Tracing and understanding “bad” norm dynamics in counterterrorism: the current debates in IR research

Heller, Regina; Kahl, Martin

doi:10.1080/17539153.2013.836305

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Along these lines, one might ask whether counterterrorism itself is in the process of becoming a 'new norm' (resetting the parameters for 'acceptable' behaviour across national, regional and global sites). If so, our analysis of the effects on intervention practices concur with the view that this would constitute an instance of 'bad norm development' (Heller and Kahl 2013), in so far as elite convergence on such 'new norm' across national, regional and international scales, limit the scope of human and democratic rights of populations vis-à-vis 'state rights' and state security.…”

Section: Concluding Reflectionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Yet, recent scholarship on norm 'downsizing' 3 (Wiener 2018: 152;Liese 2009), the 'dark side of normative argumentation', or the development of 'bad norms' (Heller et al 2012;Heller and Kahl 2013), as well as on the decline of the liberal world order (Ikenberry 2018) and the turn to pragmatic interventionism (Moe and Stepputat 2018) offer diverging perspectives. A key proposition of these approaches is that the post-'9/11' context is marked by normative transformations, and probable erosion of human rights norms, emanating from within what is widely assumed to be the 'liberal core' of norm diffusers (Dunne 2007: 276;Liese 2009).…”

Section: Conflict and Cooperation Under Conditions Of Normative Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From liberal interventionism to stabilisation: A new consensus on norm-downsizing in interventions in Africa

Moe

Geis

2020

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article traces recent changes of the practices and justifications of the use of force in intervention, in the context of African security governance, highlighting how these changes interact with norm transformations at the scale of the global order. In doing so, it conveys how a long-standing pattern of norm contestation between international and African actors over external intervention vs sovereignty, has started to give way to a mutually accepted division of labour. After 9/11, the paradigm of liberal interventionism has been incrementally replaced by the framework of stabilisation, with a re-prioritisation of sovereigntist agendas. This has increased collaboration between international and African actors, specifically prompting the United Nations and the African Union to divide tasks of mandating and enforcement, thereby increasing inter-institutional ‘order’. This consensus, however, far from signifying wider compliance with ‘liberal ordering’ principles, rather indicates the need to revisit central assumptions of the International Relations norm diffusion literature. While the latter emphasises the diffusion of ‘good’ international norms, especially pertaining to human rights and democratisation, the growing consensus on ‘intervention as stabilisation’ instead exposes how post-9/11 justifications of practices that carry the potential to downsize the scope of such norms, are starting to resonate across international, regional and national sites of policy and practice.

show abstract

Section: Concluding Reflectionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Conflict and Cooperation Under Conditions Of Normative Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

From liberal interventionism to stabilisation: A new consensus on norm-downsizing in interventions in Africa

Moe

Geis

2020

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent literature has recognized situations of 'norm regress' (Heller and Kahl, 2013;McKeown, 2009;Panke and Petersohn, 2012), the limitations of NGOs and their often organic relations with the state system (Cooley and Ron, 2002;Dupuy et al, 2015;Prakash and Gugerty, 2010), the similarities between social movement strategies and those of corporate and state actors (Busby and Greenhill, 2015;Sell and Prakash, 2004), and the international activities of illiberal, exclusive, and reactionary SM and civil society actors (Blee, 2002;Bob, 2012;Wiktorowicz and Kaltenthaler, 2016). 5 However, many IR analyses still depart from progressive assumptions regarding SM goals, values, and identities.…”

Section: Traditional Perspectives On Social Movements In Irmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social movements and international relations: a relational framework

Davies

Peña

2019

J Int Relat Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social movements are increasingly recognized as significant features of contemporary world politics, yet to date their treatment in international relations theory has tended to obfuscate the considerable diversity of these social formations, and the variegated interactions they may establish with state actors and different structures of world order. Highlighting the difficulties conventional liberal and critical approaches have in transcending conceptions of movements as moral entities, the article draws from two under-exploited literatures in the study of social movements in international relations, the English School and Social Systems Theory, to specify a wider range of analytical interactions between different categories of social movements and of world political structures. Moreover, by casting social movement phenomena as communications, the article opens international relations to consideration of the increasingly diverse trajectories and second-order effects produced by social movements as they interact with states, intergovernmental institutions, and transnational actors.

show abstract

“…The need to respond to the "progressive" norm bias creates two dichotomies in norm (Bob 2012;Checkel 2013;Heller and Kahl 2013;Bloomfield 2015), there is no consensus on what 'illiberal' means. Nonliberal, or "illiberal" norms are not well-defined and are not often used in norms scholarship in international relations.…”

Section: 2the Good-liberal and The Bad-illiberal Dichotomymentioning

confidence: 99%

We do negotiate with terrorists: navigating liberal and illiberal norms in peace mediation

Federer

2018

Critical Studies on Terrorism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Tracing and understanding “bad” norm dynamics in counterterrorism: the current debates in IR research

Cited by 19 publications

References 73 publications

From liberal interventionism to stabilisation: A new consensus on norm-downsizing in interventions in Africa

From liberal interventionism to stabilisation: A new consensus on norm-downsizing in interventions in Africa

Social movements and international relations: a relational framework

We do negotiate with terrorists: navigating liberal and illiberal norms in peace mediation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About