‘Acting under Chapter 7’: rhetorical entrapment, rhetorical hollowing, and the authorization of force in the UN Security Council, 1995–2017
| Author | Johannes Scherzinger |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221082870 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221082870
International Relations
2023, Vol. 37(1) 3 –24
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178221082870
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
‘Acting under Chapter 7’:
rhetorical entrapment,
rhetorical hollowing, and the
authorization of force in the
UN Security Council, 1995–2017
Johannes Scherzinger
Berlin Social Science Center (WZB) & Freie Universität Berlin
Abstract
After more than 25 years of scholarship, the deliberative turn in international relations (IR)
theory is ready to be revisited with a fresh perspective. Using new methods from automated
text analyses, this explorative article investigates how rhetoric may bind action. It does so by
building upon Schimmelfennig’s original account of rhetorical entrapment. To begin, I theorize
the opposite of entrapment, which I call rhetorical hollowing. Rhetorical hollowing describes
a situation in which actors use normative rhetoric, but instead of advancing their interests,
such rhetoric fails to increase their chances of obtaining the desired outcome because the
normative force of their rhetoric has eroded over time. To provide plausibility to both
entrapment and hollowing, I present two mechanisms by which language is connected with
action in the United Nations Security Council. Finally, I run a series of time-series-cross-
section models on selected dictionary terms conducive to entrapment or hollowing on all
speeches and an original Security Council resolution corpus from 1995 to 2017. The research
shows that while mentioning ‘human rights’ is consistently associated with increased odds
of authorization of force; the word ‘terrorism’ is associated with a decrease of odds for
intervention. This finding suggests that some terms may not only entrap or hollow but also
normatively backfire.
Keywords
authorization of force, deliberative turn, quantitative text analysis, rhetorical entrapment,
rhetorical hollowing
Corresponding author:
Johannes Scherzinger, Department Global Governance, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB),
Reichpietschufer 50, Berlin 10785, Germany.
Email: johannes.scherzinger@wzb.eu
1082870IRE0010.1177/00471178221082870International RelationsScherzinger
research-article2022
Article
4 International Relations 37(1)
Introduction
Samantha Power once argued that the United States avoids the term genocide out of fear
that it will morally obligate it to use military force.1 During the years of the Syrian Civil
War, Ms. Power tried to persuade President Obama to use force by urging him to cite the
likelihood of an impending genocide. Eventually, her efforts failed. The United States
did not intervene. Neither did the United Nations.
This analysis starts from the vantage point that words matter in political conduct.
Taking Ms. Power’s claim seriously entails a belief that individual words may force
actors into taking concrete actions. The idea that words can cause political action can be
linked to a well-established debate in International Relations (IR) theory often labeled
the ‘deliberative turn’.2 Originating in a subfield of German Political Science,3 the
‘deliberative turn’ has generated a quarter of a century worth of scholarship in Europe,
the United States, and beyond.
Adding to this rich literature, this explorative article offers a complementary account
of speech acts, which I call rhetorical hollowing.4 Derived from Schimmelfennig’s
original idea of rhetorical entrapment, rhetorical hollowing describes a situation in
which the usage of a normative term fails to advance an actor’s bargaining position
instead of promoting it. This article uses both concepts to investigate whether rhetoric
binds actions. More concretely, it asks, which terms entrap or hollow in the United
Nations Security Council?
To this end, I theorize two mechanisms by which words are translated into actions.
I illustrate the logic of my argument in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
speeches and resolutions. The Security Council5 is responsible for dealing with threats
to ‘international peace and security’.6 Under Chapter 7, the Council may use a wide
range of measures to ‘maintain or restore peace’.7 The most egregious crimes, or
strongest breaches of peace, can be addressed by any military means, including air,
sea, and land forces.8 Before almost all actions, the SC holds public debates to discuss
which measures should be taken and which countries favor which course of action
before voting on a resolution.
By applying methods from automated corpus linguistics,9 we can investigate such
Security Council debates and resolutions systematically to examine whether rhetoric
matters. To do this, I merge existing data on Security Council speeches10 with an original
corpus on UN resolutions from 1995 to 2017 and then select possible terms that may
entrap or hollow. I translate these dictionary terms into a series of logit regression models.
Controlling for the permanent five, characteristics of the countries participating in the
debate, and time dynamics, I find that mentioning the term ‘human rights’ is consistently
associated with an increase of odds of authorizing the use of force. However, I also find
that mentioning the term ‘terrorism’ decreases associated odds of authorization. This
finding indicates that both rhetorical entrapment and rhetorical hollowing operate in the
Security Council. Furthermore, some terms seem to normatively backfire – undermining
the chance to obtain a desired outcome.
The article proceeds in six steps. First, I discuss relevant theoretical literature that
could be used to build a bridge between the ‘deliberative turn’ and quantitative text
analysis. Second, I theorize two mechanisms that may lend rhetoric causal force. Third,
To continue reading
Request your trial