Introduction: Studying the Impact of International Norms on Islamist Politics

  • Filippo Dionigi
Part of the Middle East Today book series (MIET)


This is a study in International Relations primarily concerned with the influence of international norms in global politics. It proposes an analysis and assessment of how these norms influence Islamist politics and what effects they have on Islamism.


International Relation Political Theory International Norm Constitutive Theory Political Violence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    John Charvet and Elisa Kaczynska-Nay, The liberal project and human rights: the theory and practice of a new world order (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fred Halliday, Islam and the myth of confrontation: religion and politics in the Middle East, New ed. (London; New York: I.B. Tauris; In U.S. and Canada distributed by Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Referring to Hollis and Smith’s categories of “explaining” and “understanding,” the aim of this research is more concerned with understanding the impact of international norms on Islamist politics rather than explaining it. See Martin Hollis and Steve M. Smith, Explaining and understanding international relations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), pp. 68–91.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    In presenting the methodology of this study, I primarily rely on Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case studies and theory development in the social sciences, BCSIA studies in international security (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Hezbollah’s Lebanonization has been discussed extensively by many scholars. See, for example, Magnus Ranstorp, “The strategy and tactics of Hizballah’s current ‘Lebanonization’ process,” Mediterranean Politics 3, no. 1 (1998). Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Hizbu’llah: politics and religion, Critical studies on Islam (London; Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2002), pp. 82–3.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Mervyn Frost, Global ethics: anarchy, freedom and international relations, Critical issues in global politics (London; New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 19.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Alexander Wendt, “On constitution and causation in international relations,” Review of International Studies 24, no. 5 (1998): p. 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 11.
    Kenneth Neal Waltz, Theory of international politics, Addison-Wesley series in political science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, 1979), p. 76.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    G. John Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan, “Socialization and hegemonic power,” International Organization 44, no. 3 (1990): p. 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 14.
    With regard to the concept of socialization in constructivist theories of norms diffusion, see, for example, Thomas Risse-Kappen and Kathryn Sikkink, “The socialisation of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction,” in The power of human rights: international norms and domestic change, ed. Thomas Risse-Kappen, Steve C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 1–38. As regard “norms entrepreneurs” a definition can be found inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International norm dynamics and political change,” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): p. 896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 19.
    Alexander Wendt, Social theory of international politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 20.
    Jeffrey T. Checkel, “The constructivist turn in International Relations theory,” World Politics 50, no. 2 (1998): p. 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 21.
    Mervyn Frost, Ethics in international relations: a constitutive theory, Cambridge studies in international relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 26.
    See, for example, Hedley Bull, The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 102.Google Scholar
  16. Also relevant is Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, The expansion of international society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).Google Scholar
  17. 28.
    Edward W. Said, Covering Islam: how the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world, Rev. ed. (New York: Vintage Books, 1997), pp. XVI–XIX.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    Ferdinand Tönnies, Community and association (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft), International library of sociology and social reconstruction (London) (London: Routledge & Paul, 1955). For an application of this distinction within the international relations theory debate and the English School in particular,Google Scholar
  19. see Barry Buzan, “From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school,” International Organization 47, no. 3 (1993): p. 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 30.
    John Rawls, A theory of justice, Rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Univeristy Press, 1999), p. 109.Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    As Conor Gearty wrote: “‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ have come to be regarded as such powerful condemnations that all those looking for a suitable insult have wanted to appropriate them.” C. A. Gearty, Terror (London: Faber, 1991), p. 4.Google Scholar
  22. 33.
    English school theorists themselves often refer to international community rather than society, especially in the early stage of English School literature. As Halliday notes, English School theorists such as Hedley Bull do not seem to value this distinction between society and community. Fred Halliday, “International society as homogeneity,” in Rethinking international relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994), p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 34.
    A useful definition of ideal type is “pure conceptual model of types of social actions,” Hollis and Smith, Explaining and understanding, p. 80. For a discussion of Weber’s ideal type, see Susan J. Hekman, Weber, the ideal type, and contemporary social theory (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), pp. 18–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Filippo Dionigi 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Dionigi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations