Session 18 - Is it really a norm

Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink in “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change" look at how norms spread in the world and how they change states and systems.

What grabbed my attention in the article was when the authors were talking about how international norms began as domestic norms and became international norms. The authors in order to prove their point talk about how women's rights began as a demand for domestic change in a few countries and slowly grew to an international norm. Furthermore later they talk about how norms spread through socialization, international institutions and treatise.

Now why this point grabbed my attention was because this is something that was discussed at length in another course (Public International Law). In this we argues upon this very point. We talked about how on one hand international norms do form because a few countries (usually the developed countries such as the United States or the western powers) start developing some new laws which becomes a domestic norm. As this norm spreads through a couple of countries, it starts gaining pace and becomes an international norm when countries are told to obey that norm by some international body or international treaty. However on the other hand, do all countries actually do obey the international norm if it is not a domestic norm?

To understand the above point we can look at a real life example. We can look at women's right. It has become a norm/law in western countries that women have certain rights and that women are equal to men. From there this norm became an international law when several treatise were signed declaring this norm an international norm. One such treaty is the 'Convention to Eliminate all forms of Discrimination against Women' (CEDAW). However the irony comes into place when we realize that the signatories to this treaty include countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who although they have signed the treaty, still do not consider it a norm to treat women equally. Another example is child labor where several Asian countries have signed treatise banning child labor yet there is still rampant child labor in their country.

This all is because we need to realize that although certain countries may sign treatise so signify they accept a certain international norm, this does not mean that norm becomes a domestic one or that that country will enforce that international norm on its citizens - the treaty was simply signed to gain favors in the international world (in other word Politics).

So looking at this point made me vary of believing what the authors were trying to say even though i agree with their views on several topics.