Search results

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

"Civilian Self-Protection and Civilian Targeting in Armed Conflicts: Who Protects Civilians?" published on by Oxford University Press.

Western actors have long dominated the political processes and discourses that shape global norms impacting interstate behaviour. Yet, more recently, powerful autocratic regimes such as China and Russia have seemingly challenged democracies, emerging as potential contesters of international norms. What might be the outcome of this contestation? This paper broadly explores this query by investigating Russia's humanitarian justifications for its Ukrainian incursion. It examines whether Russia's claim of humanitarian intervention is more than a petty attempt to disguise pure power politics. Is Russia contesting Western understandings of humanitarian interventions in order to reshape our ideas of permissible violations of sovereignty norms to protect vulnerable populations? Using Atlas.ti, we also explore global responses to Russia's humanitarian claims. Our initial findings indicate that the Ukrainian intervention enabled Russia to contest Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and to champion an alternative version of humanitarian intervention with some limited success.

AbstractTo what extent do online issue networks serve as a proxy for their real‐space counterparts in structure and substance? This question is significant because a number of scholars have begun to study transnational advocacy networks through their representations online. We explored whether this assumption is valid by comparing the network composition and agenda composition of the advocacy network around 'women, peace and security', as operationalized through a web‐based survey of actual activists, and the network's online representations of itself, as measured through advocacy websites. Two specific concerns drove the study. First, how closely does the structure of issue networks, as represented on the World Wide Web, correspond with actual advocates' understanding of the players within a specific issue domain? Second, to what extent does the online issue agenda correlate with the most prominent issues described by real‐space advocates within a transnational network? Our findings yielded a high correlation between the online issue agenda and activists' interpretations of the agenda. However, we found that while hyperlink analysis is an effective tool for identifying the 'hubs' or 'gatekeepers' within a specific issue network, the nature of the World Wide Web makes it is a blunt tool with which to capture the broader network. This suggests that while the web poses important opportunities as a data source, scholars of transnational networks must pay closer attention to the methodological assumptions implicit in their reliance on this and other new media.