Chapter 1. Introduction. Beyond the Practice-Norm Gap -- Chapter 2. Sovereignty and the Life-Cycle of Norms Revisited -- Chapter 3. Shaping Sovereignty as Responsibility at the ICC (Part I): The Rome Statute -- Chapter 4. Shaping Sovereignty as Responsibility at the ICC (Part II): The Test of Institutional Practice -- Chapter 5. Conclusions. Irresponsible Sovereignty: A Dead-End?
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Recent scholarship analyzes norm dynamics in the US context using the prohibition on assassination contained in Executive Order 12333 as the relevant norm. These studies argue that—before 9/11—the ban on assassination was largely uncontested and effectively constrained US foreign policy. In doing so, these studies overlook the impact of the Reagan administration on the evolution of the ban. This article establishes that the Reagan administration engaged in a concerted, and largely successful, effort to undermine the ban. The article relies on scholarship on norm contestation and norm robustness. The analysis identifies key features of the ban as a norm, including its ambiguity and executive character. It highlights the role and power of a cluster of US officials led by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director William Casey. Crucially, the analysis traces the prominence of dynamics of contestation of the ban in the context of unconventional warfare and counterterrorism. In line with existing scholarship, the analysis finds cases of validity contestation, meaning contestation, and applicatory contestation. Contrary to existing scholarship, however, the analysis stresses the radical nature of actors' attempts to shrink the remit of the ban through applicatory contestation. This contestation was often made superfluous by the blurring—through meaning contestation—of the expectations set by the norm. A historically grounded analysis of contestation during the Reagan years provides a better understanding of how US officials (re)shaped the ban, establishing precedents for the legal, political, and discursive conventions surrounding assassination deployed after 9/11.
Focusing on the disconnect between mainstream "liberal" peacebuilding and the discourses and practices of "new" and "alternative" peacebuilding actors, this article develops a nonbinary approach that goes beyond norm localization to capture the ways in which major powers influence the nature, content, and direction of normative change. Within the context of their bilateral and multilateral contributions to the "global peacebuilding order," what forms and types of interventions are conceived by these actors as peacebuilding? How, in turn, has the substantive content of their peacebuilding practices (re)shaped norms and narratives in international peacebuilding efforts? Based on extensive empirical research of the peacebuilding policies and activities of China, Japan, and Russia, this article analyzes the way in which these "top-top" dynamics between norms embedded in the liberal narrative and major powers with competing visions can influence peacebuilding as practiced and pursued in host states. In doing so, it brings together research on global norms and peacebuilding studies and offers a simple yet analytically powerful tool to better understand the evolution of global peacebuilding order(s) and the role of rising powers in (re)shaping global governance.
Contestation is currently one major field of research on international norms: does contestation strengthen or weaken a norm? What role does international law play in this regard? How do norm proponents and norm challengers change their strategies in norm contestation processes? Drawing on constructivist perspectives as well as on international law, the articles in this Special Issue explore the effects of norm contestation and its dynamics by analysing the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) and the responsibility to prosecute from different theoretical perspectives.
Are rising authoritarian powers such as China and Russia converging towards or challenging the normative structures of the liberal international order? This article argues that scholarship on norm contestation provides a fruitful theoretical avenue for addressing this question. It finds, however, that this literature has problematically tended to either overlook or externalize power dynamics from norm contestation. The article therefore proposes and develops a power political approach to norm contestation that, informed by a realpolitik sensibility, more explicitly and consistently makes power central to the analysis. A power political perspective conceptualizes norm contestation as the expression of battles for influence in world politics that take place at the ideational level and through symbolic instruments. It understands these struggles as occurring in the context of an international system profoundly marked by conflicting interests, cultural pluralism, hierarchical structures, and power asymmetries. This power political lens is then used to identify four modes of contestation that Russian and Chinese actors are engaged in: liberal performance, liberal mimicry, civilizational essentialization, and counter-norm entrepreneurship. It empirically explores how these contestatory practices express themselves at different intensity levels—applicatory, meaning, and validity—and display specific power political logics—fragmenting and integrative—with the goal of undermining the ideational hegemony of liberal Western-based actors and structures in world politics, and advancing alternative non-liberal visions of domestic and international order. Along with contributing to the literature on norms, this article also makes a broader intervention in current debates about rising powers and the future of the liberal international order.
Abstract This article investigates the role of intersubjective and situated meanings and norm contestation for militarised humanitarian interventions from a critical perspective. The International Relations (ir) literature on humanitarian interventions, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, and emergence of norms is explained and critically evaluated. The case analysed here is Turkey and its foreign policy discourse regarding interventions in Libya and Syria. Based on the case and literature review, the author concludes that critical approaches particularly provide useful tools to understand the role of identity, changing foreign policy narratives, and power constellations in world politics.
In: Democracies and their Futures, edited by Keith Cherry, Jeanne Morefield, Joshua Nichols, Pablo Ouziel, and James Tully (forthcoming with Cambridge University Press)
Norm research has struggled to leave behind its liberal progressive perspective on norms. It has turned its attention towards contestation and norms erosion. Still, in a number of studies contestation is not merely an analytic concept but a normative concept as well, describing a problematic development of norms. Plainly, contestation is often seen as a form of political backlash. This is problematic because the bulk of normative change proceeds in the form of contestation, so we need to be able to distinguish the two. Studying the recurring and radicalising contestation of the International Criminal Court, this article demonstrates the intimate relationship between contestation and backlash. It argues that while backlash might be fruitfully applied to the study of norm contestation, its added value for norms research is linked to the normative connotation of regressive politics, that is, a 'thick' concept of backlash.
AbstractThe meaning of norms is empirically contested. Supposing an inherent instability of norm meaning, contestation, therefore, represents a fundamental conceptual challenge to the mainstream view on norms as shared understandings. By offering a grammatical reading of Antje Wiener's approach to contestation, we examine how norm research addresses this challenge to its theoretical core assumption. We argue that the grammar of Wiener's approach, despite its reflexive starting point, ultimately reintroduces an understanding of norms as facts and leads to a normative 'politics of reality'. This effectively turns contestation into a disruption of the 'normal' state of norms. Demonstrating the challenges of theorising norms with rather than against contestation, the article concludes that norm research has yet to find ways to account for contestation 'all the way down' in order to sustain norms as a productive analytical concept in IR.
L'ordre international s'est construit progressivement avec des traités, des conventions et des organisations confortant la notion d'États souverains. Certes, ces normes souvent complexes ont permis des arbitrages mais elles semblent remises en cause par certaines puissances imposant le rapport de force.
