Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ugly? Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs

Part of the book series: Norm Research in International Relations ((NOREINRE))

  • 642 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter takes a counter-intuitive approach by arguing that “rogue states”—perceived norm breakers—can also function as norm makers. Wunderlich links her argument to recent critical norm studies that have begun to inquire norm-promoting efforts by unconventional types of actors, such as non-Western and “illiberal” norm advocates or norm antipreneurs. She also ties into research on norm contestation and resistance toward international norms in order to come up with alternative explanations for the relationship of alleged “rogue states” and norms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As examples of subsidiary norms, Acharya cites sovereignty, territorial integrity, formal equality, non-intervention, and regional autonomy.

  2. 2.

    In practice, however, such efforts might have the opposite effect of strengthening the efforts of norm entrepreneurs, who see themselves obliged to defend the norm (interpretation) that they propagate (Carpenter 2014).

  3. 3.

    Consequently, he compares affirmative and negative strategies: constructing/deconstructing problems; network building/unbuilding; activating/deactivating institutions; agenda setting/unsetting; persuasion/dissuasion; promoting/demoting outcomes (Bob 2012: 21–33).

  4. 4.

    While Bob uses the term “negative” strategies, I feel destructive is the more appropriate term.

References

  • Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2009). Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders. Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the Third World. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamson, F. (2005). Global liberalism versus political Islam: Competing ideological frameworks in international politics. International Studies Review, 7(4), 547–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alden, C., & Large, D. (2015). On becoming a norms maker: Chinese foreign policy, norms evolution and the challenges of security in Africa. The China Quarterly, 221, 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31692/MWP_WP_Bettiza_Dionigi_2014_10.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  • Bloomfield, A. (2016). Norm antipreneurs and theorizing resistance to normative change. Review of International Studies, 42(2), 310–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bob, C. (2012). The global right wing and the clash of world politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, C. (2014). “Norm antipreneurship” and Russia’s [Reported] Use of autonomous weapons. Resource Document. Duck of Minerva. http://duckofminerva.com/2014/04/norm-anti-preneurship-and-russian-use-of-autonomous-weapons.html. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  • Dunne, Tim. (2007). “The rules of the game are changing”: Fundamental human rights in crisis after 9/11. International Politics, 44(2–3), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich Brooks, R. (2003). The new imperialism: Violence, norms, and the “rule of law”. Michigan Law Review, 101(7), 2275–2340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, C. (2012). Symposium: Interrogating the use of norms in international relations. An introduction. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2), 121–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flockhart, T. (2004). “Masters and novices”: Socialization and social learning through the NATO parliamentary assembly. International Relations, 18(3), 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glozman, E., Barak-Corren, N., & Yaniv, I. (2014). False negotiations: The art and science of not reaching an agreement. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(4), 671–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Großklaus, M. (2015). Appropriation and the dualism of human rights: Understanding the contradictory impact of gender norms in Nigeria. Third World Quarterly, 36(6), 1253–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasenclever, A., & Narr, H. (2019). The dark side of the affectedness-paradigm: Lessons from the indigenous peoples’ movement at the United Nations. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2018.1553505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, R., Kahl, M., & Pisoiu, D. (2012). The “dark” side of normative argumentation—The case of counterterrorism policy. Global Constitutionalism, 1(2), 278–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirata, K. (2004). Beached whales. Examining Japan’s rejection of an international norm. Social Science Japan Journal, 7(2), 177–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, N., & Blaney, D. (2012). The dark heart of kindness: The social construction of deflection. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2), 164–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jabri, V. (2014). Disarming norms: Postcolonial agency and the constitution of the international. International Theory, 6(2), 372–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetschke, A., & Liese, A. (2013). The power of human rights a decade after: From Euphoria to contestation. In T. Risse, S. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance (pp. 26–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jose, B., & Stefes, C. H. (2018). Russian norm entrepreneurship in Crimea: Serious contestation or cheap talk?. Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junk, J. (2014). Internal dynamics and dysfunctions of international organizations: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of International Organization Studies, 5(1), 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantis, J. (2011). Redefining the nonproliferation norm? Australian Uranium, the NPT, and the global nuclear revival. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 57(4), 543–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liese, A. (2009). Exceptional necessity—How liberal democracies contest the prohibition of torture and Ill-Treatment when countering terrorism. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5(1), 17–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2006). Al-Qaeda’s constructivist turn. Resource Document. Praeger Security International. http://www.marclynch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Al-Qaedas-Constructivism.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

  • McKeown, R. (2009). Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm. International Relations, 23(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panke, D., & Petersohn, U. (2012). Why international norms disappear sometimes. European Journal of International Relations, 18(4), 719–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. (1997). Social norms and the law: An economic approach. The American Economic Review, 87(2), 365–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. (1998). The problematics of moral and legal theory. Harvard Law Review, 111(7), 1637–1717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prantl, J., & Nakano, R. (2011). Global norm diffusion in East Asia: How China and Japan implement the responsibility to protect. International Relations, 25(2), 204–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2002). Transnational actors and world politics. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T., & Sikkink, K. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In T. Risse, S. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The power of human rights, international norms and domestic change (pp. 1–38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosert, E., & Schirmbeck, S. (2007). Zur Erosion internationaler Normen. Folterverbot und nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 14(2), 253–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhilper, E. (2015). From “the rest” to “the west”? rights of indigenous peoples and the western bias in norm diffusion research. International Studies Review, 17(4), 536–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towns, A. (2012). Norms and social hierarchies: Understanding international policy diffusion “from below”. International Organization, 66(2), 179–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmaier, W., & Park, S. (2012). Differences beyond theory. Structural, strategic, and sentimental approaches to normative change. International Studies Perspectives, 13(2), 123–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, A. (2018). Agency of the governed in global international relations: Access to norm validation. Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal, 2(5), 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, L. (2017). Global norms with a local face? Rule-of-law promotion and norm translation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zwingel, S. (2012). How do norms travel? Theorizing international women’s rights in transnational perspective. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Carmen Wunderlich

Authors
  1. Carmen Wunderlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Wunderlich .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wunderlich, C. (2020). The Ugly? Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs. In: Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs. Norm Research in International Relations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27990-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation