Conclusions: The Impact of International Norms on Islamist Politics

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


Before presenting the concluding observation of this study, it may be useful to recapitulate briefly its overall argument. Chapters 2 and 3 examined the communitarian and Islamist critiques of the diffusion of liberal norms, principles, and institutions, both internationally and within the realm of domestic politics and societies. Chapter 4 has shown that com-munitarianism and Islamism are critical of liberalism in similar ways not by coincidence, but because they rely on analogous conceptions of community and person. The comparative analysis of these conceptions highlighted their commonalities and concluded that Islamism can be understood as part of the wider tradition of communitarian political theory.


Moral Reasoning International Norm Political Identity Instrumental Rationality International Peace 
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.
    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. 120–3.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The reader may consider a more in-depth discussion of this concept applied to Hezbollah in Dionigi, Filippo, “UN Security council resolutions as factors of international socialization: the case of Hezbollah,” International Peacekeeping 21, no. 3 (2014): 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kenneth Neal Waltz, Theory of international politics, Addison-Wesley series in political science (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p. 52. As regards the socialization of non-conformist states, see also ibid., pp. 126–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, The expansion of international society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    G. John Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan, “Socialization and hegemonic power,” International Organization 44, no. 3 (1990): pp. 289–90.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 9.
    Frank Schimmelfennig, “International socialization in the New Europe: rational action in an institutional environment,” European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (2000): p. 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 10.
    Alastair Iain Johnston, “Treating international institutions as social environments,” International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 4 (2001): p. 495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 16.
    Hugo Slim, “Why protect civilians? Innocence, immunity and enmity in war,” International Affairs 79, no. 3 (2003): p. 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 17.
    Ruti G. Teitel, Humanity’s law (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 19.
    See for a similar argument, the work of Martha Finnemore on the diffusion of a norm of humanitarian intervention in which she claims that the “the second half of the twentieth century norms about who was ‘human’ had changed, expanding the population deserving of humanitarian protection.” Martha Finnemore, “Constructing norms of humanitarian intervention,” in The culture of national security: norms and identity in world politics, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 184.Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    Asef Bayat, Post-Islamism: the changing faces of political Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 5 (emphasis in original).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 23.
    With specific reference to Hezbollah, Bayat notices that this process is far from being accomplished, a point with which I fully agree and that is in contrast with Alagha’s view. Ibid., pp. 17–18; Joseph Alagha, “Hizbullah’s infi-tah: a Post-Islamist Turn?,” in Post-Islamism: the changing faces of political Islam, ed. Asef Bayat (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    Joseph Elie Alagha, Hizbullah’s documents: from the 1985 Open letter to the 2009 Manifesto (Amsterdam: Pallas Publications, 2011), p. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 25.
    Alexander Wendt, Social theory of international politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 78 (emphasis in original).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 35.
    Dennis Ross and David Makovsky, Myths, illusions, and peace: finding a new direction for America in the Middle East (New York: Viking, 2009), p. 267.Google Scholar
  17. 36.
    Olivier Roy, Globalized Islam: the search for a new Ummah, The CERI series in comparative politics and international studies (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004);Google Scholar
  18. Peter Mandaville, Transnational Muslim politics: reimagining the umma, Transnationalism (London: Routledge, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 37.
    Milja Kurki “Causes of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in international relations theory,” Review of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2006): 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Filippo Dionigi 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filippo Dionigi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations