Session 18- Its Normal

Finnemore and Sikkink in their paper "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change" highlight the need for studying the field of IR by looking at norm values and incorporating them in the mode of study. The authors argue that for most of the part the field was studied through a microeconomic theory lens, but then hints at a reevaluation of the normative and idealistic modes taking place by the recent scholarship. Norms are defined as ideals held by the people and it is argued that these are potential agents for bringing about change in the structure. A proposed life cycle of norms is also given; norm emergence, norm cascade, and internalization. Wherein a norm first appear through entrepreneurial agents whom advocate for their cause. It is then enforced through institutions and eventually internalized if it gains enough momentum and prominence.

The paper attempts to reconcile rationalism and constructivism. The rationalist focuses on 'what is' and not 'what ought to be', because in his view that is irrelevant with the actual state of affairs. The paper beautifully synthesizes the argument by arguing that people's ideals or 'what ought to be' gives birth to 'what is'. This the paper supports by the current empirical studies and the evidence it offers in favor of the argument.

The paper presents a logical argument in support of the constructivist approach. By showing how ideals affect the social and political structure the authors successfully reveal the need for the emphasis and incorporation that the study of norms deserves in the field of International Relations.