Suchergebnisse

Norway has long tried to portray itself as one of the most environmentally responsible states. But it has consistently refused to support the moratorium against commercial whaling. This article offers a cultural explanation for this seeming contradiction, by examining the way the global antiwhaling movement framed the issue and the Norwegian environmental organizations reframed it. It argues that two cultural differences are relevant. First, animal-rights organizations were an important part of the U.S. antiwhaling coalition, whereas such organizations are largely excluded from the Norwegian environmental activist community, where animal rights arguments have found little traction. Secondly, U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operate in an adversarial pluralistic political culture, whereas the Norwegian environmental movement is embedded in a corporatist system where consensual decision making is the norm and has fostered a close relationship with the state. This has led to different images and strategic considerations being used by NGOs to frame the issue and ultimately to different decisions on the need for a moratorium.

The International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986, seemingly marking the adoption of a new norm, that commercial whaling was no longer acceptable. But this norm has failed to become institutionalized. This article uses the norm life-cycle approach as developed by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) to account for this failure. The effort ran aground because the norm proved unexpectedly ambiguous, a supporting epistemic community failed to emerge, the norm conflicted with other powerful norms, the prestige of the key anti-whaling states declined relative that of whaling states, and NGO tactics failed to win over the publics in key whaling states and instead created a counter-boomerang effect. The attempt may have resulted in the emergence of an alternative norm, but actors must act now to institutionalize it.