Resiliency dynamics of norm clusters: Norm contestation and international cooperation

Abstract

This study examines the effects of contestation on individual norms that are embedded in larger norm clusters. We define norm clusters as collections of aligned, but distinct norms or principles at the center of a regime. Norm clusters include multiple norms that can be insulated from contestatory challenges by degrees of cohesion, institutionalisation, and legalisation. While some constructivists argue that the most important dynamic to study is ‘robustness’ of individual norms, we contend that ‘resiliency’ of norm clusters offers a richer assessment of prospects for international cooperation and long-term impact on state behaviours. Thus, this study distinguishes conceptually between different structural layers that can generate various effects in conjunction with norm contestation. We add a third, or intervening layer of explanation with norm clusters, between the intersection of norms (lowest layer) and normative structures (broadest layer). To explore this argument, comparative case studies examine the resiliency of two prohibitionary norms – the nuclear disarmament norm within the non-proliferation regime and the norm banning assassination of foreign adversaries, which is not embedded in a regime structure. While the robustness of individual norms may be challenged, our results suggest a role for resilient structures in promoting overall longevity of norm clusters.

The Rise and Fall of the Aid Effectiveness Norm

“…Alternatively, the Declaration could be described as a 'cluster' of five distinct norms(Lantis and Wunderlich 2018). Doing so, however, has no impact on my argument.…”

Peace Mediators as Norm Entrepreneurs: The EU's Norm Diffusion Strategy in Montenegro's Referendum on Independence

“…The growing body of literature on norm contestation infers that contestation may relapse into destructive conflict once one or more actors shift their non‐compliance into a desire to unilaterally impose an alternative norm (Lantis and Wunderlich 2018; Sandholtz 2019). In cases like these, an actor’s objective in introducing a new norm is to prescribe behavior that is more in line with the expectations a challenger has about proper implementation.…”

Governing effectively in a complex world? How metagovernance norms and changing repertoires of knowledge shape international organisation discourses on institutional order in global health

“…In recent decades, critical currents of IR norms research have sought to move beyond via media constructivist conceptualizations of norms as relatively stable standards of appropriate behaviour (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998;Katzenstein 1996) towards anti-essentialist, context-sensitive understandings of norms as contingent, contested and interrelated (Bj€ orkdahl 2002; Engelkamp et al 2012; Krook and True 2012;Renner 2013;Wiener and Puetter 2009;Zehfuß 2002). This development has gone along with a shift in research focus, away from questions of norm diffusion, socialization and compliance to an emphasis on norm dynamism, enactment, meaning-struggle and translation of norms across social contexts (Acharya 2004;Almagro 2018;Deitelhoff and Zimmermann 2013;Lantis and Wunderlich 2018;Wiener 2009;Zwingel 2012). Building on this interest in the context-specificity and instability of meaning, we understand norms from a relational, discursive perspective as historically contingent beliefs that are (re)produced through enactment in discursive practices and endowed with meaning through their relations with other discursive entities.…”