Abstract
This book departs from the observation that mainstream research on norms is analytically biased: analyses of “successful” norm diffusion usually focus on the institutionalization of liberal norms and trace these processes back to norm entrepreneurship of liberal Western actors. Taking a critical constructivist stance instead, in this book, Wunderlich pursues a question that is as innovative as it is counterintuitive: She proposes to look at the supposed opponents of the Western liberal world order—so-called “rogue states”—to see whether they are possibly not aiming at the overthrow, but at the further development of the normative order thus acting as norm entrepreneurs. This chapter presents the basic argument, defines central terms and concepts, and introduces the research design that guides the empirical analysis at the heart of the book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Due to its implicit normative connotation, the attribution as “positive” or “negative” is always subjective and is thus closely connected with the perspective of the beholder. This fact will be taken into account in the further course of the work.
- 2.
I use quotation marks to illustrate the constructed character of the label.
- 3.
In accordance with the prevailing definition of norm entrepreneurs other “unorthodox” non-state norm advocates are conceivable, such as the Mafia or transnational terrorist networks like al-Qaeda. In this book, I focus on states whose norm entrepreneurial potential has become a focus of research over recent years.
- 4.
For a representation of Iran as a “rogue” par excellence, see Geldenhuys (2004).
- 5.
In accordance with the terminology of the Frankfurt Cluster of Excellence “The Formation of Normative Orders,” normative orders are conceived here as justification orders. They are understood as a complex of norms and values that legitimize the basic structure of a society (or the structure of inter-, supra- or transnational relations), namely the exercise of political authority and the distribution of elementary living or basic goods (Forst and Günther 2011: 15). Normative orders are characterized by their dynamic, never-ending and process-like as well as conflictuous nature.
References
Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? norm localization and institutional change in asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.
Acharya, A. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123.
Adamson, F. B. (2005). Global liberalism versus political islam: Competing ideological frameworks in international politics. International Studies Review, 7(4), 547–569.
Bettiza, G., & Dionigi, F. (2014). Beyond Constructivism’s liberal bias: Islamic norm entrepreneurs in a post-secular world society. EUI Working Paper MWP 2014/10. https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31692/MWP_WP_Bettiza_Dionigi_2014_10.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed April 28, 2017.
Björkdahl, A. (2002). From idea to norm: Promoting conflict prevention. Lund: Lund University.
Bloomfield, A. (2016). Norm antipreneurs and theorizing resistance to normative change. Review of International Studies, 42(2), 310–333.
Bob, C. (2012). The global right wing and the clash of world politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bucher, B. (2014). Acting abstractions: Metaphors, narrative structures, and the eclipse of agency. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 742–765.
Caprioli, M., & Trumbore, P. (2005). Rhetoric versus reality: Rogue states in interstate conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 770–791.
Checkel, J. (2012). Norm entrepreneurship—Theoretical and methodological challenges. Memo prepared for a workshop on “The Evolution of International Norms and ‘Norm Entrepreneurship”: The Council of Europe in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Wolfson College, Oxford University.
Daase, C., & Deitelhoff, N. (2014). Reconstructing global rule by analyzing resistance (Internationale Dissidenz Working Paper 1/2014). Resource Document. Internationale Dissidenz Working Paper. http://dissidenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wp1-2014-daase-deitelhoff-en.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
Deitelhoff, N., & Zimmermann, L. (2019). Norms under challenge: Unpacking the dynamics of norm robustness. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4(1), 2–17.
Draude, A. (2017). The agency of the governed. Norm diffusion and institutional transfer in the global south [special issue]. Third World Thematics—A TWQ Journal, 2 (5).
Ehrenreich Brooks, R. (2003). The new imperialism: Violence, norms, and the “rule of law”. Michigan Law Review, 101(7), 2275–2340.
Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416.
Flockhart, T. (2004). “Masters and Novices”: Socialization and social learning through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. International Relations, 18(3), 361–380.
Florini, A. (1996). The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40(3), 363–389.
Forst, R., & Günther, K. (2011). Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen. Zur Idee eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramms. In R. Forst & K. Günther (Hrsg.). Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Geldenhuys, D. (2004). Deviant conduct in world politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
George, A. (1993). Bridging the gap. Theory and practice in foreign policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Gertheiss, S., Herr, S., Wolf, K., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.). (2017). Resistance and change in world politics: International dissidence. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heller, R., & Kahl, M. (2013). Tracing and understanding ‘bad’ norm dynamics in counterterrorism. The current debates in IR research. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 6(3), 414–428.
Heller, R., Kahl, M., & Pisoiu, D. (2012). The “dark” side of normative argumentation—The case of counterterrorism policy. Global Constitutionalism, 1(2), 278–312.
Homolar, A. (2011). Rebels without a conscience: The evolution of the rogue states narrative in US Security Policy. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 705–727.
Hofius, M., Wilkens, J., Hansen-Magnusson, H., & Gholiagha, S. (2014). Den Schleier lichten? Kritische Normenforschung, Freiheit und Gleichberechtigung im Kontext des »Arabischen Frühlings«. Eine Replik auf Engelkamp/Glaab/Renner, Ulbert und Deitelhoff/Zimmermann. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 2, 85–105.
Hoyt, P. (2000). The “Rogue State” image in American Foreign Policy. Global Society, 14(2), 297–310.
Jacobi, D., Weber, C., & Hellmann, G. (2014). Dissident foreign policy and the (re-)production of international orders. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 106–131). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnston, I. (2007). The secretary-general as norm entrepreneur. In S. Chesterman (Ed.), Secretary or general? The UN secretary-general in world politics (pp. 123–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katzenstein, P. (1996). Introduction: Alternative perspectives on national security. In P. Katzenstein (Ed), The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Keck, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Klare, M. (1995). Rogue States and nuclear outlaws: America’s search for a new foreign policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Krook, M., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127.
Lake, A. (1994). Confronting backlash states. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 45–55.
Litwak, R. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. foreign policy: Containment after the cold war. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.
Litwak, R. (2012). Outlier states: American strategies to change, contain, or engage regimes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.
March, J., & Olsen, J. (1998). The institutional dynamics of international political orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969.
Müller, H. (2011). Habermas meets role theory. Communicative action as role playing? In S. Harnisch, C. Frank, & H. Maull (Eds.), Role theory in international relations. Approaches and analyses (pp. 55–73). London: Routledge.
Müller, H. (2013). Introduction: Where it all began. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 1–19). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2018). Not lost in contestation. How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy, 39(3), 341–366.
Nincic, M. (2005). Renegade regimes: Confronting deviant behavior in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
O’Reilly, K. (2007). Perceiving rogue states: The Use of the “rogue state” concept by U.S. foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(4), 295–315.
Pirseyedi, B. (2013). Arms control and Iranian Foreign Policy: Diplomacy of discontent. New York, NY: Routledge.
Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue! Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.
Sandholtz, W. (2007). Prohibiting plunder: How norms change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sikkink, K. (2011). Beyond the justice cascade: How agentic constructivism could help explain change in international politics. Revised paper from a keynote address at Millenium Annual Conference, “Out of the Ivory Tower. Weaving the Theories and Practice of International Relations”. London: London School of Economics. https://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Agentic-Constructivism-paper-sent-to-the-Princeton-IR-Colloquium.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.
Smetana, M. (2020). Nuclear deviance stigma politics and the rules of the nonproliferation game. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (forthcoming).
Stimmer, A., & Wisken, L. (2019). The dynamics of dissent: When actions are louder than words. International Affairs, 9583, 515–533.
Towns, A. (2012). Norms and social hierarchies: Understanding international policy diffusion “from below”. International Organization, 66(2), 179–209.
Wagner, W., Werner, W., & Onderco, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wendt, A. (1998). On constitution and causation in international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(5), 101–118.
White House. (2002). The national security strategy of the United States of America. Resource Document. White House. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.
Widmaier, W., & Park, S. (2012). Differences beyond theory. Structural, strategic, and sentimental approaches to normative change. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2), 123–134.
Wiener, A. (2004). Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 189–234.
Wiener, A. (2007). The dual quality of norms and governance beyond the state: Sociological and normative approaches to interaction. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10(1), 47–69.
Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Heidelberg: Springer.
Wiener, A. (2018a). Agency of the governed in global international relations: Access to norm validation. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(5), 709–725.
Wiener, A. (2018b). Contestation and constitution of norms in global international relations. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wunderlich, C. (2014). A “Rogue” gone norm entrepreneurial? Iran within the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 83–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wunderlich, C. (2017). Delegitimisation à la Carte: The “Rogue State” label as a means of stabilising order in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In S. Gertheiss, S. Herr, K. Wolf, & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Resistance and change in world politics: International dissidence (pp. 143–189). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wunderlich, C., Hellmann, A., Müller, D., Reuter, J., & Schmidt, H.-J. (2013). Non-aligned reformers and revolutionaries. Egypt, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 246–295). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wunderlich, C. (2020). Introduction: Norm Breakers as Norm Makers?. In: Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs. Norm Research in International Relations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27990-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27990-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27989-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27990-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)