Advertisement

Against the Norms of International Society: Rogues, Outlaws, and Pariahs

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

Abstract

The concept of the “rogue state” has been introduced into the political and scholarly debate to label—and delegitimize—norm-breaking behavior. The chapter traces the concept’s construction and evolution in the context of US foreign policy with a focus on how it has been linked to (alleged) norm transgressions and it discusses the selective and arbitrary usage of the concept, particularly with regard to policy making. Wunderlich draws attention to the fact that both in the political and scholarly discourse, “rogue states” are typically characterized as outsiders to the international community, who are neither willing nor able to comply with the rules of the prevailing normative order and thus deprived normative agency. As a top-down construction, the concept primarily serves to stabilize a narrative contrasting a Global North following reputable “liberal” norms with a Global South which is increasingly characterized by “rogues” or failed states and the promotion of “illiberal” norms. As a consequence, adhering to the stigmatizing label does not seem to be sustainable.

References

  1. Albright, M. (1998). Remarks by Secretary of State. Resource document. Madeleine K. Albright at Howard University, Washington, DC, 14.04.1998. http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1998/04/98041503_tpo.html. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  2. Beeman, W. O. (2005). The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran demonize each other. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Betts, R. (1977). Paranoids, pygmies, pariahs & nonproliferation. Foreign Policy, 26, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blum, W. (2002). Rogue state: A guide to the world’s only superpower. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bolton, J. R. (2002, May 6). Beyond the axis of evil: Additional threats from weapons of mass destruction. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/beyond-the-axis-of-evil. August 28, 2015.
  6. Bunn, G., & Timerbaev, R. (2005). The right to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT): The views of two NPT negotiators. Yaderny Kontrol, 10(1–2), 20–29.Google Scholar
  7. Bush, G. W. (2002). State of the Union Address, The White House, Washington, DC, 29.01.2002. Resource document. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  8. Caprioli, M., & Trumbore, P. (2005). Rhetoric versus reality: Rogue states in interstate conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 770–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caprioli, M., & Trumbore, P. F. (2003). Identifying “Rogue” states and testing their interstate conflict behavior. European Journal of International Relations, 9(3), 377–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (2000). Rogue States: The rule of force in world affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  11. Claes, J. (2012). Protecting civilians from mass atrocities: Meeting the challenge of R2P rejectionism. Global Responsibility to Protect, 4(1), 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. (1999). Israel and the bomb. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Graaff, N., & van Apeldoorn, B. (2011). Varieties of US post-cold war imperialism: Anatomy of a failed hegemonic project and the future of US geopolitics. Critical Sociology, 37(4), 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derrida, J. (2006). Schurken. Zwei Essays über die Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  15. Dror, Y. (1971). Crazy states: A counterconventional strategic problem. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  16. Frum, D. (2003). The right man: The surprise presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  17. Geis, A., & Wunderlich, C. (2014). The good, the bad, and the ugly. Comparing the notions of “Rogue” and “Evil” in international politics. International Politics, 51(4), 458–474.Google Scholar
  18. Geldenhuys, D. (2004). Deviant conduct in world politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. George, A. (1991). Forceful persuasion: Diplomacy as an alternative to war. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  20. George, A. (1993). Bridging the gap. Theory and practice in foreign policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  21. Harkavy, R. E. (1981). Pariah states and nuclear proliferation. International Organization, 35(1), 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henriksen, T. H. (2001). The rise and decline of rogue states. Journal of International Affairs, 54(2), 349–371.Google Scholar
  23. Heradstveit, D., & Bonham, M. (2007). What the axis of evil metaphor did to Iran. Middle East Journal, 61(3), 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herring, E. (2000). Rogue rage: Can we prevent mass destruction? Journal of Strategic Studies, 23(1), 188–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrmann, R., & Fischerkeller, M. (1995). Beyond the enemy image and spiral model: Cognitive-strategic research after the cold war. International Organization, 49(3), 415–450.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Hoyt, P. (2000). The “Rogue State” image in American Foreign Policy. Global Society, 14(2), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Johnson, T. (2010). The four nuclear outlier states, council on foreign relations. Resource document. http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/four-nuclear-outlier-states/p22164. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  30. Joyner, D. H. (2008). International law and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Joyner, D. (2009). International law and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klare, M. (1995). Rogue states and nuclear outlaws: America’s Search for a new foreign policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  33. Koh, H. (1998). The 1998 Frankel lecture. Bringing international law home. Houston Law Review, 623, 646–655.Google Scholar
  34. Kustermans, J. (2014). “Roguery” and citizenship. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 15–35). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lake, A. (1994). Confronting backlash states. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Litwak, R. (2007). Regime change: U.S. strategy through the prism of 9/11. 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. Lodgaard, S. (2008). Dealing with the outliers. In J. du Preez (Ed.), Nuclear challenges and policy options for the next U.S. Administration. Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.Google Scholar
  40. Malici, A. (2009). Rogue states: Enemies of our own making? Psicología Política, 39, 39–54.Google Scholar
  41. Malici, A., & Walker, S. G. (2014). Role theory and “Rogue States”. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 132–151). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Müller H. (2007). The exceptional end to the extraordinary libyan nuclear quest. In M. Bremer & S. Lodgaard (Eds.), Nuclear proliferation and international security (pp. 73–95). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Müller, H. (2014). Evilization in liberal discourse. From Kant’s “Unjust Enemy” to today’s “Rogue State”. International Politics, 51(4), 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. National Review. (2014). Diplomatic dangers and cautions, NR Interview, 20.02.2014. Resource document. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371525/damned-if-you-do-interview. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  46. Nincic, M. (2005). Renegade regimes: Confronting deviant behavior in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Obama, B. (2009). Inaugural address, 21.01.2009. Resource document. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  49. Ogilvie-White, T. (2007). International responses to Iranian Nuclear Defiance: The non-aligned movement and the issue of non-compliance. European Journal of International Law, 18(3), 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ogilvie-White, T. (2010). The defiant states: The nuclear diplomacy of North Korea and Iran. The Nonproliferation Review, 17(1), 117–138.Google Scholar
  51. Onderco, M. (2014). From a “Rogue” to a parolee: Analyzing Libya’s “De-roguing”. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 171–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Quester, G. (1975). What’s new on nuclear non-proliferation. Aspen: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.Google Scholar
  53. Rawls, J. (2002). Das Recht der Völker. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Reagan, R. (1983). Evil empire speech, Transcript, 08.03.1983. Resource document. http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3409. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  55. Rice, C. (2005). Opening remarks by secretary of state-designate Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington DC, 18.01.2005. Resource document. http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/40991.ht. Accessed August 28, 2015.
  56. Rotberg, R. (2007). Worst of the worst: Dealing with repressive and rogue nations. Cambridge, MA: World Peace Foundation.Google Scholar
  57. Rubin, M. (2014). Dancing with the devil: The perils of engaging rogue regimes. New York, NY: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  58. Sakar, J. (2013). The nuclear non-proliferation regime and its dissidents: A conflict of paradigms? Resource document. Yale Journal of International Affairs. http://yalejournal.org/op-ed_post/the-nuclear-non-proliferation-regime-and-its-dissidents-a-conflict-of-paradigms/. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  59. Saunders, E. (2006). Setting boundaries: Can International Society exclude “Rogue States”? International Studies Review, 8(1), 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmittchen, D. (2006). “Rogue States”—“Schurkenstaaten”. Ein stringentes US-Konzept im Kampf gegen Terrorismus und Proliferation von ABC-Waffen? Resource document. Forschungsgruppe Sicherheitspolitik. Berlin.Google Scholar
  61. Senn, M. (2008). Rogue No More!? Die iranische Bedrohung in der Wahrnehmung der USA. Resource document. IPG 3/2008. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-2008-3/05_a_senn_d.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  62. Senn, M. (2009). Wolves in the woods: The rogue state concept from a constructivist perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spector, L., & Cohen, A. (2008). Israel’s airstrike on syria’s reactor. Implications for the nonproliferation regime. Arms Control Association, 07.08.2008. Resource document. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/SpectorCohen. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  64. Stritzel, H., & Schmittchen, D. (2011). Securitization, culture and power: Rogue states in US and German discourse. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization theory. How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 170–85). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Tanter, R. (1999). Rogue regimes: Terrorism and proliferation. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  66. The White House. (2010). National Security Strategy, Washington, 01.05.2010. Resource document. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  67. Trump, D. (2018). State of the union speech, 30. January 2018. Resource document. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-state-union-address/. Accessed September 18, 2018.
  68. Wagner, W., Werner, W., & Onderco, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Wagner, W. (2014). Rehabilitation or exclusion? A criminological perspective on policies towards “Rogue States”. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 152–170). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wendt, A. (1998). On constitution and causation in international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(5), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. White House. (2002). The national security strategy of the United States of America. Resource document. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  72. Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations