The paper asks for the various practices employed by international institutions to react to their growing need for legitimation. The core argument is that international institutions claim for a specific position within the global network of institutions to establish themselves as worthy to adhere to. Three modes of self-legitimation can be distinguished: legitimation policies, legitimation discourse and nonverbal self-presentations such as summit photographs. By focusing on two informal clubs rather than on formalized IOs, the analysis complements ongoing research on the self-legitimation of international institutions. By way of document and evaluation analysis and a reconstruction of ideal type photographs (1975-2013), it shows how both institutions today claim for a position as an inclusive and accountable manager for the benefit of all. Despite these similarities, the analysis reveals that the G8 is highlighting its “like-mindedness”, whereas the G20 is emphasizing its greater representativeness to appear as distinct and individually justified.
