Advertisement

Introduction: Norm Breakers as Norm Makers?

  • Carmen WunderlichEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Norm Research in International Relations book series (NOREINRE)

Abstract

This book departs from the observation that mainstream research on norms is analytically biased: analyses of “successful” norm diffusion usually focus on the institutionalization of liberal norms and trace these processes back to norm entrepreneurship of liberal Western actors. Taking a critical constructivist stance instead, in this book, Wunderlich pursues a question that is as innovative as it is counterintuitive: She proposes to look at the supposed opponents of the Western liberal world order—so-called “rogue states”—to see whether they are possibly not aiming at the overthrow, but at the further development of the normative order thus acting as norm entrepreneurs. This chapter presents the basic argument, defines central terms and concepts, and introduces the research design that guides the empirical analysis at the heart of the book.

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? norm localization and institutional change in asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.Google Scholar
  2. Acharya, A. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adamson, F. B. (2005). Global liberalism versus political islam: Competing ideological frameworks in international politics. International Studies Review, 7(4), 547–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bettiza, G., & Dionigi, F. (2014). Beyond Constructivism’s liberal bias: Islamic norm entrepreneurs in a post-secular world society. EUI Working Paper MWP 2014/10. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31692/MWP_WP_Bettiza_Dionigi_2014_10.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  5. Björkdahl, A. (2002). From idea to norm: Promoting conflict prevention. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  6. Bloomfield, A. (2016). Norm antipreneurs and theorizing resistance to normative change. Review of International Studies, 42(2), 310–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bob, C. (2012). The global right wing and the clash of world politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bucher, B. (2014). Acting abstractions: Metaphors, narrative structures, and the eclipse of agency. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 742–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caprioli, M., & Trumbore, P. (2005). Rhetoric versus reality: Rogue states in interstate conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Checkel, J. (2012). Norm entrepreneurship—Theoretical and methodological challenges. Memo prepared for a workshop on “The Evolution of International Norms and ‘Norm Entrepreneurship”: The Council of Europe in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Wolfson College, Oxford University.Google Scholar
  11. Daase, C., & Deitelhoff, N. (2014). Reconstructing global rule by analyzing resistance (Internationale Dissidenz Working Paper 1/2014). Resource Document. Internationale Dissidenz Working Paper. http://dissidenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wp1-2014-daase-deitelhoff-en.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  12. Deitelhoff, N., & Zimmermann, L. (2019). Norms under challenge: Unpacking the dynamics of norm robustness. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(1), 2–17.Google Scholar
  13. Draude, A. (2017). The agency of the governed. Norm diffusion and institutional transfer in the global south [special issue]. Third World Thematics—A TWQ Journal, 2 (5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ehrenreich Brooks, R. (2003). The new imperialism: Violence, norms, and the “rule of law”. Michigan Law Review, 101(7), 2275–2340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flockhart, T. (2004). “Masters and Novices”: Socialization and social learning through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. International Relations, 18(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Florini, A. (1996). The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40(3), 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forst, R., & Günther, K. (2011). Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen. Zur Idee eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramms. In R. Forst & K. Günther (Hrsg.). Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Geldenhuys, D. (2004). Deviant conduct in world politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. George, A. (1993). Bridging the gap. Theory and practice in foreign policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gertheiss, S., Herr, S., Wolf, K., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.). (2017). Resistance and change in world politics: International dissidence. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heller, R., & Kahl, M. (2013). Tracing and understanding ‘bad’ norm dynamics in counterterrorism. The current debates in IR research. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 6(3), 414–428.Google Scholar
  26. Heller, R., Kahl, M., & Pisoiu, D. (2012). The “dark” side of normative argumentation—The case of counterterrorism policy. Global Constitutionalism, 1(2), 278–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Homolar, A. (2011). Rebels without a conscience: The evolution of the rogue states narrative in US Security Policy. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 705–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofius, M., Wilkens, J., Hansen-Magnusson, H., & Gholiagha, S. (2014). Den Schleier lichten? Kritische Normenforschung, Freiheit und Gleichberechtigung im Kontext des »Arabischen Frühlings«. Eine Replik auf Engelkamp/Glaab/Renner, Ulbert und Deitelhoff/Zimmermann. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 2, 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoyt, P. (2000). The “Rogue State” image in American Foreign Policy. Global Society, 14(2), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobi, D., Weber, C., & Hellmann, G. (2014). Dissident foreign policy and the (re-)production of international orders. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 106–131). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Johnston, I. (2007). The secretary-general as norm entrepreneur. In S. Chesterman (Ed.), Secretary or general? The UN secretary-general in world politics (pp. 123–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katzenstein, P. (1996). Introduction: Alternative perspectives on national security. In P. Katzenstein (Ed), The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Klare, M. (1995). Rogue States and nuclear outlaws: America’s search for a new foreign policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  35. Krook, M., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lake, A. (1994). Confronting backlash states. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Litwak, R. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. foreign policy: Containment after the cold war. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Litwak, R. (2012). Outlier states: American strategies to change, contain, or engage regimes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  39. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Müller, H. (2011). Habermas meets role theory. Communicative action as role playing? In S. Harnisch, C. Frank, & H. Maull (Eds.), Role theory in international relations. Approaches and analyses (pp. 55–73). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Müller, H. (2013). Introduction: Where it all began. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 1–19). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  42. Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2018). Not lost in contestation. How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(3), 341–366.Google Scholar
  43. Nincic, M. (2005). Renegade regimes: Confronting deviant behavior in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Reilly, K. (2007). Perceiving rogue states: The Use of the “rogue state” concept by U.S. foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(4), 295–315.Google Scholar
  45. Pirseyedi, B. (2013). Arms control and Iranian Foreign Policy: Diplomacy of discontent. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue! Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandholtz, W. (2007). Prohibiting plunder: How norms change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sikkink, K. (2011). Beyond the justice cascade: How agentic constructivism could help explain change in international politics. Revised paper from a keynote address at Millenium Annual Conference, “Out of the Ivory Tower. Weaving the Theories and Practice of International Relations”. London: London School of Economics. https://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Agentic-Constructivism-paper-sent-to-the-Princeton-IR-Colloquium.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  49. Smetana, M. (2020). Nuclear deviance stigma politics and the rules of the nonproliferation game. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  50. Stimmer, A., & Wisken, L. (2019). The dynamics of dissent: When actions are louder than words. International Affairs, 9583, 515–533.Google Scholar
  51. Towns, A. (2012). Norms and social hierarchies: Understanding international policy diffusion “from below”. International Organization, 66(2), 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner, W., Werner, W., & Onderco, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Wendt, A. (1998). On constitution and causation in international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(5), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White House. (2002). The national security strategy of the United States of America. Resource Document. White House. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  55. Widmaier, W., & Park, S. (2012). Differences beyond theory. Structural, strategic, and sentimental approaches to normative change. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2), 123–134.Google Scholar
  56. Wiener, A. (2004). Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiener, A. (2007). The dual quality of norms and governance beyond the state: Sociological and normative approaches to interaction. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10(1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Wiener, A. (2018a). Agency of the governed in global international relations: Access to norm validation. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(5), 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiener, A. (2018b). Contestation and constitution of norms in global international relations. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wunderlich, C. (2014). A “Rogue” gone norm entrepreneurial? Iran within the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 83–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wunderlich, C. (2017). Delegitimisation à la Carte: The “Rogue State” label as a means of stabilising order in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In S. Gertheiss, S. Herr, K. Wolf, & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Resistance and change in world politics: International dissidence (pp. 143–189). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Wunderlich, C., Hellmann, A., Müller, D., Reuter, J., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2013). Non-aligned reformers and revolutionaries. Egypt, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 246–295). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations