Either of

[ian2]

Legitimacy arises from the conviction that state action proceeds within the ambit of law, in two senses: first, that action issues from rightful authority, that is, from the political institution authorized to take it; and second, that it does not violate a legal or moral norm. Ultimately, however, legitimacy is rooted in opinion, and thus actions that are unlawful in either of these senses may, in principle, still be deemed legitimate.

Question: "Either" implies that you only need to meet one of the two requirements. In other words, if you are unlawful in the first sense or in the second sense, you still have a chance to be deemed legitimate. You have to be unlawful in both senses to be deemed illegitimate. That is what I usually interpret EITHER. However, in this particular case, do we have another explanation? Thanks.

[svartnik]

Legitimacy arises from the conviction that state action proceeds within the ambit of law, in two senses: first, that action issues from rightful authority, that is, from the political institution authorized to take it; and second, that it does not violate a legal or moral norm. Ultimately, however, legitimacy is rooted in opinion, and thus actions that are unlawful in either of these senses may in principle, still be deemed legitimate.

My nonsensical drivels are as follows:

An action may be illegitimate in two senses: the 'authority' does not come from an authorized body or a law-abiding authority.
On the other hand, what is legitimate is a matter of opinion at the end of the day so you can be an unlawful authority and still be legitimate.

unlawful ≠ illegitime
unlawful = opinion
lawful = legitime or illegitime
lawful = opinion