Abstract:In their attempt to explain change in international politics, an emerging group of scholars in the 1990s emphasised the importance of 'non-material factors'. Questions about the creation, evolution, and impact of norms obtained a prominent place in their theorising. Cast in a constructivist frame, this norm research promised to be a viable alternative to established approaches and while it has indeed broadened the perspective on state behaviour in International Relations, we argue that at the same time it enta… Show more
“…This approach to gender equality ideas has been generated by feminist constructivist International Relations (IR) scholarship (Krook and True ). Rather than thinking of norms as embodying a stable content, we assume that they are constantly being re‐negotiated and, thus, remain principally unfinished (Hofferberth and Weber ; Zwingel ; Liebowitz ). In the remainder of this section, we address two dimensions—actor‐ and context‐dependency—that contribute to creating the multiplicity of gender equality.…”
Section: Measuring Vs Allowing For Complexity: What's At Stake?mentioning
Global measurements have become foundational for understanding gender equality as well as for directing resources and policy development to address gendered inequalities. We argue in this article that attempts to quantify gender (in)equality globally have limited potential for successfully challenging gender hierarchies if compared to internationally agreed upon women's rights standards. To make this argument, we start by contrasting the general assumptions underlying the measurement approach with feminist scholarship on gender equality. Second, we examine nine key measures of global gender equality—the majority of which are produced by influential international organizations—and show that their focus on “countability” perpetuates a narrow and misleading understanding of gender (in)equality. Third, we present the CEDAW Convention and associated review process as an alternative to the measurement approach. The comparison highlights the need for evaluative tools that attend to the complexity and fluidity of gender norms and focus on context‐specific agency to confront gender hierarchies.
“…This approach to gender equality ideas has been generated by feminist constructivist International Relations (IR) scholarship (Krook and True ). Rather than thinking of norms as embodying a stable content, we assume that they are constantly being re‐negotiated and, thus, remain principally unfinished (Hofferberth and Weber ; Zwingel ; Liebowitz ). In the remainder of this section, we address two dimensions—actor‐ and context‐dependency—that contribute to creating the multiplicity of gender equality.…”
Section: Measuring Vs Allowing For Complexity: What's At Stake?mentioning
Global measurements have become foundational for understanding gender equality as well as for directing resources and policy development to address gendered inequalities. We argue in this article that attempts to quantify gender (in)equality globally have limited potential for successfully challenging gender hierarchies if compared to internationally agreed upon women's rights standards. To make this argument, we start by contrasting the general assumptions underlying the measurement approach with feminist scholarship on gender equality. Second, we examine nine key measures of global gender equality—the majority of which are produced by influential international organizations—and show that their focus on “countability” perpetuates a narrow and misleading understanding of gender (in)equality. Third, we present the CEDAW Convention and associated review process as an alternative to the measurement approach. The comparison highlights the need for evaluative tools that attend to the complexity and fluidity of gender norms and focus on context‐specific agency to confront gender hierarchies.
“…11 Others have sought to open up the 'black box' of the corporation by elaborating on the socially constructed nature of corporate identity and interests, viewing corporations as socially situated actors responding to the norms and other institutions in which they are embedded while simultaneously engaging in creative acts to interpret and fit norms to their practices. 12 Whether applying, adapting or critiquing the constructivist literature, these authors are all indebted to two seminal models of norm diffusion: Finnemore and Sikkink's 'norm life cycle' 13 and Risse and Sikkink's 'spiral model.' 14 Both models describe various steps in the development and spread of norms from their creation to full uptake and adherence by the relevant actors, in this case PSCs.…”
Section: The Promise Of a Management System Approach To The Businmentioning
The key purpose of this article is to critically assess the extent to which auditing and certification to quality assurance and risk management standards containing human rights-related requirements are an adequate and effective means of ensuring that private security companies internalize their responsibility to respect human rights. Based on participant observation, interviews and publicly accessible data, it concludes that in the absence of the adoption of specific assurance measures in the certification and oversight processes, the constructivist ‘tipping point’ resulting in the internalization of the corporate responsibility to respect may not be attained when there is inadequate norm compliance or, worse yet, norm regression.
“…Medrano also writes convincingly about the cultural embeddedness of a sense of difference from "the Continent." In addition, it avoids any potential problems with analysing change as highlighted by Hofferberth and Weber ( 2015 ). provides another useful example of how the thinking of the Copenhagen School can be brought to bear on the issue of European integration.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.