Suchergebnisse

Während in den Internationalen Beziehungen inzwischen Einigkeit darüber herrscht, dass Normen wirksam sein können, steht die Beantwortung der Frage, welche Normen dies wann und unter welchen Bedingungen sind, noch weitgehend aus. Insbesondere strukturierte Vergleiche zwischen Fällen erfolgreicher und schwieriger bzw. gescheiterter Normumsetzung fehlen. Angesichts dieser Forschungslücken besteht Bedarf, mehr über die Faktoren zu erfahren, die die Normumsetzung erleichtern bzw. erschweren. Die Studie untersucht, warum die Norm zur geschlechtssensiblen Auslegung der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention in Großbritannien deutlich schneller und umfassender umgesetzt wurde als in Deutschland, obwohl sich in beiden Ländern eine Vielzahl von Normadvokaten engagierte. Sie kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass das Rechtssystem einerseits die Normumsetzung begünstigte (Fallrechtssystem) bzw. sie andererseits behinderte (Kodifikationssystem) und zeigt, dass derselbe Zusammenhang auch in anderen Demokratien vorzufinden ist. Indem sie einen wichtigen Faktor identifiziert, der die Chancen auf Normumsetzung beeinflusst, trägt die Studie maßgeblich zur Theoriebildung bei

This theory note argues that international norms, as currently understood by scholars of international relations, can be seen as emergent properties of a complex adaptive system (the international political system). Arising from the microlevel interactions of agents within and across various levels of analysis, they have the potential to become system properties that (a) influence the constitution, relationships, and behavior of agents within that system and (b) are not analytically reducible to the sum of the interactions between those agents. They also exhibit evolutionary dynamics common to complex, rather than merely complicated, systems. Thinking of norms in this manner helps point norms scholars toward particular spaces and methodologies of research. After a brief resume of complexity theory in IR, the note proceeds with an introduction to complex systems theory. It then explores the conceptual nexus between norms theory and complexity. It finishes by suggesting the ways in which understanding norms as complex emergent phenomena might influence norms research more broadly.

In the age of air travel and globalized trade, pathogens that once took months or even years to spread beyond their regions of origin can now circumnavigate the globe in a matter of hours. Amid growing concerns about such epidemics as Ebola, SARS, MERS, and H1N1, disease diplomacy has emerged as a key foreign and security policy concern as countries work to collectively strengthen the global systems of disease surveillance and control. The revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR), eventually adopted by the World Health Organization's member states in 2005, was the foremost manifestation of this novel diplomacy. The new regulations heralded a profound shift in international norms surrounding global health security, significantly expanding what is expected of states in the face of public health emergencies and requiring them to improve their capacity to detect and contain outbreaks. Drawing on Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink's "norm life cycle" framework and based on extensive documentary analysis and key informant interviews, Disease Diplomacy traces the emergence of these new norms of global health security, the extent to which they have been internalized by states, and the political and technical constraints governments confront in attempting to comply with their new international obligations. The authors also examine in detail the background, drafting, adoption, and implementation of the IHR while arguing that the very existence of these regulations reveals an important new understanding: that infectious disease outbreaks and their management are critical to national and international security."--Publisher description

The purpose of the paper is to revisit the origin of the principle of responsibility to protect (R2P) focusing on few cases andreflecting on the troubled journey that it has made maneuvering its structural constraints posed by hegemonic powers and geopolitical manipulations, by employing historical methods in tracking its evolution. The inter-state aggression during the Cold War, largely gave way to war and violence within, after the end of it, rather than between, states. There were two opposing views at the United Nations (UN): those who supported right of humanitarian intervention and those who viewed such a doctrine as an infringement upon national sovereignty. In this regard, R2P remains a developing principle and, the absence of definitive state practice in this area means that states wanting to intervene to protect foreign populations from atrocities are left without clear legal justification for such action. In the absence of UN Security Council authorisation, use of force under the banner of R2P remains contentious. Lastly, the paper discusses the prospects the principle will have in future as constraints and manipulations are still present.

International norms change over time, but we do not fully understand how and why they evolve as they do. In this article, I explore a general model of international norm change. The model builds on two foundations. First, normative systems themselves generate tensions that lead to change. Those tensions are of two major types: (1) conflicts between the generality of rules and the specificity of concrete experience; and (2) conflicts between separate bodies of rules. Second, specific disputes push these normative conflicts to the fore and provoke arguments about the meaning and application of rules. The outcomes of those arguments necessarily modify the rules. The process of normative change is thus a cycle, linking rules to actions to arguments, which in turn reshape the rules. In order to explore the empirical utility of the model, the article assesses the evolution of the rules of war with respect to the plundering of artistic and cultural treasures. Relying on both secondary and archival materials, the analysis focuses on two crucial turns through the cycle of normative change, the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. The empirical account shows that the cycle of normative change depicted in the abstract does correspond to real-world processes.