Changing ideas, changing norms: The case of ‘the responsibility to rebuild’
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Author | Outi Donovan |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836717750203 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836717750203
Cooperation and Conflict
2018, Vol. 53(3) 392 –410
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836717750203
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Changing ideas, changing
norms: The case of ‘the
responsibility to rebuild’
Outi Donovan
Abstract
Whilst much has been written on emergence of new norms in international politics, we know
significantly less about changes to the ideas and assumptions that underpin such norms. Examined
at micro-level, most norms consist of a set of ideas and assumptions that form the basis of
what is considered as appropriate, legitimate or even the required thing to do. Far from being
stable, ideational constitutions of norms can undergo significant changes in the course of the
norm emergence process. Enquiring into such changes is important if we are to move beyond
static and linear accounts of norm evolution. Using changes in the ideational constitution of
the responsibility to protect – specifically, the de-emphasis of the responsibility to rebuild – as
its vantage point, the analysis seeks to answer the following question: what drives change in
ideational constitutions of international norms? The chief argument advanced in this article is
that misalignments at the level of broader normative structures (external misalignments) and
within norms (internal misalignments) result in changes in the ideational constitutions of emerging
norms.
Keywords
emerging norms, normative structures, responsibility to protect, responsibility to rebuild
Introduction
More than a decade after the endorsement of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle
by the United Nations (UN) member states in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document,
the debate surrounding the principle’s status as a norm, its exact parameters and its impli-
cations to sovereignty have shown few signs of waning. While the 2011 intervention in
Libya did little to settle such debates, its chaotic aftermath brought into sharp relief an
overlooked aspect of the R2P: what happens after protection interventions? It is notable
Corresponding author:
Outi Donovan, School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Social Sciences Building,
Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: O.E.Donovan@leeds.ac.uk
750203CAC0010.1177/0010836717750203Cooperation and ConflictDonovan
research-article2018
Article
Donovan 393
that the R2P was initially premised on the notion of a continuum of responsibilities, that
not only entailed the responsibility to react to mass atrocities but also to ‘follow through’
and rebuild societies subject to protection interventions.1 However, since its inception, the
notion of responsibility to rebuild has been de-emphasized in the scholarly and policy
discussions on the principle and R2P today is understood primarily as a set of preventative
measures.2 This shift away from the distinct rebuilding element in the R2P framework
poses not only a set of urgent policy questions relating to aftermaths of R2P interventions
as illustrated by the case of Libya, but it also provides an opportunity to theorize changes
in ideas that underpin norms (that is, their ideational constitutions).
Whereas a plethora of studies (Acharya, 2004; Clapp and Swanston, 2009; Clark,
2010; Florini, 1996; Klotz, 1999; McCoy, 2001; Nadelmann, 1990; Risse-Kappen et al.,
1999; Sikkink, 1993; Wheeler, 2000) have examined how international norms change
over time as they are replaced by new norms proposing alternative standards of behav-
ior, this discussion shifts the level of analysis from the macro-level of norms to micro-
level investigation on what happens within norms. The basic premise is that norms,
understood here as ‘standards of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity’
(Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998: 891), are composed of a set of underpinning ideas and
assumptions that constitute the norm. For example, sovereignty is constituted by a set
of ideas – non-interference, territoriality, legitimacy of authority – that together form
what is understood to be the norm of sovereignty. This ideational makeup of norms is
referred to here as ideational constitution. Far from being stable, ideational constitu-
tions of norms can undergo significant changes in the course of the norm emergence
process and thereafter (Hirsch, 2014). This is particularly the case prior to the cascade
stage of norm emergence. A ‘norm candidate’ (Wunderlich, 2013: 33), containing a set
of ideas, may be promoted by norm entrepreneurs but a successful cascade often means
changes to the norm’s ideational constitution as its precise meaning and content is nego-
tiated by states and non-state actors (Van Kersbergen and Verbeek, 2007: 18) operating
within normative structures defining appropriate and legitimate action within a given
issue area. Needless to say, changes occurring in ideational architectures that underpin
norms are of consequence to the meaning and application of norms. Yet, surprisingly
little research going beyond the macro-level changes in one set of norms to another
exists to date.
It is here – on changes in ideational constitutions of international norms – where the
central interest of this article lies. The analysis is motivated by the question of what
drives norm content change. The existing research has focused on how norm ambiguity
gives rise to contestation, negotiation and ultimately, change in ideas that underpin norms
and the role of norm leaders and entrepreneurs in re-framing norms (Coleman, 2013;
Krook and True, 2012; Van Kersbergen and Verbeek, 2007; Wiener, 2004). In doing so,
it has convincingly answered the ‘how’ question of norm content change. However, the
answers to the ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions pertaining to norm content change are less
comprehensive. Why do the ideas that constitute norms change? What prompts change?
Again, norm interpretability and endeavors by norm entrepreneurs to render norms more
widely acceptable are likely to be a part of the story. Interpretability of norms creates
opportunities for actors to promote their own conceptualizations of norms and can lead
to change in the ideas that underpin them. Similarly, changing the content of norms can
To continue reading
Request your trial