Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality

Abstract

The diffusion of international norms and their effects on policy and political behaviour are central research questions in international relations. Informed by constructivism, prevailing models are marked by a crucial tension between a static view of norm content and a dynamic picture of norm adoption and implementation. Observing that norms continue to evolve after they emerge, we argue that a discursive approach offers a more promising way forward for theorizing and analysing the life cycles of international norms. We present a view of norms as processes, calling attention to both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ sources of dynamism. We illustrate this theory by tracing and comparing the life cycles of two global equality norms: gender-balanced decision-making and gender mainstreaming. We find that these norms emerged from two distinct policy realms, and after briefly converging in the mid-1990s, have since developed largely separately from, and often in tension with, one another.

An Interdisciplinary Model for Mapping the Normative Diffusion of Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing

“…Parks 2015) and indeed with our model. Rather than weaken the study of norms, Krook and True (2012) argue that attention to this dynamism provides an explanation for the fact that the most easily adapted norms, quick to diffuse, are inefficient.…”

“…In this vein, Krook and True (2012) highlight the tension between 'a relatively static depiction of norm content, juxtaposed against a comparatively dynamic account of norm creation' (104).…”

Emerging Governance Architectures in Global Health: Do Metagovernance Norms Explain Inter-Organisational Convergence?

“…Early norms research predominantly pursued the quest to identify norms in international politics, to explain why they emerge and under what conditions they diffuse (actors; opportunity structures; hegemonic actors; issue characteristics) (Colonomos, 2001;Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998;Keck & Sikkink, 1998;Nadelmann, 1990;Price, 1998;Risse, 2002). Newer research on norms has shifted emphasis to observing and explaining what happens to international norms in the long run, how they transform, translate into different contexts and also how their meaning and effects are contingent on (re)production in practice (Grillot, 2011;Krook & True, 2012;Wiener, 2009;Zwingel, 2012). The idea that norms structure social life while at the same time being contested and loaded with controversies is a central tenet of contemporary critical norms research.…”

Is a European Practice of Mass Atrocity Prevention Emerging? The European Union, Responsibility to Protect and the 2011 Libya Crisis

“…In the case of human rights, it has been argued: "different types of norm translation can be distinguished, most importantly reshaping or embedding" (Zimmermann, 2014, p. 2). 4 Krook and True (2012) argue that it is especially vague norms that enable "their content to be filled in many ways and thereby to be appropriated for a variety of different purposes" (Krook & True, 2012, p.104). In reality, a norm's ambiguity is all but an objective evaluation and rather the result of negotiated meanings.…”