Suchergebnisse

There are growing connections between the IR constructivist focus on norms and norm contestation and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). FPA has long had a focus on agency within the state, particularly individual and group-based decision-making. Early constructivist work, by contrast, tended to prioritize agency outside of the state – focusing on norm entrepreneurs and transnational advocacy– and then the state itself in the norm institutionalization process. This led to critiques from FPA scholars that it dismissed human agency. Norms research, however, has evolved. It has moved away from an ontologisation of norms – which focused on structural effects rather than on their socially constructed quality – to examine the importance of norm contestations, practices whereby a diversity of societal agents working across the international/domestic divide seek to contest norm meaning. This leads to a focus on how norms are implemented at the domestic level and creates a closer engagement between constructivism and FPA.

Abstract
This article examines the role of digital norm contestation in feminist foreign policy (FFP). It analyzes how states that participate in digital diplomacy are involved in challenging and resisting norms, values and expectations related to feminist positionings in the digital environment. The article presents an analytical framework for the study of digital norm contestation and conducts an empirical case study of Sweden as the first country in the world to brand its foreign policy "feminist." This triggered a process of digital norm contestation, particularly visible in the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights. Three empirical vignettes of digital norm contestation are analyzed. The first example illustrates how the Swedish government was able to exercise global leadership to visually perform and digitally advocate the contestation of the US global gag rule. The second example underlines how the Swedish government harnessed its leadership by connecting it to grassroots contestations of the global gag rule through digital advocacy networks. The third example illuminates how the Swedish government's visit to Iran backfired because of a lost sense of control over visual performative effects in the digital environment. By way of conclusion, we suggest three avenues that can be pursued to further the research agenda on gender, digital norm contestation, and foreign policy.

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

Approaches variously described as critical, reflexive, postpositivist, and agonistic constructivism reject the idea that the meaning of a norm can be fixed. These approaches look instead to the role that discursive practice plays in repeatedly constructing meaning. While the focus on how discourse shapes the meaning of a norm can tell us something about the ongoing social significance of that norm, it does not answer the question of whether that norm is normatively appropriate. Taking its cue from pragmatic ethics, this paper addresses the above limitation in the existing scholarship. It does so by not only tracing norms' meanings in use, but also crucially evaluating the extent to which they are useful in alleviating the social problems they were designed to address. The theoretical argument is illustrated by examining the meanings in use of the rebuilding norm in the aftermath of the 2011 humanitarian intervention in Libya; how was the norm understood and practiced? What were the consequences of such meanings in use? I argue that this type of analysis can significantly improve our understanding of normative outcomes of norm contestation processes by bringing to the fore the practical consequences of norms, their various meanings, and the political environment within which they are enacted.

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)

Abstract
Approaches variously described as critical, reflexive, postpositivist, and agonistic constructivism reject the idea that the meaning of a norm can be fixed. These approaches look instead to the role that discursive practice plays in repeatedly constructing meaning. While the focus on how discourse shapes the meaning of a norm can tell us something about the ongoing social significance of that norm, it does not answer the question of whether that norm is normatively appropriate. Taking its cue from pragmatic ethics, this paper addresses the above limitation in the existing scholarship. It does so by not only tracing norms' meanings in use, but also crucially evaluating the extent to which they are useful in alleviating the social problems they were designed to address. The theoretical argument is illustrated by examining the meanings in use of the rebuilding norm in the aftermath of the 2011 humanitarian intervention in Libya; how was the norm understood and practiced? What were the consequences of such meanings in use? I argue that this type of analysis can significantly improve our understanding of normative outcomes of norm contestation processes by bringing to the fore the practical consequences of norms, their various meanings, and the political environment within which they are enacted.

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.

The introduction to the special issue sets out to examine the normative rivalry between the European Union and other regional actors and how it plays out at the domestic level in the societies of the European neighbourhood. Drawing on the International Relations literature on norm diffusion, and in particular on the scholarship on norm contestation, we posit that the degree and nature of domestic contestation of external political norms (both EU and non-EU) has consequences for norm diffusion in specific domestic settings. We deepen the conceptual understanding of the encounter between external and domestic political norms by emphasizing the agency of domestic societies and the importance of domestic normative structures in the processes of acceptance, modification or rejection of external normative influence. We provide empirical evidence about competing normative influences collected from a plethora of case studies from the eastern and the southern European neighbourhoods allowing us to draw a cross-regional parallel about the political ideas more likely to gain traction in the societies of Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa.

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.