A Tale of Two Norms

In this piece, Finnemore and Sikkink further the debate that initiated in the previous readings. Where Neo realist theories assume that the anarchy in the political arena, forces states to pursue their self-interests, values and norms are not important. This is much like a generalization of state behavior, which is argued upon by social constructivists, who attach more importance to the social identity of a state. Finnemore and Sikkink identify norms as an important catalyst to state behavior, they define these norms as “a standard of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity”. They define three types of norms; Regulative norms which order and constrain behavior, Constructive norms which create new actors and interests and Evaluative Norms which help define appropriate behavior. The formation of these norms has to be analyzed in order to understand their impact on International Politics. Finnemore and Sikkink identify three stages through which a normative framework is built. Norm emergence is that initial stage where a movement for a norm starts, this may result in a clash between the existing normative framework and the new proposed one. Norm emergence is highly reliant on a Tipping point where a critical mass adapts these norms to give basis to a movement. Norm Cascade is the second stage where these norms are adapted by states, the adaptation of these norms is highly dependent on the specific structures that the state belongs in. The third stage is a mass adaptation of these norms, which the authors describe as Internalization i.e these norms are internalized into the Existing Normative framework. The Social identity of a state is constructed through the formation of these normative frameworks.

                The theory proposed by Finnemore and Sikkink is very crucial to the understanding of International Political Relations and goes quite far in explaining the International Political arena after the World Wars. The Rise of capitalism has resulted in more states adapting a democratic structure and where this has created alliances like the NATO and EU, it has also resulted in conflicts with states that lie on the other end of the spectrum e.g. US and China. However, what Finnemore and Sikkink have proposed is a theory and thus there are instances where this fails to hold or at least fails to explain an alliance or a conflict in my opinion. China and Pakistan for example do not share a normative framework, Chinese norms are rather different than the ones prevailing in Pakistan, yet their Alliance still continues to exist. Whereas on the other hand, India and Pakistan which do share a normative framework, continue to be rivals. What in my understanding explains this alliance and conflict is the adaptation of a rivalry as a norm. India and Pakistan have continued to be rivals since their inception and thus this rivalry has been imbedded in the normative framework such that it over shadows the other more common norms, same is the case of “friendship” with China. The theory proposed by Finnemore and Sikkink is a rather crucial missing piece in the understanding of International Political Relations, however the extent of the depth of the explanation of this theory is yet to be revealed.