By definition, norm prompt the justification of an action. If there is a growing concern over a certain state policy an action, then there is an emerging norm. Authors tried to explain it in simple sentence that if American government has to explain why there are land mines in South Korea means there is a growing concern, a norm, about land mines. If there is not, then there is no need to bring about the issue.
But main question remains how norms effect state behavior or does they really prompt a state to change the approach she takes. Authors emphasizes on the idea of norms as a stabilizing agents rather then being a catalyst for a change. Authors presents the difficulty facing by Constructivists as well as realist about how to explain change. Norm influence is a three step process. First, emergence of norm, second a norm cascade and third norm internationalization. For the sake of argument, one can say that America is less inclined to go to war then in past because of a growing norm against war and for an instance, growing resistance against war is due to economic pressures population has to bear. First step includes norm entrepreneurs to convinces state leaders to embrace this norm which in this case is that American policy makers opt for negotiations over offensive stance and second process involves that American leadership attempt to socialize other states to follow that norm, thus making a cascade of norms. Like for example, Turkey and Iran have recently agreed to solve Yemen crisis through political negotiations. Thus we have seen how a norm on the domestic level influences political decisions on international level. Thirdly, the internationalization of that norm.
Here lies the answer I think about stability a norm bring but its insufficiency to bring about the change. Up to the second step, norm does an admirable job of replacing war with negotiations in the model I presented and bringing about some stability in international system but problem lies when it comes to the third step. International system being so volatile in a sense that there is a possibility of anything to happen. It cannot be taken as a law that there should always be negotiations to solve an issue. Contrary to this, authors gave the example of Women suffrage to explain influence of norm but it is a completely different matters to be taken in different contexts. There, the social change that a women should vote brings no apparent unintended consequences and was beneficial for states to opt so but in case of international relations, any such law can be a tricky case.
I really like how you have given examples of the current situation (Yemen) to support your argument and explain the three step process. However, don't you think that problems are faced on every step instead of just the third step as stated in your blog?
ReplyDeleteIn fact I think the first step (emergence of norm) is faced by most criticism because change isn't easily accepted by the people. What do you think?
I am talking about how the acceptability and naturalization of some norms in the context of international relations is different from the others. Like, author gave example of suffrage movement and I compare the naturalization and global acceptance of women rights to vote (third step) to the preference of negotiations over war and conclude how the implementation of both as a natural law is different. I am not arguing about which step receive more resistance and of course if that would be the question, emergence of a norm is always the difficult part.
DeleteI agree with Mishal and I appreciate your clarification. I think just getting to the first step is incredibly difficult and perhaps each level has its own respective difficulties.
DeleteI agree with Mishal - the emergence of a norm is probably the most difficult part. The materialization of an idea that seeks to challenge existing social and political structures, may be constrained by forces within the community which work actively to reject the change that is being proposed. In addition, norm entrepreneurs and international organizations may also face hurdles in persuading states into accepting norms which may be in contrast to the states' interests.
ReplyDeleteExactly, that is my point here is how international organizations may face hurdles in persuading other states to accept certain norms. Like, women right to vote is a law in almost every country but preference of negotiations over war most likely never reach the state of becoming a law. And of course, if topic is which step is most difficult one then I think we are on the same page here.
ReplyDeleteGood post, though again you need to work on grammar and syntax.
ReplyDeleteTo follow up on Sahar's point and your response, think about how the norms on war HAVE changed so far. The norms of war make aggressive wars illegal vis-à-vis the UN Charter. Furthermore, there exists rules for war, as laid out in the Geneva conventions. Will that mean that interstate wars will come to an end? Not necessarily, but perhaps we are substantively moving in the direction. Norm emergence against war already exists, now it is just about getting it internalized at the international level.