Suchergebnisse

This article seeks to shed light on the question of how 'meanings' of an international norm adapt to norm contestation and asks whether and how R2P is being adapted to contestation. We contend that the reframing of an existing international norm by norm proponents in order to adapt it to dynamics of norm contestation have not been discussed adequately in the literature to date. Constructivist research on norm contestation could benefit from taking into account concepts in the new institutionalist literature. By combining the institutionalist concepts of 'borrowing' and 'sharing' with the literature on norm entrepreneurs and their framing-attempts in norm diffusion processes, we conjecture that an expansion in contestation increases the likeliness of the adaptation of the norm in question along the line of the contested issues. We aim to trace this adaptation by analysing the dynamics of R2P's change in meaning and focus in its process of implementation.

Drawing on international relations theory, this article seeks to both account for and analyze the contestation that continues to surround the norm of R2P. It begins in Section I by arguing that while the 2005 Summit Outcome Document – as an example of 'institutionalization' – provided greater precision about the source, scope, and bearer of the responsibility to protect, there is continuing debate about when the international community's remedial role in protection can and should be activated. In order to understand this reality – which is a challenge to positivist and linear accounts of normative change – we must embrace the intuitions of post-positivist constructivist scholars about the intersubjective nature of norms, and their emphasis on analyzing norms' 'meaning in use'. Section II demonstrates in more detail the two kinds of contestation surrounding R2P: procedural contestation concerning who (which body) should 'own' its development as a norm; and substantive contestation about its content. R2P is particularly susceptible to contestation, given its inherently indeterminate nature, and the erroneous tendency to measure its impact in terms of whether or not military intervention occurs in particular cases. To respond to these issues, it is argued that the norm of R2P is best conceived as a responsibility to consider a real or imminent crisis involving mass atrocity crimes - what in legal literature is sometimes called a 'duty of conduct'. Whether or not international action actually occurs - particularly action involving military force - depends on a series of other factors. The final section addresses the challenge to constructivist scholars to be more transparent about the normative commitments that underpin their empirical studies of normative change. It argues that the contestation surrounding R2P can be better understood by giving greater attention to the normative underpinnings of contemporary critiques of the principle – most prominently those which stress the importance of sovereignty equality.

"Theories of International Norm Contestation: Structure and Outcomes" published on by Oxford University Press.

Intro -- Dedication -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Introduction: How Contestation Provides Insight into Normative Behavior -- Materialist and Norm Diffusion Frameworks -- Norm Contestation Framework -- Methodology -- Case Selection -- Analytical Approach -- The Civilian Immunity Norm -- The Non-intervention Norm -- General Findings -- Civilian Immunity Norm Case Study -- Non-intervention Norm Case Study -- Contributions to the Literature -- Overview of the Book -- Chapter Two: Norm Contestation: A Theoretical Framework -- Chapter Three: Contestation in the Civilian Immunity Norm -- Chapter Four: Contestation in the Non-intervention Norm -- Chapter Five: Conclusion: Lessons Drawn from Norm Contestation's Insights -- Works Cited -- Chapter 2: Norm Contestation: A Theoretical Framework -- Introduction -- Norms -- Logic of Consequences and the Logic of Appropriateness -- Intersubjective Agreement -- Social Norms and Legal Norms -- Norm Ambiguity -- Norms' Constitutive Effects -- Materialist Framework -- Norm Diffusion -- Critiques of Materialist and Mainstream Constructivist Explanations -- Differentiating Norm Contestation from a Materialist Framework -- Local Context and Norm Contestation -- Interpretive Power and Norm Contestation -- Different Kinds of Contestation -- Predictions of Norm Diffusion, Materialist, and Norm Contestation Frameworks -- Conclusion -- Works Cited -- Chapter 3: Contestation in the Civilian Immunity Norm -- Introduction -- Civilian Immunity Norm Prior to IHL Codification -- Civilian Immunity Norm After IHL Codification -- A Historical Overview of the Norm's Exceptions: Targetable Civilians -- Ambiguity -- Materialist Reasons for Norm Violation -- Norm Contestation, Logic of Appropriateness, Logic of Practicality, and Logic of Contestedness -- IHL Experts -- Former Belligerents -- Age -- Gender

This paper studies environmental norm contestation in Cambodia's hydropower sector, exemplified by the Kamchay Dam. In Cambodia we can observe different discourses in relation to hydropower. These stem directly from a local contest over the path of Cambodia's development, but use global norms as reference points: one emphasizes environmental protection, using environmental impact assessment (EIA) as point of reference; and one emphasizes the utility of the clean development mechanism (CDM) to attract large-scale investment into the energy sector while downplaying the need for environmental protection. While EIA and CDM are complementary, key actors present them as contradictory. This produces a normative fragmentation of the field of environmental protection. The paper argues that the norm diffusion literature, by presenting norm conflicts as hierarchical local-global conflicts, has paid insufficient attention to the fact that local actors actively draw on global norms to justify domestic development policies. More emphasis on this phenomenon will lead to a better understanding of the role of global norms in domestic politics and will enhance our knowledge of how domestic development policies are contested. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

This study examines the effects of contestation on individual norms that are embedded in larger norm clusters. We define norm clusters as collections of aligned, but distinct norms or principles at the center of a regime. Norm clusters include multiple norms that can be insulated from contestatory challenges by degrees of cohesion, institutionalisation, and legalisation. While some constructivists argue that the most important dynamic to study is 'robustness' of individual norms, we contend that 'resiliency' of norm clusters offers a richer assessment of prospects for international cooperation and long-term impact on state behaviours. Thus, this study distinguishes conceptually between different structural layers that can generate various effects in conjunction with norm contestation. We add a third, or intervening layer of explanation with norm clusters, between the intersection of norms (lowest layer) and normative structures (broadest layer). To explore this argument, comparative case studies examine the resiliency of two prohibitionary norms – the nuclear disarmament norm within the non-proliferation regime and the norm banning assassination of foreign adversaries, which is not embedded in a regime structure. While the robustness of individual norms may be challenged, our results suggest a role for resilient structures in promoting overall longevity of norm clusters.

Activists in the internet era are taking action through online petitions, twitter storms and by forming new digital advocacy organizations such as Campact, 38 Degrees and GetUp!. However, no International Relations (IR) scholarship has systematically examined the role of digital advocacy organizations in norm contestation. Digital advocacy organizations warrant study given their international reach, their large memberships, their longevity, their frequent campaigning activity and their claimed impact. This article focuses on the responses of three digital advocacy organizations in Australia, the UK and Ireland to the same external crisis: an increasing number of refugees worldwide. It asks: when and why did these organizations engage in behavioural norm contestation during the refugee crisis? Their use of behavioural contestation is a puzzle, given that digital advocacy organizations have low implementation power. The article draws on interviews with activists and experts, and finds that advocacy groups firstly use discursive contestation (debating the meaning and importance of norms), and then may engage in behavioural contestation (influencing the implementation of norms). Discursive contestation is less costly, and perceived to be less effective, than behavioural contestation. The article suggests that digital advocacy organizations can mobilize people online and offline, and IR scholars should examine this important source of power. This article forms part of the special section of the May 2019 issue of International Affairs on 'The dynamics of dissent', guest-edited by Anette Stimmer and Lea Wisken.

Cyberspace appears to offer limitless possibilities for collaboration and economic opportunity in the twenty-first century, but cyber-attacks, breaches of privacy, and security threats also have become commonplace. In the face of these challenges, a number of governments have been locked in debates over the future of cyberspace governance, including the Russian Republic, the People's Republic of China, and the United States. This study examines the ongoing contestation of the international normative architecture for cyberspace, with a focus on the United States' role as a norm 'antipreneur', seeking to defend the status quo multi-stakeholder norm for a more open Internet from entrepreneurial efforts by Russia and China to establish multilateral governance with 'cyber-sovereignty'. Drawing on recent advances in constructivist theory, the study explores antipreneurial strategies to contest efforts by entrepreneurs to introduce new norms, as well as implications for norm development and change. Process tracing is employed to examine cyberspace governance debates. The study concludes by discussing prospects for an International Code of Conduct for Cyberspace, as well as theoretical and political implications of antipreneurship in modern norm contestations.