Chapter 47 - global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society Flashcards
prohibiting norms
norms both in international law and in domestic criminal law that prohibit involvement of state and nonstate actors in particular activities
+ implicit rules and patterns that govern the behavior of state and nonstate actors + moral principles of individuals
e.g.
- piracy
- slavery
- hijacking
- counterfeiting of national currencies
- human trafficking
Why do people conform to a particular norm?
- Because they believe the norm is just and should be followed
- Because adherence to the norm coincides with their other principal interests
- Because they fear the consequences from defying the norm
- Because conforming to the norm has become a matter of habit or custom
Interntaional regimes: eco + political interests vs norms
reflect the economic and political interests of the dominant members of international society
+ moral and emotional factors related to neither political nor economic advantage play a role (e.g. Religion, humanitarian sentiments, compassion, paternalism)
Esp. For global prohibition regimes tend to involve moral and emotional considerations more so than most other laws and regimes
How should actions of states be understood?
Culmination of external pressures and domestic political struggles
- in which national and transnational organizations shape the actions of states as well as the actions and opinions of diverse societies
- in which the norms of dominant societies are internationalized and internalized by diverse societies throughout the world
Why do international prohibition regimes emerge?
- To protect the interests of the state and other powerful members of society
- To deter, suppress, and punish undesirable activities
- To provide for order, security, and justice among members of a community
- To give force and symbolic representation to the moral values, beliefs and prejudices of those who make the laws
*criminal laws can evolve into international prohibition regimes (very few do)
What type of crimes have become the subject of international prohibition regimes?
Only crimes that evidence a strong transnational dimension + for which unilateral and bilateral law enforcement measures are inadequate (e.g. because of sovereignty concerns or practical inability for one country to do everything)
In what respects do international prohibition regimes amount to more than the sum of the unilateral acts, bilateral relationships and international conventions that constitute them?
- provide an element of standardization
- they minimize or eliminate the potential havens from which certain crimes can be committed and to which criminals can flee to escape prosecution and punishment
(3. create an expection of cooperation that governments challenge only at the cost of some international embarrassment)
moral proselytism
+ transnational moral entrepreneurs
moral proselytism: compulsion to convert others to one’s beliefs + to remake the world in one’s own image
international prohibition regimes contribute to proselytizing efforts of governments and non-governmental transnational organizations -> they function as transnational moral entrepreneurs
transnational moral entrepreneurs: groups that mobilize popular opinion and political support + stimulate and assist in creation of like-minded organisations + elevate their objective beyond its identification with the national interests of their government
features prohibition regimes that attain global proportions
- not all are global: can also be in a multinational region or alliance of states confronting a common threat (e.g. Council of Europe regional antiterrorism convention)
mostly: need to minimize ‘‘regime leakage’’ by eliminating actual and potential havens and markets for transnational criminals
other features are moral in nature:
- global adherence to the norms of a particular prohibition regime
procedural prohibition regimes
focus on international cooperation against crime: extradition, mutual legal assistance, transfer of criminal proceedings, transfer of prisoners etc.
they are limited in scope: consensus on procedure in criminal justice matters often harder to achieve than on substantive prohibition regimes
universal international society
gradual homogenization and globalization of norms developed initially among the European states
- ground rules of diplomatic interaction and protection
- recognition of an identifiable corpus of international law embodying common principles regarding state behavior and obligations
- growing acknowledgement that all individuals are entitled to basic protections of life, property and contract
cosmopolitan moral views
focus on how states and individuals treat individual human beings
transcends the state, thereby de-politicizing the individual and emphasizing the existence of an international society of human beings sharing common moral bonds
this view has been getting bigger in IR the last 3 centuries (when this article was written)
do states hold moral views?
that’s not what this article argues: Nadelmann argues that the capacity of particular moral arguments to influence governments stems from transnational moral entrepreneurs and powerful individual advocates within the government
the role of Europe and the US
evolution of global society = centrality of Western Europe and the US
to an extent virtually unprecedented in world history, a few European states and the US proved successful in proselytizing to diverse societies: imposing their norms on foreign regimes around the world
common evolutionary pattern global prohibition regimes
- 4 or 5 stages
- activity is considered normal
- activity is redefined as a problem by moral entrepreneurs
- regime demands criminalization of the activity by states through diplomacy
- criminalization and police action are deployed international institutions and conventions
- incidence of the proscribed activity is greatly reduced (not every regime accomplishes this step + no regime was capable of this stage before the 19th century due to not yet eliminated/neutralized effective vacuums of sovereign authority)
progress norms of internal and external sovereignty
norms of external sovereignty and nonintervention have progressed more rapidly than the effective internal sovereignty of many states -> regime enforcers in this century are less able than their forebears to use coercive actions against dissident states and other regime violators
criminal laws + international prohibition regimes are particularly ineffective in suppressing activities which
- require limited and readily available resources and no particular expertise to commit
- are easily concealed
- are unlikely to be reported to the authorities
- consumer demand is substantial, resilient and not readily substituted for (e.g. global drug enforcement regime not really succesful)
piracy prior to the seveneenth century
international norms limited in scope and effect
piracy widely sanctioned in much of the world
premises of medieval international law
George Swarzenberger
- war basic state of international relations in the absence of an agreed state of truce or peace
- unless exception were made by means of individual safe conduct or treaty, rulers saw themselves entitled to treat foreigners at their absolute discretion
- high seas were no-man’s-land where anyone might do as he pleased
-> political actors saw piracy as source of wealth and political power
piracy 16th century
expansion European maritime commerce -> incidence of piracy increased dramatically
mostly (unofficially) sponsored by European governments:
- sanctioned piracy: sponsored by monarch, got a free pass
- unsanctioned piracy: often possible to find sponsors and protectors among high-ranking officials
piracy 17th century
Europe divided by political and religious differences, one shared objective: desirability of crushing Turkish pirates (prospect of infidels capturing Christians -> piracy seen as urgent problem)
end 17th century:
- increase volume of trade and diplomacy
- private fiefdoms and armies were coopted or eliminated (governments wanted to monopolize force)
- pirates were warned to abandon their ways or risk the wrath of increasingly powerful navies
- Royal Navy important role in
- peacetime no longer seen as anarchy, it increasingly promised a degree of security
! piracy was undergoing a transformation from being a national industry to becoming an international threat
corsair
zeerover
equal views/development of piracy?
European states regularized their relations in/around the European continent, but not e.g. in the Americas and Asia
on-European states (+ some of the colonies) regarded the European efforts against piracy and privateering as unwarranted and unwelcome infringements into local struggles over power and wealth
mid 18th century: most American colonies had acceded to the ban on piracy
elsewhere: government-sanctioned piracy persisted until well into the 19th century
privateering + government-sanctioned privateering during wartime
not effectively deligitimized until 19th century
nations relied on privateers to help in war
Declaration of Paris 1856
GB, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sardinia and the Porte
formally abolishing privateering
- US refused, as its nay was small and thus wanted/claimed it should keep the option of privateering for in wartime
- end 19th century: US navy had grown -> outlawed privateering
globalization of the norms against piracy
piracy was increasingly seen as an evil in its own right (pirate est hostice humani generis)
- economic and security interests of the most powerful states (monopolizing forces of violence on the high seas)
- larceny at sea became less justifiable as the high seas were no longer perceived as no-man’s-land (ir became more regularized + orderly)
when is an international criminal law most potent?
when it reflects not just self-interest, but a broadly acknowledged moral obligation
law against piracy was the first to attain such a consensus
+
international regime dedicated to the enforcement of this law was the first to attain global proportions
virtual elimination of piratical activities from the high seas?
- privateering could not subsist without active support of governments
- from the mid 17th century: powerful states eliminated one by one the vacuums of de jure and de facto sovereignty that pirates depended on
- pirates vulnerable to government action
- fatal blow to piracy: development of steam vessels (pirates didn’t have enough resources)
latter of the 19th century: piracy all but eliminated on the high seas
persists only on a small scale today: reflects inevitably limited capabilities of governments to eliminate entirely anything that lies outside its total control
lecture
- locating the text
- constructivism
- literature on norms
lecture
- objectives of the article
to discuss how and why particular norms have proven more or less succesful in suppressing deviant activities
how and why some norms have evolved into global prohibition regimes
