International Norm Dynamics and Political Change is a wonderful piece by Martha Finnemore which was written back in 1998. I do agree with Finnemore that the method of theorizing dependent upon norms will shake "up the IR research agenda" (Finnemore 915) and open "up exciting new avenues for inquiry" (Finnemore 915).
For Finnemore, norms play a role in regularizing behavior of political actors. They help in limiting the range of choice and constraining actions. She gives credit to macro-level theorizing for highlighting the role that norms play for bringing social order and stability. Norms have played an important role in forcing people, "with principled commitments" (Finnemore 916), to bring "significant changes in the political landscape" (Finnemore 916). The positive and important changes that she has highlighted are: slavery as a legal institution of property rights was abolished everywhere, women suffrage was finally recognized and they were granted political participation in almost all states, and last but not the least wars have been less horrible due to the "efforts by humanitarians to curb the most awful weapons and practices" (Finnemore 916). This third change that Finnemore has pointed out seems problematic for me and I have reservations about the brutality of war lessening in degree these days. I don't think that is the case. The example of Gaza is right at front of us. The weapons that the Israelis used to bombard Gaza and kill thousands of children were horrific. Such as this one which can fire one missile after another without reloading.
For Finnemore, norms play a role in regularizing behavior of political actors. They help in limiting the range of choice and constraining actions. She gives credit to macro-level theorizing for highlighting the role that norms play for bringing social order and stability. Norms have played an important role in forcing people, "with principled commitments" (Finnemore 916), to bring "significant changes in the political landscape" (Finnemore 916). The positive and important changes that she has highlighted are: slavery as a legal institution of property rights was abolished everywhere, women suffrage was finally recognized and they were granted political participation in almost all states, and last but not the least wars have been less horrible due to the "efforts by humanitarians to curb the most awful weapons and practices" (Finnemore 916). This third change that Finnemore has pointed out seems problematic for me and I have reservations about the brutality of war lessening in degree these days. I don't think that is the case. The example of Gaza is right at front of us. The weapons that the Israelis used to bombard Gaza and kill thousands of children were horrific. Such as this one which can fire one missile after another without reloading.
I am not sure if "humanitarians have curbed the most awful weapons and practices". Were there any norms or ethics that deterred Israelis from killing thousands of helpless children with their tanks, airstrikes and missiles like these? I do acknowledge that women suffrage is now widely seen and the institution of slavery has been abolished, thanks to norms for restricting certain unlawful actions of political actors but norms have failed in making wars less horrible.
I agree with you that norms are not able to describe many events and that is the reason why we have to look at other perspectives, such as the realistic perspective.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. However, different norms play a role in different ways. For example, Israel operates under a different normative framework than other states. It does not follow the norms of warfare as articulated in the Geneva Conventions, but believes its security - which is itself a normative belief - trumps all.
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you always focus on the crimes Israel is committing? No doubt Israel is responsible for mass atrocities, but so too is Pakistan. For example, see the Pakistani militaries actions in FATA and Baluchistan.