Suchergebnisse

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

AbstractFragmentation, institutional overlaps, and norm collisions are often seen as fundamental problems for the global (legal) order. Supposedly, they incite conflict and disorder. However, some scholars have also emphasised functional and normative advantages of the resulting institutional pluralism. We argue that the consequences of the increasing international institutional density are conditional on whether and how different norms, institutions, and authorities are coordinated. In distinction from thefragmentation frameworkin international law and theregime complexity frameworkin international relations, this introduction outlines aninterface conflict frameworkthat enables important insights into this question and guides the contributions assembled in this issue. It zooms in on the micro-level of conflict between actors that justify incompatible positional differences with reference to different international norms. In particular, the concept of interface conflicts allows studying the conditions under which overlaps and norm collisions become activated in conflicts as well as the ways in which such conflicts are handled. Foreshadowing the main findings of the contributions to this Special Issue, we hold that interface conflicts are neither inevitable nor unmanageable. Most importantly, it seems that, more often than not, conflicts stimulate cooperative forms of management and contribute to the building of inter-institutional order.

Fragmentation, institutional overlaps, and norm collisions are often seen as fundamental problems for the global (legal) order. Supposedly, they incite conflict and disorder. However, some scholars have also emphasised functional and normative advantages of the resulting institutional pluralism. We argue that the consequences of the increasing international institutional density are conditional on whether and how different norms, institutions, and authorities are coordinated. In distinction from the fragmentation framework in international law and the regime complexity framework in international relations, this introduction outlines an interface conflict framework that enables important insights into this question and guides the contributions assembled in this issue. It zooms in on the micro-level of conflict between actors that justify incompatible positional differences with reference to different international norms. In particular, the concept of interface conflicts allows studying the conditions under which overlaps and norm collisions become activated in conflicts as well as the ways in which such conflicts are handled. Foreshadowing the main findings of the contributions to this Special Issue, we hold that interface conflicts are neither inevitable nor unmanageable. Most importantly, it seems that, more often than not, conflicts stimulate cooperative forms of management and contribute to the building of inter-institutional order.

This study is concerned with tracing the process of how conflict prevention is moving from the realm of ideas to the field of action. Why is it that, despite historical as well as recent evidence of the infeasibility to prevent wars, the idea of conflict prevention has resurfaced to meet the challenge of the new wars of the post-Cold War era? The study investigates whether the growing interest in preventing the outbreak of violent conflicts marks the coming of age of conflict prevention as an international norm able to induce preventive practices. Adopting a social constructivist perspective, it analyzes the links between ideas, interests, norms and practices. Regarding actors and structures as mutually constitutive, this study advances an analytical framework that draws attention to the pivotal role of the norm entrepreneur in the dynamics of norm evolution. The evolution of a norm pertaining to conflict prevention is traced in the post-Cold War era, and Sweden's activities as an international norm entrepreneur in the EU and the UN are analyzed. It depicts the Swedish efforts to construct, diffuse and institutionalize a norm pertaining to conflict prevention as well as to translate conflict prevention into practice by participating in the preventive UN peacekeeping mission (UNPREDEP) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The analysis reveals that a social constructivist perspective can assist us in investigating the links between ideas, norms, interests and practices. It shows that interests are defined in the context of internationally held norms, and that the growing interest in preventing violent conflicts may be derived from the emergent norm pertaining to conflict prevention. Norms emerge through the efforts of norm entrepreneurs. Through an analysis of Swedish norm entrepreneurship, this study finds that a small state's ability to advocate norms relies on the powers associated with compelling ideas, on presentation of "good" ideas when the time is ripe, and on the use of persuasive rhetoric to convince potential norm followers. Norm diffusion and socialization are found to be interactive processes involving the norm entrepreneur and the norm followers in a mutual learning process that may, as this study demonstrates, shape and reshape the evolving norm. The analysis illustrates how the evolution of the emergent norm pertaining to conflict prevention is facilitated by the construction of a normative fit with the frame of mind of the norm entrepreneur, the normative convictions of the potential norm followers and the existing normative context. Finally, the study demonstrates the interactiveness of norms and practices by analyzing the preventive UN peacekeeping operation in Macedonia. Although that unique preventive peacekeeping mission has not been replicated, and conflict prevention has clearly not become a regular practice, this study suggests that the mission contributed to spur the process of norm evolution by bridging the gap between idea and practice of conflict prevention.

The normative transfer thesis posits that systematic discrimination, inequality, and repression are indicative of violent norms within states, which extend to the realm of foreign policy. In this article, the authors contend that the pacifying influence of similarity conditions the impact of physical integrity norms at the dyad level. Although mutual norms of domestic nonviolence are more pacifying than mutual disregard thereof, the authors argue that a wide disparity in norms is more aggravating than shared violent norms. This follows because similarity of abusive norms may preclude certain conflicts of interest from originating. The authors test this argument on data from 1981 to 2001, finding that conflict initiation is more likely when states have disparate levels of respect for physical integrity rights. The authors find evidence for a conditional norm transfer, as mutually respectful dyads are least likely to experience conflict; however, they also find evidence of a somewhat weaker peace between abusers.