Advertisement

Testing PMSC Norms

  • Marco Boggero
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter draws a comparative analysis of progress on policy reform after five years from the signature of Montreux. Regime theory stresses how reaching an agreement is a stage in the negotiation, not the end of the process and the assessment suggests that PMSC norms are still in the first stage of emergence—and not at the level of the norm cascade. The lack of regularized dialogue among signatories led to the establishment of the Montreux Document Forum.

References

  1. Avant, D. (2014). Online Commentary. Retrieved September 2014, from http://iissonline.net/interview-with-prof-deborah-avant-carried-out-in-denver-on-january-24-2014/
  2. Avant, D. (2016). Pragmatic Networks and Transnational Governance of Private Military and Security Services. International Studies Quarterly, 60(2), 330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckland, B. S., & Burdzy, A. M. (2013). Progress and Opportunities: Five Years On. DCAF Report, Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).Google Scholar
  4. DeWinter-Schmitt, R. (Ed.). (2013). Montreux Five Years On: An analysis of State Efforts to Implement Montreux Document Legal Obligations and Good Practices. Barcelona: Adjuntament de Barcelona. Retrieved from http://ihrib.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/MontreuxFv3.pdf
  5. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haas, E. B. (1980). Why Collaborate? Issue-linkage and International Regimes. World Politics, 32(3), 357–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Krasner, S. D. (Ed.). (1983). International Regimes. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Odell, J. S. (2001). Case Study Methods in International Political Economy. International Studies Perspectives, 2(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Perrin, B. (2012). Mind the Gap: Lacunae in the International Legal Framework Governing Private Military and Security Companies. Criminal Justice Ethics, 31(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Puchala, D. J., & Hopkins, R. F. (1982). International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis. International Organization, 36(2), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ralby, I. (2016). The Montreaux Document: The Legal Significance of a Non-legal Instrument. In G. Schaub Jr. & R. Kelty (Eds.), Private Military and Security Contractors: Controlling the Corporate Warrior (pp. 235–264). Lanham, MD: Rownan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Spector, B. I., & Zartman, I. W. (2003). Getting It Done: Post Agreement Negotiation and International Regimes. US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  13. Young, O. R. (1980). International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation. World Politics, 32(3), 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Boggero
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Advanced International StudiesJohns Hopkins UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations