Conceptualizing and assessing norm strength in International Relations

Abstract

What constitutes a strong or a weak norm? Scholars often refer to strong or weak, or strengthening or weakening norms, yet there are widespread inconsistencies in terminology and no agreed-upon measures. This has hindered the accumulation of knowledge and made it difficult to test competing hypotheses about norm development and contestation. To address these conceptual problems and their analytical implications, this article conceptualizes norm strength as the extent of collective expectations related to a principled idea and proposes two indicators to assess a norm’s strength: the level of international concordance with a principled idea, and the degree of international institutionalization of a principled idea. The article illustrates the applicability and utility of the proposed conceptualization by evaluating the strengths of two transitional justice norms: the norm of legal accountability and the norm of truth-seeking. In so doing, the article resolves empirical disputes over the origins and status of these norms. In particular, the analysis reveals that while legal accountability became a norm in the early 1990s and is today a strong norm, truth-seeking emerged later and remains a weak norm. More generally, the proposed framework should advance existing debates about norm contestation, localization, violation, and erosion.

Role of Process Legality in Norm Contestation: Rise and Fall of Human Protection

“…First limited to protecting kin living in other states, then evolving into "saving strangers" (Wheeler, 2000) in the late 20th century, the norm acquired a higher profile, especially after the Cold War. Despite being essentially different concepts, humanitarian intervention and R2P pillar III (the international community's responsibility to protect by using force when a state is manifestly failing to protect its population) are variations that have developed upon the same "principled idea" (Hirsch & Dixon, 2021) of human protection alternatively referred to in the literature as "humanitarianism" (Hoffman & Weiss, 2018), "norms of protection" (Francis et al, 2012), or "human protection norm cluster" (Gallagher et al, 2022). Situating humanitarian intervention and R2P pillar III within the broader umbrella of the norm of human protection allows us to bring the norm's puzzling trajectory into sharper focus.…”

Historical Acknowledgment as an Early Conflict Negotiation Strategy: A Feasibility Study of Israel/Palestine

“…A final aspect of the signaling proposition developed here is that the current international normative environment makes the positive effects of incorporating historical acknowledgment into peace negotiations more likely. Negotiations and the related cost–benefit calculations are set in an international normative environment—that is, within existing human rights norms and strengthening international norms of truth‐ and justice‐seeking (Ben‐Josef Hirsch and Dixon 2020), which supports the incorporation of human rights concerns in peace negotiations (ICHR 2006) and the use of historical acknowledgment strategies. Over the last two decades, there has been a nascent global historical justice regime, which builds on a human rights discourse that legitimizes demands for acknowledgment (Berger 2012).…”

Chasing gender equality norms: the robustness of sexual and reproductive health and rights

“…We divide the study of SRHR robustness into two periods, 13 which are determined by US presidential terms and the release dates of EU Gender Action Plans. The latter specify the areas in which the SRHR norm is to be disseminated and identify several UN fora in which SRHR should be expanded.…”