This chapter focuses on delegitimation and asks how far the institutional set-up of global governance institutions determines which normative justifications are raised to challenge their legitimacy. Specifically, it compares the normative justifications used by African states and civil society organizations to delegitimate the African Union (AU), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Kimberley Process. Such a focus not only responds to calls for Global International Relations, but also explores regional dynamics in delegitimation practices that are often overlooked in extant literature on legitimacy in global governance. The chapter draws on a range of statements made by African states and civil society organizations, additional documents, and qualitative interviews, enabling the comparative case studies to probe key institutionalist and structuralist theoretical expectations. It asks whether differing institutional set-ups or a shared history of colonialism results in continuing power hierarchies that shape normative justifications of delegitimation practices. The chapter highlights the importance of underlying power hierarchies for delegitimation practices, as it finds support for structuralist expectations across the three cases. However, it also outlines important synergies between institutionalist and structuralist expectations.