International Norms and Cycles of Change

Abstract

International lawyers and international relations scholars recognize that international norms change over time. Practices that were once permissible and even “normal” — like slavery, conquest, and wartime plundering — are now prohibited by international rules. Yet though we acknowledge norm change, we are just beginning to understand how and why international rules develop in the ways that they do. This book sketches the primary theoretical perspectives on international norm change, the “legalization” and “transnational activist” approaches, and argues that both are limited by their focus on international rules as outcomes. It then presents the “cycle theory”, in which norm change is continual, a product of the constant interplay among rules, behavior, and disputes. International Norms and Cycles of Change is the natural follow-on to Prohibiting Plunder, testing the cycle theory against ten empirical cases. The cases range from piracy and conquest, to terrorism, slavery, genocide, humanitarian intervention, and the right to democracy. The key finding is that, across long stretches of time and diverse substantive areas, norm change occurs via the cycle dynamic. This book further advances the authors' theoretical approach by arguing that international norms have been shaped by two main currents: sovereignty rules and liberal rules. It includes five cases of sovereignty rules and five of liberal rules in order to reveal the broad cyclic pattern of international change in these two categories of rules.

The Politics of Leverage in International Relations

“…Keck and Sikkink (1998, 39) note such practices in the transnational abolitionist movement against slavery as one of several "historical precursors" to the mobilization of shame in modern-day human rights campaigns. Other scholars look to an earlier period, to the actions of "transnational moral entrepreneurs" in condemning government complicity in piracy during the seventeenth century and the Atlantic slave trade in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (e.g., Andreas and Nadelmann 2006;Nadelmann 1990;Sandholtz and Stiles 2009).…”

Genocide Prevention and Western National Security: The Limitations of Making R2P All About Us

“…The translation of norms into policy involves two closely related processes: norm internalization and policy-making (Reus-Smit, 2004;Sandholtz & Stiles, 2009;Wendt, 1999). Norm internalization is necessary for policies to emerge that reflect norms to which actors have publicly committed themselves in some way to other actors, be it specific domestic constituents, the general public, other states, non-state actors, or international organizations.…”

“…Thus both Goldilocks and non-Goldilocks cases of self-interested compliance and non-compliance respectively seem to ensure that the R2P norm is destined, at least for the foreseeable future, to lack internalization in a way that a constructivist approach suggests would lead to the implementation of the R2P norm regardless of where mass atrocities occur. Even if the R2P norm were to be fully internalized there is no guarantee that norm internalization itself will always produce norm-compliant policies as has been the case, for example, of repeated non-compliance with the widely recognized norms concerning the treatment of refugees (Sandholtz & Stiles, 2009).…”

“…But perhaps the biggest barrier to fulsome R2P compliance is that identified by Sandholtz and Stiles (2009) noted above. Even when, as in the case of the refugee regime, states universally sign on to international treaties that contain strong legal obligations to uphold a norm that they have fully internalized, violations of these laws and norms by states still occur.…”

The future of self-determination and territorial integrity in the Asian Century

“…3 A full analysis of the impact of the norm cannot be done without taking into consideration the parallel norm of territorial integrity. As with selfdetermination, this norm can be traced back to Wilson and the League of Nations, but it was not until after 1945 that it truly gained adherence with American backing (Fazal 2007;Sandholtz and Stiles 2008). The UN Charter states: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.'…”