Constructivism in the Study of International Human Rights Norms: From Genesis, Acceptance and Compliance to Violation, Contestation and Erosion

Questions of evolution, diffusion, and socialization of international norms have been the primary focus of constructivist norm research for almost two decades now. The rich analytical and empirical material gathered during this time has been undergoing a constant process of re-evaluation and improvement thanks to the introduction of new theoretical concepts and the expansion of analytical and country scope. Currently, norm research has developed into an independent research program within Western international relations theory. This article, thus, aims at providing a brief summary of Western constructivist approaches to the dynamics of international norms’ diffusion, socialization and internalization, and at their critical assessment with regard to the most recent studies. Despite the fact that classical constructivist models (the “norm life cycle” model, the ‘spiral model’ of human rights’ change and the internalization/socialization model) have determined the development of future research for years to come, they are still not free from certain limitations and drawbacks. These include the rather narrow interpretation of “norms”, as well as the linearity and even implicit determinism of classical models, which have traditionally treated norm evolution as a teleological process of promoting “good” norms, and conceived of socialization as a topdown process of instilling standards of appropriate behavior on the part of norm-promoters without any regard for the cultural and historical specificity of norm-takers. Taking into account the contributions from the most recent empirical studies and the newest conceptual approaches, one can define three central challenges currently facing constructivist norm development and diffusion models. First of all, they include the “decoupling” of human rights rhetoric and actual political behavior of states; second, the over-simplification of the “acceptance-rejection” dichotomy which cannot fully capture the dynamics of national and local reactions towards external norms; and finally, the problem of re-definition and contestation and the associated regress of already established international norms. Despite the existence of multiple unresolved issues, the epistemological openness of constructivist norm research has allowed them to make a number of rather successful attempts at synthesizing rationalist and constructivist approaches and, thus, determined the intensive process of critical reflection and creation of updated or new analytical models – a process which will surely be continued in the future.

1. Acharya A. (2004). How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. International Organization. Vol. 58(2): 239–275.

2. Acharya A. (2009). Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 200 p.

3. Acharya A. (2011). Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders: Sovereignty, Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 55: 95–123.

4. Badescu C.G., Weiss T.G. (2010). Misrepresenting R2P and Advancing Norms: An Alternative Spiral? International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 11(4): 354-374.

5. Benhabib S. (2009). Claiming Rights across Borders: International Human Rights and Democratic Sovereignty. American Political Science Review. Vol. 103(4): 691–704.

6. Bjrkdahl A. (2002). Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 15 (1): 9-23.

7. Brzel T., Risse T. (2002). Die Wirkung internationaler Institutionen. Von der Normanerkennung zur Normeinhaltung. In: Markus Jachtenfusch, Michele Knodt: Regieren in internationalen Institutionen. Opladen: 141-181.

8. Capie D. (2008). Localization as Resistance: The Contested Diffusion of Small Arms Norms in Southeast Asia. Security Dialogue. Vol. 39 (6): 637–658.

9. Checkel J.T. (1999). Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 43: 83-114.

10. Checkel J.T. (2005). International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework. International Organization. Vol. 59 (04): 801-826.

11. Checkel J.T. (2014). Mechanisms, Process and the Study of International Institutions. In: Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel. Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge University Press: 74-97.

12. Dai X. (2013). The “Compliance Gap” and the Efficacy of Human Rights Institutions. In: Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (Eds.) The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press: 85–102.

13. Deitelhoff N. (2006). berzeugung in der Politik. Grundz ge einer Diskurstheorie internationalen Regierens. Suhrkamp Verlag. 347 p.

14. Deitelhoff N., M ller H. (2005). Theoretical Paradise – Empirically Lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies. Vol. 31(1): 167-179.

15. Deitelhoff N., Zimmermann L. (2013). Aus dem Herzen der Finsternis: Kritisches Lesen und wirkliches Zuh ren der konstruktivistischen Normenforschung. Eine Replik auf Stephan Engelkamp, Katharina Glaab und Judith Renner. Zeitschrift f r Internationale Beziehungen. Vol. 20 (1): 61–74.

16. Deitelhoff N., Zimmermann L. (2013). Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Validity of International Norms. PRIF Working Papers. No. 18. Franfkurt a.M.: Hessische Stiftung f r Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. 17 p.

17. DiMaggio P., Powell W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: International Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. Vol.48(2): 147-160.

18. Elster J. (1999). Alchemies of the Mind. Cambridge University Press. 450 p.

19. Engelkamp S., Glaab K., Renner, J. (2012). In der Sprechstunde. Wie (kritische) Normenforschung ihre Stimme wiederfinden kann. Zeitschrift f r Internationale Beziehungen. Vol. 19 (2): 101-128.

20. Engelkamp S., Glaab K., Renner, J. (2013). Ein Schritt vor, zwei Schritte zur ck? Eine Replik auf Nicole Deitelhoff und Lisbeth Zimmermann. Zeitschrift f r Internationale Beziehungen. Vol. 20 (2): 105–119.

21. Epstein С. (2012). Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization? International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 13 (2): 135–145.

22. Festinger L., Carlsmith J. (1959). Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 58: 203-210.

23. Finnemore M. Sikkink K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization. Vol. 52 (4): 887–917.

24. Flockhart T. (2006). “Complex Socialization”: A Framework for the Study of State Socialization. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12 (1): 89–118.

25. Florini A. (1996). The Evolution of International Norms. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 40 (3): 363-389.

26. Goodman R., Jinks D. (2004). How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. Duke Law Journal. Vol. 54 (3): 621-704.

27. Goodman R., Jinks D. (2008). Incomplete Internalization and Compliance with Human Rights Law. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 19 (4): 725-748.

28. Goodman R., Jinks D. (2013). Social Mechanisms to Promote International Human Rights: Complementary or Contradictory? In: Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (Eds.) The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press: 102-122.

29. Gromoglasova E. (2010). Kontseptsiya evropeizatsii v zarubezhnoy politologii [The Concept of Europeization in Foreign Political Science Literature]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. No. 4: 27-43.

30. Hafner-Burton E. M., Tsutsui, K., Meyer, J. W. (2008). International Human Rights Law and the Politics of Legitimation: Repressive States and Human Rights Treaties. International Sociology. Vol. 23 (1):

31. –141.

32. Hafner-Burton E.M., Ron, J. (2009). Seeing Double: Human Rights Impact through Qualitative and Quantitative Eyes. World Politics. Vol. 61 (2): 360–401.

33. Heller R., Kahl M., Pisoiu D. (2012). The 'Dark' Side of Normative Argumentation - The Case of Counterterrorism Policy. Global Constitutionalism. Vol. 1 (2): 278–312.

34. Jetschke A., Liese A. (2013). The Power of Human Rights a Decade After: From Euphoria to Contestation. In: Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (Eds.) The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press: 26-42.

35. Katzenstein P. (1996). The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. 562 p.

36. Keck M.E., Sikkink K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaka: Cornell University Press. 240 p.

37. Keskitalo K., Sundstrom K., Tysyachnyuk M., Johansson J. (2010). Institutsionalizatsiya meshdunarodnykh norm v lokalnostyakh: razlichiya v primenenii lesnoy sertifikatsii v Shvetsii, Finlyandii i na Severo-Vostoke Rossiyskou Federatsii [Institutionalization of international norms in localities: differences in forest certification in Sweden, Finland and in Russia’s North-Western]. Zhurnal Sotsiologii i sotsialnoy antripologii. Vol. 13 (5): 83-106.

38. Krahman E. (2013). The United States, PMSCs and the State Monopoly on Violence: Leading the Way Towards Norm Change. Security Dialogue. Vol. 44 (1): 53-71.

39. Krasner S.D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press. 280 p.

40. Krebs R.R., Jackson P.T. (2007). Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 13 (1): 35-66.

41. Langbein J., B rzel T. (2013). Introduction: Explaining Policy Change in the European Union's Eastern Neighborhood. Europe-Asia Studies. Vol. 65 (4): 571–580.

42. Latkina V. (2013). Fenomen evropeizatsii v zapadnoyereopeyskikh issledovaniyakh [The Europeization Phenomenon in West-European Research]. Mezhdurarodnyie Protsessy. Vol. 11 (1): 49-62.

43. Levitt P., Merry S. (2009). Vernacularization on the Ground: Local Uses of Global Women's Rights in Peru, China, India and the United States. Global Networks. Vol. 9 (4): 441–461.

44. Liese A. (2006). Staaten am Pranger. Zur Wirkung internationaler Regime auf die innerstaatliche Menschenrechtspolitik. Wiesbaden. 309 p.

45. Liese A. (2009). Exceptional Necessity: How Liberal Democracies Contest the Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment when Countering Terrorism. Journal of International Law and International Relations. Vol. 5 (1): 17-47.

46. March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1998). The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization. Vol. 52 (4): 946-969.

47. McKeown R. (2009). Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm. International Relations. Vol. 23 (1): 5-25.

48. Merry S. (2006). Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle. American Anthropologist. Vol. 108 (1): 38–51.

49. Meyer J.W., Boli J., Thomas G.M., Ramirez F. (1997). World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103(1): 144-181.

50. Meyer J.W., Rowan B. (1997). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 83 (2): 340-363.

51. Morgenthau H.J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Fifth Edition, Revised. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. 650 p.

52. Morozov V. (2013). (Ed.) Decentring the West. The Idea of Democracy and the Struggle for Hegemony. Ashgate. 224 p.

53. M ller H., Wunderlich C. (2013). (Eds.) Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control. Interests, Conflicts, and Justice. University of Georgia Press (Studies in security and international affairs). 406 p.

54. Noutcheva G. (2009). Fake, Partial and Imposed Compliance: the Limits of the EU’s Normative Power in the Western Balkans. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 16 (7): 1065-1084.

55. Panke D., Petersohn U. (2012). Why International Norm Disappear Sometimes. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 18 (4): 719-742.

56. Payne R. (2001). Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction. European Journal of International Relations. Vol.7 (1): 37-61.

57. Price R.M. (1997). The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Cornell University Press. 233 p.

58. Prozorov S. (2006). Understanding Conflict Between Russia and the EU. The Limits of Integration. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan. 224 p.

59. Risse T. (2000). “Let’s Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization. Vol. 54 (1): 1-39.

60. Risse T., Ropp S.C. (2013). Introduction and Overview. In: Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (Eds.) The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press: 3–25.

61. Risse T., Ropp S.C., Sikkink K. (2013). (Eds.) The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press. 372 p.

62. Risse T., Sikkink K., Ropp S.C. (1999). (Eds.) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge University Press.

63. Risse-Kappen T., Jetschke A., Schmitz H-P. (2002). Die Macht der Menschenrechte. Internationale Normen, kommunikatives Handeln und politischer Wandel in den L ndern des S dens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

64. Rosert E., Schirmbeck S. (2007). Zur Erosion internationaler Normen. Folterverbot und nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion. Zeitschrift f r Internationale Beziehungen. Vol. 14 (2): 253-288.

65. Sandholtz W., Stiles K.W. (2009). International Norms and Cycles of Change. Oxford University Press.

66. Schimmelfennig F. (2003). The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe. Rules and Rhetoric. Cambridge University Press. 323 p.

67. Shor E. (2008). Conflict, Terrorism and the Socialization of Human Rights Norms: The Spiral Model Revisited. Social Problems. Vol. 55 (1): 117-138.

68. Sikkink K. (2013). The United States and Torture: Does the Spiral Model Work? In: Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, Kathryn Sikkink (Eds.) The Persistent Power of Human Rights. From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge University Press: 145-163.

69. Sil R., Katzenstein P.J. (2010). Beyond Paradigms. Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

70. Terhalle M. (2011). Reciprocal Socialization: Rising Powers and the West. International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 12 (4): 341–361.

71. Ulbert C. (2012). Vom Klang vieler Stimmen: Herausforderungen “kritischer” Normenforschung. Eine Replik auf Stephan Engelkamp, Katharina Glaab und Judith Renner. Zeitschrift f r Internationale Beziehungen. Vol. 19 (2): 129–139.

72. Wiener A. (2007). Contested Meanings of Norms: A Research Framework. Comparative European Politics. Vol. 5: 1–17.

73. Wiener A. (2008). The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters. Cambridge University Press. 266 p.

74. Wunderlich C. (2013). Theoretical Approaches in Norm Dynamic. In: Harald M ller, Carmen Wunderlich (Eds.) Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control. Interests, Conflicts, and Justice. University of Georgia Press (Studies in security and international affairs): 20-47.

75. Zwingel S. (2012). How Do Norms Travel? Theorizing International Woman's Rights in Transnational Perspective. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 56: 115–129.