Session 18: 'Norm - A Standard for Judging, Not Subject to Judgment'

In the last session we discussed another school of thought in International Relations: Constructivism. The reading ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’ by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink builds upon the same argument and further elaborates the key elements of constructivism. They have talked about the importance of norms in International Politics and the role they play in shaping up politics. But before we proceed to the main argument, the main questions we have to ask ourselves in the constructivist sense are ‘What are norms?’, ‘Where do they emerge from?’ and ‘How do they evolve over time?’

Norms have been always been a focal point in the study of international politics for a long period time but the sweeping ‘ideational turn’ in the 1980s and 1990s brought them back as a main concern in the field. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato were always concerned with norms, how they affect the behavior of man and eventually the political system we live in. Nevertheless, many prominent theories such as neorealism fail to take into account the effect of norms on man and states. Neorealism is based on the assumption that there is an anarchic international system with no central authority and states are in a constant struggle to maximize their power. In their argument, shared values are not as important. Constructivism, on the other hand, emphasizes greatly on the social values and states that interests pursued by states are based on norms and values, which define their social identity. In this context, norms do matter.

The authors have stressed the importance of ‘strategic social construction’ in which actors strategize rationally to reassess preferences, identities or social context. They claim that norms lead to the creation of social structure. They are not only standards of appropriateness but also bring stability in the international politics. Another interesting point that the authors have discussed is that norms cannot be separated from rationality and that states comply with norms to safeguard their identity in the international arena.

Although the revival of the concept of norms was widely welcomed by most of the people, it also faced some criticism. Addie Erwin writes, “The authors use the terms ‘acceptance’, ‘following’ and ‘compliance’ too freely. Not enough emphasis is placed on whether or not states follow-through with the action necessary to implement the change an emerging norm is seeking. It is true that pressure to conform may lead to a state sign on to an international treaty, but that does not connate complete ‘acceptance, a ‘following’ of or ‘compliance’ to what the treaty embodies.”

All in all, our social identities are normative frameworks consisting of a variety of values and beliefs that have their roots in the surroundings we live in. Despite some loopholes in their arguments, the authors have correctly stressed the significance of norms in dealing with problems in the international system.

Link: http://www.academia.edu/7527061/International_Norm_Dynamics_and_Political_Change_Critique_of_Finnmore_and_Sikkink​