Transnational Norms and Military Development:

Abstract

This article examines the impact of transnational norms on military development. In so doing, it combines constructivism's study of systemic norms with culturalist work on unit-level norms. I focus on two transnational norms — norms of conventional warfare and norms of civilian supremacy — and show how they shape military development through a case study of post-revolutionary Ireland. I draw on recent work by constructivists to elucidate the context, process and mechanism whereby transnational norms are diffused and empowered in new national contexts — a process called norm transplantation. Norm transplantation is particularly problematic when transnational norms clash with local norms. Drawing on studies of military culture and military innovation, I identify the conditions necessary for norm transplantation to occur in cases of cultural clash. Returning to the Irish case, I show how transnational norms of military professionalism became encoded in Irish Army culture despite the fact that its predecessor, the Irish Republican Army, practised norms of military sovereignty and unconventional warfare.

Defence Policy under the Labour Government: Operational Dynamism and Strategic Inertia

“…Farrell (2005, 459–461) distinguishes between ‘well-established’ and ‘poorly established’ norms (norms that are ‘poorly defined, new or not widely accepted’). When faced with transnational norms that resonate with dominant domestic norms, norm transplantation/grafting will proceed uncontested (Farrell 2001, 81). However, when faced with external challenge, the more established a norm is, the more likely it is that it will be ‘bolstered’ (the allocation of greater resources to the practices dictated by the norm at risk in order to prevent its failure) rather than ‘stretched’ (expanding the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable) (Farrell 2005, 459–461).…”

“…This model has taken the form of a joint, network-enabled military endowed with the ‘balance’ allowing it to participate in operations across the full spectrum of intensity. The article finds that defence reform at the tactical and operational levels 2 has been dynamic and guided by the dictates of military ‘best practice’, rather than the path dependency, organisational culture or transnational norms of conventional warfare (Farrell 2001 and 2005). This finding contrasts markedly with the arguments of Paul Cornish and Andrew Dorman (2009a, 261) who posit that British defence policy, planning and analysis ‘has reached a state of organisational, bureaucratic and intellectual decay’.…”

Bono Made Jesse Helms Cry: Jubilee 2000, Debt Relief, and Moral Action in International Politics

“…Typically, these are situations where international norms face opposing domestic norms. Scholars assessing those cases find international norms succeed when powerful states coerce or socialize weaker ones to accept them (Ikenberry and Kupchan 1990; Farrell 2001). Another view suggests international norms may gain traction after foreign pressure and crises delegitimate domestic norms and create space for actors to claim the new ideas serve the national interest (Cortell and Davis 2005).…”

Cultural foundations of military diffusion

“…Farrell emphasises the role of norm entrepreneurs and personnel changes. 21 Avant attributes reform to dominant political coalitions that comprise divergent interests. 22 Variation in diffusion has also been attributed to differences in domestic structures, which affect access to policymakers and the ease of building winning coalitions for reform.…”