Conclusion: Lessons Drawn from Norm Contestation’s Insights

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


This study demonstrates how a norm contestation framework can provide useful insights to norm-related behavior. In doing so, it argues that this framework can supplement explanations offered by other frameworks or step in when their theoretical mechanisms unsatisfactorily help us understand empirical puzzles. The norm contestation framework can offer this assistance because it appreciates norms’ dynamism. Rather than viewing norms as “things” whose content remains unchanged, norm contestation’s use of the logics of appropriateness, contestedness, and practicality enables it to notice how different social contexts contribute to variations in how actors interpret norms, even long-established, foundational norms. As Antje Wiener (2004: 190), puts it, “analysis of social practices in context provide additional leverage when it comes to explaining cases that otherwise seem puzzling…” These variations in interpretations are then employed to help explain differences in norm-related behavior.

Works Cited

  1. Abbott KW, Snidal D. Hard and soft law in international governance. Int Organ. 2000;54(3):421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acharya A. Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. Int Stud Q. 2011;55(1):95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acharya A. Who are the norm makers? The Asian-African conference in Bandung and the evolution of norms. Glob Gov. 2014;20:405–17.Google Scholar
  4. Adler E. The spread of security communities: communities of practice, self-restraint, and NATO's post-cold war transformation. Eur J Int Relat. 2008;14(2):195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloomfield A. Norm Antipreneurs and theorizing resistance to normative change. Rev Int Stud. 2015;42:310–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunnée J, Toope SJ. Interactional international law: an introduction. Int Theory. 2011;3(2):307–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deitelhoff N, Zimmermann L. Things we lost in the fire: how different types of contestation affect the validity of international norms. PRIF Working Paper No. 18: 1–17; 2013.Google Scholar
  8. Melzer N. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Paust JJ. Use of military force in Syria by Turkey, NATO, and the United States. Univesity Pennsylvania J Int Law. 2012;34:431–46.Google Scholar
  10. Percy SV. Mercenaries: strong norm, weak law. Int Organ. 2007;61(2):367–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Wiener A. Contested compliance: interventions on the normative structure of world politics. Eur J Int Relat. 2004;10(2):189–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wiener A. Contested norms in inter-National Encounters: the 'Turbot War' as a prelude to fairer fisheries governance. Politics Gov. 2016;4(3):20–36.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