Advertisement

Norm Contestation: A Theoretical Framework

  • Betcy Jose
Chapter
  • 315 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)

Abstract

This chapter demonstrates how a norm contestation framework can helpfullyexplain behavioral variation within norms. This approach explores how actors’ interpretations of a norm’s logic of appropriateness, as informed by the logic of practicality and the logic of contestedness, may impact intersubjective agreement between norm enforcers and norm users. In doing so, it elucidates aspects of norms not captured by useful explanations rooted in the norm diffusion process or materialist motivations. These frameworks tend to focus on behavioral variation in instances where actors have not yet subscribed to a norm or intentionally violate it to further material interests. Rather than solely seeking to explain actor behavior, a norm contestation framework scrutinizes actors’ understandings of their normative obligations. It concentrates on ambiguous normative environments in which various actors may differently interpret those obligations and norm enforcers’ powers are weakened. In these instances, intersubjective agreement is fluid and shaped by background information and local contexts, concepts incorporated into the logic of practicality (Brunnée and Toope 2010) and the logic of contestedness (Wiener 2007).

Works Cited

  1. Abbott KW. The many faces of international legalization. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law). 1998. p. 57–63.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott KW, Snidal D. Hard and soft law in international governance. Int Organ. 2000;54(3):421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbott K, Keohane RO, Moravcsik A, Slaughter A-M, Snidal D. The concept of legalization. Int Organ. 2000;54(3):401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acharya A. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian Regionalism. Int Organ. 2004;58(2):239–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acharya A.Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies. International Studies Quarterly 2014;58(4):647–59.Google Scholar
  6. Adler E. Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. Eur J Int Rel. 1997;3(3):319–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Adler E. The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO’s post—cold war transformation. Eur J Int Rel. 2008;13(2):195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bano S. Norms contestation: insights from morphogenesis theory. Korean J Int Stud. 2015;13:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barkin JS. Realist constructivism. Int Stud Rev. 2003;5(3):325–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barnett M. Culture, strategy and foreign policy change: Israel’s road to Oslo. Eur J Int Rel. 1999;5(1):5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnett M, Duvall R. Power in international politics. Int Organ. 2005;59(1):39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnett M, Finnemore M. Rules for the world: international organizations in global politics. New York: Cornell University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. Ben-Josef Hirsch M. Ideational change and the emergence of the international norm of truth and reconciliation commissions. Eur J Int Rel. 2013;20(3).Google Scholar
  14. Best J. Bureaucratic Ambiguity. Econ Soc. 2012a;41(1):84–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Best J. Ambiguity and uncertainty in international organizations: a history of debating IMF conditionality. Int Stud Q. 2012b;56(4):674–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Binder M, Heupel M. The legitimacy of the UN security council: evidence from recent general assembly debates. Int Stud Q. 2015;59(2):238–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bower A. Norms without the great powers: international law, nested social structures, and the ban on antipersonnel mines. Int Stud Rev. 2015;17(3):347–73.Google Scholar
  18. Brunnée J, Toope SJ. Legitimacy and legality in international law: an interactional account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Capie D. Localization as resistance: the contested diffusion of small arms norms in Southeast Asia. Security Dialogue. 2008;39(6):637–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpenter RC. Recognizing gender based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security Dialogue. 2006;37(1):83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Checkel JT. The constructivist turn in international relations. World Politics. 1998;50(2):324–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Checkel JT. Why comply? Social learning and European identity change. Int Organ. 2001;55(3):553–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Contessi NP. Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation: China’s stance on Darfur in the UN security council. Security Dialogue. 2010;41:323–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Nevers R. Imposing international norms: great powers and norm enforcement. Int Stud Rev. 2007;9:1:53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deitelhoff N, Zimmermann L. Things we lost in the fire: how different types of Con- testation affect the validity of international norms. PRIF Working Paper No.18. Peace Research Institute-Frankfurt, Germany; 2013.Google Scholar
  26. Dinnen S. From ideals to reality in international rule of law work- the case of Papua New Guinea. J Int Peacekeep. 2010;14(3–4):301–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dombrowski P, Payne RA. The emerging consensus for preventative war. Survival. 2006;48:115–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Donno D. Who is punished? Regional intergovernmental organizations and the enforcement of democratic norms. Int Organ. 2010;64(4):593–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Engelkamp S, Katharina G, Judith R. Office hours: How (Critical) norm research can regain its voice. World Political Science 2014;10(1):61–89.Google Scholar
  30. Epstein C.Stop telling us how to behave: Socialization or infantilization? International Studies Perspectives 2012;13(2):135–45.Google Scholar
  31. Finnemore M. Are legal norms distinctive. New York University J Int Law Politics. 1999;32:699.Google Scholar
  32. Finnemore M, Sikkink K. International norm dynamics and political change. Int Organ. 1998;52(4):887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Finnemore M, Toope SJ. Alternatives to “legalization”: richer views of law and politics. Int Organ. 2001;55(3):743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Franck TM. The power of legitimacy among nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  35. Glanville L. Rwanda reconsidered: a study of norm violation. J Contemp Afr Stud. 2006;24(2):185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grovogui SN. To the orphaned, dispossessed, and illegitimate children: human rights beyond republican and liberal traditions. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud. 2011;18(1):41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hansen ST. Taking ambiguity seriously: explaining the indeterminacy of the European Union conventional arms export control regime. Eur J Int Rel. 2015;22(1):1–25.Google Scholar
  38. Harre R, Gillet G. The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  39. Hoffberth M, Weber C. Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research. J Int Relat Dev. 2014;18(1):1–29.Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman MJ. Competition and contestation in the evolution of social norms,” Draft paper prepared for presentation at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, March 2004.Google Scholar
  41. Hooghe L. Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization: a case study of the European Commission. Int Organ. 2005;59:861–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hopf T. The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. Int Secur. 1998;23(1):171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hurd I. Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics. Int Organ. 1999;53(2):379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hurd I. The strategic use of liberal internationalism: Libya and the UN sanctions: 1992-2003. Int Organ. 2005;59:495–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hurd I. Enchanted and disenchanted international law. Global Pol. 2016;59(3):1–7.Google Scholar
  46. Jervis R. Cooperation under the security dilemma. World Politics. 1978;30(2):167–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Joachim JA. Agenda-setting, the UN and NGOs: gender, violence and reproductive rights. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University press; 2007.Google Scholar
  48. Jose B. Would the protected please stand up? Historical ambiguity in the distinction principle. In: Lorenz EC, Aspinall DE, Michael Raley J, editors. Montesinos’ legacy: defining and defending human rights for 500 years. Lanham: Lexington Books; 2015.Google Scholar
  49. Kahl CH. In the crossfire or crosshairs? Norms, civilian casualties and U.S. conduct in Iraq. Int Secur. 2007;32(1):7–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Katzenstein PJ. Introduction: alternative perspectives on National Security. In: Katzentesin PJ, editor. The culture of National Security: norms and identity in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  51. Kinsella HM. Discourses of difference: civilians, combatants and compliance with the Laws of war. Rev Int Stud. 2005;31(S1):163–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klotz A. Norms reconstituting interests: global racial equality and US sanctions against South Africa. Int Organ. 1995;49(3):451–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klotz A. Norms in international relations: the struggle against apartheid. NY: Cornell University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  54. Kratochwil F. Rules, norms and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kratochwil F, Ruggie JG. A state of the art on an art of the state. Int Organ. 1986;40(4):753–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krook ML, True J. Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: the unite d nations and the global promotion of gender equality. Eur J Int Rel. 2012;18(1):103–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lamp N. Conceptions of war and paradigms of compliance: the ‘new war’ challenge to international humanitarian law. J Confl Secur Law. 2011;16(2):225–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Landolt LK. (Mis)constructing the third world? Constructivist analysis of norm diffusion. Third World Q. 2004;25(3):579–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lantis JS. Agentic constructivism and the proliferation security initiative: modeling norm change. Coop Confl. 2016;51(3):1–17.Google Scholar
  60. Legro JW. Which norms matter? Revisiting the “failure” of internationalism. Int Organ. 1997;51(1):31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lewis D. Who’s socializing whom? Regional organizations and contested norms in Central Asia. Eur Asia Stud. 2012;64(7):1219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Liese A. Exceptional necessity how liberal democracies contest the prohibition of torture and ill‐treatment when countering terrorism. J Int Law Int Relat. 2009;5(1):17–47.Google Scholar
  63. MacKenzie M, Sesay M. No amnesty from/for the international: the production and promotion of TRCs as an international norm in Sierra Leone. Int Stud Perspect. 2012;13(2):146–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. March JG, Olsen JP. The institutional dynamics of international political orders. Int Organ. 1998;52(4):943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McKeown R. Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm. Int Relat. 2009;23(1):5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mearsheimer J. The false promise of international institutions. In: Brown ME, Lynn-Jones SM, Miller SE, editors. The perils of anarchy. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  67. Mills K. Neo-humanitarianism: the role of international humanitarian norms and organizations in contemporary conflict. Glob Gov. 2005;11:163–81.Google Scholar
  68. Morris J, Wheeler NJ. The security Council’s crisis of legitimacy and the use of force. Int Polit. 2007;44(2–3):214–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Onuf N. Constructivism: a User’s Manuel. In: Kubalkova V, Onuf N, Kowert P, editors. International relations in a constructed world. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe; 1989.Google Scholar
  70. Paust JJ. Executive plans and authorizations to violate international law concerning treatment and interrogation of detainees. University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series; 2005.Google Scholar
  71. Percy S. Mercenaries: strong norm, weak law. Int Organ. 2007;61(2):367–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Popovski V, Reichberg GM, Turner N. World religions and norms of war. Tokyo: United Nations University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  73. Pouliot V. The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities. Int Organ. 2008;62(2):257–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Price R. International norms and the mines taboo: pulls toward compliance. Can Foreign Policy J. 1998;5(3):105–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ratner SR. Minority disputes in Europe: toward new roles for international law. New York Univ J Int Law Politics. 2000;32:591–654.Google Scholar
  76. Ratner SR. Law promotion beyond law talk: the red cross, persuasion, and the Laws of war. Eur J Int Law. 2011;22(2):459–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Reinold T. Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: the power of norms and the norms of the powerful. New York: Routledge; 2013.Google Scholar
  78. Reus-Smit C, editor. The politics of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  79. Risse T. Let’s argue! Communicative action in world politics. Int Organ. 2000;54:1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ruggie JG. International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. Int Organ. 1982;36(2):379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ruggie JG. What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. Int Org. 1998;52(4):855–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sandholtz W. Dynamics of international norm change: rules against wartime plunder. Eur J Int Rel. 2008;14(1):101–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Saurugger S. The social construction of the participatory turn: the emergence of a norm in the European Union. Eur J Polit Res. 2010;49:471–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schweller RL, Preiss D. A tale of two realisms: expanding the institutions debate. Mershon Int Stud Rev. 1997;41(1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shannon VP. Norms are what states make of them: the political psychology of norm violation. Int Stud Q. 2000;44(2):293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sinclair A. Law, caution: towards a better understanding of law for IR theorists. Rev Int Stud. 2011;37(3):1095–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Slim H. Killing civilians: method, madness and morality in war. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  88. Snidal D. Rational choice and international relations. In: Carlsnaes W, Risse T, Simmons BA, editors. Handbook of international relations. London: Sage; 2003.Google Scholar
  89. Thomas W. Ethics of destruction: norms and force in international relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  90. Tsygankov AO, Tarver-Wahlquist M. Dueling honors: power, identity, and the Russia-Georgia divide. Foreign Policy Anal. 2009;5:307–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Van Alstine MP. The death of good faith in treaty jurisprudence and a call for resurrection. Georgetown Law J. 2005;93:1885–1945.Google Scholar
  92. Voeten E. The political origins of the UN security Council’s ability to legitimize the use of force. Int Organ. 2005;59(3):527–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Welsh JM. Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect. Glob Responsib Prot. 2013;5(4):365–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wendt A. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. Int Organ. 1992;46(2):391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wendt A. Social theory of international politics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Widmaier WW, Glanville L. The benefits of norm ambiguity: constructing the responsibility to protect across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya. Contemp Politics. 2015;21(4):367–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wiener A. Contested compliance: interventions on the normative structure of world politics. Eur J Int Rel. 2004;10(2):189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wiener A. The dual quality of norms and governance beyond the state: sociological and normative approaches to ‘interaction. Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil. 2007;10(1):47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wiener A. The invisible constitution of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wiener A. Enacting meaning-in-use: qualitative research on norms and international relations. Rev Int Stud. 2009;35:175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yee AS. The causal effect of ideas on policies. Int Organ. 1996;50(1):69–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Young OR. Compliance and public authority. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  103. Zimmermann L. Same same or different? Norm diffusion between resistance, compliance, and localization in post-conflict states. Int Stud Perspect. 2014;17(1):1–19.Google Scholar
  104. Zwingel S. How do norms travel? Theorizing international Women’s rights in transnational perspective. Int Stud Q. 2012;56:115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Betcy Jose
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations