Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Works Cited
Abbott KW, Snidal D. Hard and soft law in international governance. Int Organ. 2000;54(3):421–56.
Acharya A. Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. Int Stud Q. 2011;55(1):95–123.
Acharya A. Who are the norm makers? The Asian-African conference in Bandung and the evolution of norms. Glob Gov. 2014;20:405–17.
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.
Bloomfield A. Norm Antipreneurs and theorizing resistance to normative change. Rev Int Stud. 2015;42:310–33.
Brunnée J, Toope SJ. Interactional international law: an introduction. Int Theory. 2011;3(2):307–18.
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.
Melzer N. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 2009.
Paust JJ. Use of military force in Syria by Turkey, NATO, and the United States. Univesity Pennsylvania J Int Law. 2012;34:431–46.
Percy SV. Mercenaries: strong norm, weak law. Int Organ. 2007;61(2):367–97.
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.
Wiener A. Contested compliance: interventions on the normative structure of world politics. Eur J Int Relat. 2004;10(2):189–234.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jose, B. (2018). Conclusion: Lessons Drawn from Norm Contestation’s Insights. In: Norm Contestation. SpringerBriefs in Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69323-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69323-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69322-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69323-1
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)