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.
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.
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
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
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.
