Suchergebnisse

Abstract:Finnemore and Sikkink's norms life cycle model (NLCM) is a powerful heuristic device that continues to be a mandatory point of reference for theoretical and empirical scholarship on norm change. Yet the internalisation stage as conceptualised in the NLCM is problematic. Drawing from Wiener's Theory of Contestation, this article proposes to reconceptualise the norm internalisation stage as the phase at the extreme of the norm cascade in which inherently contested norms simultaneously enjoy formal validity, social recognition, and cultural validation among stakeholders. Unlike Finnemore and Sikkink's, this conceptualisation focuses solely on norm validity and does not assume 'almost automatic' compliance. While Finnemore and Sikkink emphasise habit and institutionalisation as mechanisms of internalisation, the proposed conceptualisation highlights the role of applicatory contestation under conditions of high contestedness. Furthermore, I argue that internalised norms continue to be contested. Finally, my conceptualisation explicitly incorporates norm regression as the fourth stage of the NLCM. Norms might regress because they become obsolete, they change, or they are replaced. To assess the descriptive power of the proposed conceptualisation vis-à-vis Finnemore and Sikkink's, the article applies them to the analysis of the norm that prohibits torture.

Contestations on a norm sometimes weaken the consensus on the norm, while other times strengthen it. The literature demonstrates that legal norms are more resilient in the face of contestations. This study argues that regardless of the norm's legal nature, the use of legal language and argumentation in the contestation processes increases the norm's resilience by facilitating a renewed agreement on the norm's validity. The evolution of the human protection norm, which regulates the international use of force for humanitarian purposes, is examined through comparative discourse analysis of two contestation periods in Kosovo (1998–1999) and Libya (2011–2013) interventions. While the legal nature of contestations after the Kosovo crisis revealed the inadequacies of the humanitarian intervention framework and led to the development of a stronger consensus under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), non-legal contestations following the Libya crisis did not yield constructive outcomes and ended with practical disappearance of R2P as a basis of military intervention. The article concludes that the concept of process legality has explanatory power for enlightening the contradicting consequences of norm contestations, as well as a potential for guiding the methods of norm proponents.

This paper focuses on the social psychological barriers underpinning the EU and Russia's social norm contestation in the context of Ukraine. Through a frame analysis, I analyse how the two actors perceive the Crimean annexation, their own foreign policy behaviour in this context, the foreign policy behaviour of the other, and the general state of the international normative system. My findings indicate that the social psychological barrier which underpins the social norm contestation between the EU and Russia is related to the cognitive processes the actors apply in their construction of the international normative system and the type of norms which constitute it. Whereas the EU points to a stable international normative system based on injunctive norms and their clear-cut application, Russia emphasises that the normative system also consists of descriptive norms and that the presence of this type of social norm makes social norm application a matter of contextual interpretation. What the actors do agree on is the purpose of social norms and the motivation states have for complying with them. The analysis hence finds that the social norm contestation between the EU and Russia is not based on differing perceptions and interpretations on why norms are relevant or why states should comply with them. Rather, it is based on differing perceptions and interpretations of the common knowledge that is to guide state behaviour. What the analysis also suggests is that Russia's foreign policy behaviour in Ukraine was not necessarily influenced by a lack of moral compass or a wish to disrupt the international normative system. Instead, it may have been based on a subjective interpretation of what has been done before in perceived similar contexts.

In studying the global spread and implementation of liberal norms, scholars have moved from linear notions of norm diffusion and promotion to an emphasis on norm contestation. Contestation by the supposed beneficiaries and addressees has taken centre stage in both research on the norms that underpin global governance and in studies on democracy promotion and liberal peacebuilding. While the impetus of this scholarship is normative - to overcome the taken-for-granted nature of liberal norms - the concept of contestation itself is mainly used with an analytical interest. Yet, as we show in this article, contestation also comes with - oftentimes implicit - normative connotations. Focusing on the seminal work of Milja Kurki, Oliver Richmond, Antje Wiener, and Amitav Acharya, we reconstruct these normative connotations. It turns out that the normative take on contestation is fairly conventional in all four approaches. Contestation is largely seen as a means to enable dialogue, as illustrated by Acharya's metaphor of the Banyan tree. Fundamental conflicts over liberal norms ('battle scenes') are either not considered or seen as normatively undesirable. As a way forward, we propose a typology that enables scholars to empirically analyse contestation in its different expressions and suggest two strategies to normatively assess practices of contestation.

AbstractIn studying the global spread and implementation of liberal norms, scholars have moved from linear notions of norm diffusion and promotion to an emphasis on norm contestation. Contestation by the supposed beneficiaries and addressees has taken centre stage in both research on the norms that underpin global governance and in studies on democracy promotion and liberal peacebuilding. While the impetus of this scholarship is normative – to overcome the taken-for-granted nature of liberal norms – the concept of contestation itself is mainly used with an analytical interest. Yet, as we show in this article, contestation also comes with – oftentimes implicit – normative connotations. Focusing on the seminal work of Milja Kurki, Oliver Richmond, Antje Wiener, and Amitav Acharya, we reconstruct these normative connotations. It turns out that the normative take on contestation is fairly conventional in all four approaches. Contestation is largely seen as a means to enable dialogue, as illustrated by Acharya's metaphor of the Banyan tree. Fundamental conflicts over liberal norms ('battle scenes') are either not considered or seen as normatively undesirable. As a way forward, we propose a typology that enables scholars to empirically analyse contestation in its different expressions and suggest two strategies to normatively assess practices of contestation.

The idea of the European Union being increasingly contested, whether globally or at home, is a frequently reiterated notion. It is believed that such challenges to the European integration stem from a number of diverse but interlinked global and intra-EU crises that, combined, amount to the current 'perfect storm' affecting the EU and its foreign, security and defense policy. We will explore here how the EU is being put to the test in terms of the norms and fundamental values which guide its foreign policy. It is an important issue within the broader debates of the European crises, as such norm contestation may have a deeper structural and longer-term effect on the EU's external action and its 'resilience' as an international actor. We employ insights from the norm contestation literature to scrutinize a number of the most important current challenges articulated against EU foreign policy norms in recent years, whether at the global, 'glocal' or intra-EU level. ; Elisabeth Johansson-Nogués wishes to acknowledge VISIONS (Visions and practices of geopolitics in the European Union and its neighborhood) funded by the National R+D Plan of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (CSO2017-82622-P). Martijn C. Vlaskamp thanks the Beatriu de Pinós postdoctoral program of the Government of Catalonia's Secretariat for Universities and Research (Ministry of Economy and Knowledge) for funding (Grant number: 2017-BP-152). Esther Barbé is grateful to the Catalan Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR) for funds making this research possible (2017 SGR 693).

This article argues that an explanation of China's stance on a possible international intervention in Darfur cannot eschew considering the wider context of the ongoing dialectics of normative change and contestation surrounding the progressive redefinition of norms of intervention since the early 1990s. It suggests that by emphasizing the need to respect Sudan's sovereignty and the requirement that Sudan consent to an international intervention, China has sought to promote a return to more traditional forms of peacekeeping, as a way to oppose emerging interpretations of the norm of intervention, which it sees as a threat to its own security. Such an interpretation challenges the accusations of foot-dragging of which China has been the object. The hypothesis is tested by analysing China's voting and declaratory record in the Security Council, and assessed against the country's historical record on peacekeeping discussions in the Council. Embracing Finnemore's argument that multilateral intervention represents the pillar of the post-Cold War international order, the article concludes by relating China's norm-brokering effort to its asserted interest in reshaping the international system.

In recent norm research, the question of the relationship between norm contestation and norm dynamics has been the subject of substantial debate. However, until now too little attention has been paid to the question of how and when contestation intensifies. Based on the differentiation between applicatory and validity contestation, this article proposes a specific mechanism for intensifying contestation—understood as an increase in the contestation itself as well as an extension to its validity level—by treating norm modification as an intervening variable. The main argument is that norm modification may be necessary to reconcile different interpretations of norms. Consequently, if norm modification does not occur, norm contestation may intensify. This article elaborates this mechanism by examining the controversies involving the International Criminal Court (icc). It shows that contestation began at a low and applicatory level but intensified after several attempts at norm modification had failed.