Why norms rarely die

Abstract

Significant challenges to core international norms have prompted debate over whether or not norms decay, decline, or die. We argue that claims of norm death are empirically incorrect and theoretically misleading. Norms rarely die, and the processes that happen instead are far more complex. The idea of norm death embodies two misconceptions borne out of methodological incentives in empirical constructivism; that norms are single entities that exist separately from larger structures, and that compliance is the most effective way to measure if a norm is under challenge. We argue that the literature on “norm death” epitomizes the pitfalls of this approach, and as a result neither empirically or theoretically captures what happens when norms are under challenge. Norms are fundamentally resilient and can withstand even high levels of non-compliance. We examine four cases of alleged norm death—the norms against mercenary use, unrestricted submarine warfare, and torture, and the norm requiring declarations of war—and demonstrate that in these cases norms are not disappearing, but are rather subject to processes of obsolescence, replacement, and modification. We further argue that once we recognize that norms are embedded in wider structures, and move away from the notion that compliance indicates norm strength, it is possible to see why norms are generally resilient.

The Unmaking of Special Rights

“…In this book, we argue that systems of special rights for developing countries are increasingly unmade in the wake of global power shifts. By 'unmaking', however, we do not mean that international norms of differentiation disappear, dissolve, or erode entirely (see also Percy and Sandholtz 2022). Rather, the unmaking of special rights refers to our observation that the system of special rights that we used to know is giving way to something new.…”

Robust Governance in Turbulent Times

“…From this perspective, governance becomes more robust to the extent that it integrates multiple and intertwined problems, solutions, actors, and decision-making arenas (Shapiro et al 2006;Olsen 2007). The contemporary constructivist international relations literature, for example, finds that international norms rarely die because they are embedded in wider systemic norm structures (Percy & Sandholtz 2022). Whereas most studies of international norms have studied the lifecycle of single norms, the robustness of norms is conditioned by their embeddedness in ecologies of norms.…”

Regime of torture: Guantánamo Bay’s ongoing detention and prosecutions of the CIA’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation prisoners

“…18 As Percy and Sandholtz state, 'US government actors who sought to narrow the scope of the anti-torture norm failed.' 19 Crucially though, because constructivists were interested in examining contestation over EITs, their inquiries have not extended to the question of how the prisoners are currently treated. Moreover, while cognisant that the issue of accountability is outstanding, they have paid less attention to its repercussions.…”

“…28 For instance, if actors explain their measures by challenging a norm, and those arguments are not significantly contested by others, the norm may become less robust. 29 For this area of norms work, our contribution is not necessarily to show norm erosion, but to reveal how governments violate prohibitions without the concomitant obligation to provide an explanation. No official has acknowledged the existence of a regime of abuse let alone engaged the question of whether it amounts to systematic torture.…”