reading nov 21 - international rules Flashcards
Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Robustness of International Norms
intro
Nicole Deitelhoff + Lisbeth Zimmermann
1990s optimism that liberal norms would diffuse globally = unfulfilled
we know little about how controversy affects the robustness of norms (if it contributes to their weakening or strengthening (contestation as normative power in its own)-> two competing hypotheses)
We argue that contestation as such does not reveal much about norm robustness. Instead, the type of contestation a norm faces matters. Contestation can either address (1) the application of a norm or (2) its validity by questioning the righteousness of the claims a norm makes.
- R2P = limited negative effect of applicatory contestation on norm robustness
- Whaling ban = validity concern -> negative effects on the robustness of the norm
norm robustness and contestation in IR research
what are norms?
= standards of appropriate behavior for actors within a given identity
can have legal nature (e.g. torture prohibition), or social nature (e.g. responsibility to protect)
impose obligations on their addressees
norm robustness and contestation in IR research
norm decay
- rationalist strand = widespread noncompliance
- social constructivist strand = robustness low when there is no widespread acceptance and when it does not guide the actions of addressees by and large
3 caveats:
- norm change and norm decay are not the same thing: change only leads to loss in robustness when there is also decreased acceptance and compliance
- gradual change of robustness over time rather than full decay of a norm
- robustness is a relative concept
e.g. prohibition use of nuclear weapons -> one violation major norm erosion
e.g. prohibition of torture, certain level of noncompliance implies much less weakening
norm robustness and contestation in IR research
norm contestation
= norm addressees questioning a norm through discourse
contestation = independent of the dimension of robustness
two approaches to contestation in IR:
- contestation automatically weaken a norm’s robustness
- contestation as potential step toward a strengthening of norm robustness
both are weak in explaining why and when contestation leads to eithr a weakening or strengthening of norm robustness
contestation as sign of norm decay
argues that norm contestation does not necessarily lead to full norm decay, it is perceived as weakening norms
- norms will always lose some salience just in virtue of it being publicly challenged
stability bias like in early norm research
-> narrow understanding of norms that equates their validity with not being contested
- early norm research = norm life cycle in which only in the beginning stages there is contestation and after it is established norms are not part of public debate
*partly bc constructivism wanted to highilght that norms matter, which is hard if they change/ are challenged so often
norm robustness and contestation in IR research
normative power of contestation
highlights processes of norm localization, norm change and norm contestation
- localization = reinterpretation and resistance in diff regional and national contexts (not the global level)
- norm change = studies dynamics of norms and their interpretation at an international level -> contestation and interpretation leads to either norm strengthening or weakening (don’t clarify when to expect which outcome)
- norm interpretation - contestation as conflcit concerning the meanings of norms -> positive/strengthening force (but there is a danger of too much contestation)
norms remain dynamic and contested even after their emergence
contestation can often strengthen norms (but: has hardly investigated the limits of contestation)
“contestation is seen as a normal practice,
which shapes the interpretation of norms”
two ideal types of contestation - validity and application
focus on description diff types of contestation, lack of focus on relation with norm robustness
article argues: framework of discourses theory of law and normativity = offers ideal-type differentiation of contestation discourses and their link to norm robustness
contestation addresses either validity or application dimension of norms
- norm validity = question which norms a group of actors wants to uphold, questions whether normative claims are righteous = questions a norm in itself
- applicatory contestation = if a given norm is appropriate for a given situation + what actions the norm requires in specific situations + which norms should be prioritized
*very common (esp. with abstract norms that entail positive duties:demand proactive behavior from actors)
!applicatory contestation may have more general validity contestation in mind: actors can hope to water down the norm so that it is left meaningless or to tighten the scope of the general norm
still: it supports te stickiness of a norm bc:
- reactualizes norm’s claims
- results can’t be predicted at the outset
applicatory contestation can increase robustness: revitalizes validity of the norm + specifying when and how it is to be applied
!permanent applicatory contestation -> weakening norm: when norm addressees can’t achieve renewed consensus over definition/application -> norm becomes fuzzy and violations hard to recognize + actors may shift to validity contestation if application constation bears no esult
illustrating the argument: contestation R2P
summary
nonlegal norm
focus on: acceptance levels, invocations of R2P in times of crisis + discursive reactions to noncompliance + implementation processes in the UN
= intense validity contestation after adoption in 2005, shifted to applicatory contestation (intensified in aftermath conflicts Libya and Syria)
so far: no norm decay
illustrating the argument: ban on commercial whaling
summary
area of “soft law”, in place since 1986
focus on compliance levels + third-party reaction to norm violations in the International Whaling Commission (IWC)
!IWC started with aim to orderly dev. the whaling industry, influenced by interests of the whaling industry, second half C20 it shifted against whaling under environmental and animal welfare org
= applicatory contestation in the beginning + now more validity contestation
-> weakening (no decay) of norm robustness in the 2000s
R2P norm core
UNGA 2005: three responsibilities R2P:
- protect population from gross human rights violations (spec. genocide, ethnic cleansing, grave war crimes, crimes against humanity)
- international comm responsible for assisting states to live up to 1
- international comm (spec UNSC) responsible for taking measurement to ensure protection of the population at risk
norm core = responsibility of nation states to protect their populations
political norm, has reached the status of an international norm (needs full acceptance states critical for norm enforcement)
robustness varies sign. over time
R2P applicatory or validity discourses?
applicatory = how should it be implemented, does it count in X
validity = one of the pillars openly questioned (e.g. sov is always more important than international action OR military action can never be part of R2P)
immediately after adoption intense validity contestation (in UNSC and UNGA), since then applicatory contestation dominant (e.g. after refusal to accept humanitarian aid after natural disasters), validity contestation resurfaced in aftermath intervention Libya 2011(should military intervention be part of R2P?)
core obligatory provisions of the R2{ have remained relatively untouched since 2009
applicatory contestation: does this specific situation fall under R2P? how intrusive should action be?
-> such questions have intensified after Libya 2011, several countries also tried to further specify the concept
worrisome dev: applicatory contestation aftermath Libya and Syria (failure to act in time) = danger of becoming permanent -> addressees may stop applying the norm bc disagreement as to what it means
norm robustness R2P
acceptance levels have increased over time, consensus on the nom is stable and even increasing (more states participate in dialogues + increasing affirmative statements)
- 2017 majority states voted in favor of putting R2P on formal agenda UNGA 2018
- more reference to the R2P in the UNSC
discursive reactions to noncompliance with R2P = stable robustness: strongly voiced reactions to noncompliance (eg. Syria: UNGA criticized UNSC inaction)
implementation: establishment joint office + country-level Naitonal ocal Points since 2010
ban on commercial whaling
norm core
= prohibition any kind of commercial whaling
exceptions:
- aboriginal subsistence whaling based on IWC-determined quotas
- whaling for scientific purposes based on domestic permits
established with moratorium IWC, not change to the convention itself
!less than 1/3 UN members endorsed it bc the IWC was small, yet all former whaling states halted = strong indicator norm emergence
US used threat of sanctions under domestic fishery laws against the remaining whalers
ban on commercial whaling
application or validity discourses
commercial whaling ban has been weakened due both to a shift to validity contestation and the permanence of applicatory discourses, in which no further temporal stabilizations of meanings have emerged
- political pressure and side payments are used to keep both blocs together,” keeping the IWC in perpetual deadlock: none of the groups can change the IWC bc supermajority decision rules
shift of contestation from application to validity
application: what are exceptions? = low level of precision of the ban
-> where is the line between subsistence and commercial whaling for indigenous communities
-> when is whaling scientific (e.g. Japan was brought to the ICJ, now new scientific whaling programs)
through the 90s: growth validity discourse
- ban was supposed to be a temporary strategy to deal with scientific uncertainty (about how endangered whales were), not long term measure
2.90s increase support for whaling in main whaling states Japan, Norway and Iceland + in some Caribbean and African states (support right to use of domestic resources for food security) - contestation increased with anti-whaling environmental campaigning against pro-whaling states
ban on commercial whaling
norm robustness
we can observe a weakening of norm robustness when studying compliance trends and third-party sanctioning of noncompliance
90s and 00s increase whaling activities (commercial and scientific)
shifts discursive condemnation: weakened and less public (with resumption commercial whaling by Iceland)
most anti-whaling states seem to accept ongoing whaling activities
