norms more than populist anti-elitism. By combining new theory with cross-national empirical evidence, the article advances a more structured understanding of how RWP challenges the LIO.