Conceptualizing and assessing norm strength in International Relations
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066120949628 |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120949628
European Journal of
International Relations
2021, Vol. 27(2) 521 –547
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066120949628
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Conceptualizing and assessing
norm strength in International
Relations
Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch
Department of Political Science & Legal Studies, Suffolk University, USA
Jennifer M. Dixon
Department of Political Science, Villanova University, USA
Abstract
What constitutes a strong or a weak norm? Scholars often refer to strong or weak,
or strengthening or weakening norms, yet there are widespread inconsistencies in
terminology and no agreed-upon measures. This has hindered the accumulation of
knowledge and made it difficult to test competing hypotheses about norm development
and contestation. To address these conceptual problems and their analytical implications,
this article conceptualizes norm strength as the extent of collective expectations related
to a principled idea and proposes two indicators to assess a norm’s strength: the level
of international concordance with a principled idea, and the degree of international
institutionalization of a principled idea. The article illustrates the applicability and utility
of the proposed conceptualization by evaluating the strengths of two transitional justice
norms: the norm of legal accountability and the norm of truth-seeking. In so doing,
the article resolves empirical disputes over the origins and status of these norms. In
particular, the analysis reveals that while legal accountability became a norm in the early
1990s and is today a strong norm, truth-seeking emerged later and remains a weak
norm. More generally, the proposed framework should advance existing debates about
norm contestation, localization, violation, and erosion.
Keywords
Transitional justice, norms, accountability, impunity, truth commission, constructivism
Corresponding author:
Jennifer M. Dixon, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster
Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085-1699, USA.
Email: Jennifer.m.dixon@villanova.edu
949628EJT0010.1177/1354066120949628European Journal of International RelationsBen-Josef Hirsch and Dixon
research-article2020
Article
522 European Journal of International Relations 27(2)
What constitutes a strong or a weak norm? While scholars often refer to strong or weak,
or strengthening or weakening norms, there are widespread inconsistencies in terminol-
ogy and no agreed-upon measures of norm strength. Instead, scholars employ a range of
different terms, including strength (Goertz and Diehl, 1992; Legro, 1997; Price, 1997),
robustness (Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, 2019, 2020; Legro, 1997), influence
(Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Legro, 1997; Percy, 2007), power (Price, 1997), and sali-
ence and legitimacy (Cloward, 2016; Cortell and Davis, 2000; Tsutsui and Shin, 2008).
These inconsistencies and ambiguities have made it difficult to distinguish between
norms and principled ideas, the latter of which are defined as “normative ideas that
specify criteria for distinguishing right and wrong” (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993: 9)
and which might—or might not—become norms. They have also limited scholars’ abil-
ity to test competing hypotheses about norm violation, contestation, and localization,
thereby hindering the accumulation of knowledge about international norms.
This article thus introduces a conceptual framework for defining and assessing norm
strength. Building on the definition of international norms as “collective expectations for
the proper behavior of actors with a given identity” (Katzenstein, 1996: 5),1 norm
strength is defined as the extent of collective expectations related to a principled idea.
Two indicators, which together capture the overall strength of collective expectations
about a principled idea, are proposed to assess norm strength: (1) the level of interna-
tional concordance2 with a principled idea and (2) the degree of international institution-
alization of a principled idea. Offering a systematic way to assess and compare norms
over time and space, this conceptualization should advance ongoing debates about norm
development, contestation, and erosion.
To illustrate the application and utility of this conceptualization, this article analyzes
the strengths of two transitional justice (TJ) norms: the norm of legal accountability and
the norm of truth-seeking. Among scholars and practitioners, there is broad agreement
about the existence of a collective international expectation of “dealing with the past”
following gross human rights (HR) violations. And yet there is a lack of consensus over
whether TJ constitutes a single norm (e.g. Sikkink, 2011) or multiple related norms (e.g.
Ben-Josef Hirsch, 2014; Kim and Sharman, 2014; Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2016), and about
the origins of this norm or norms. Some trace TJ’s origins to the post-World War II
(WWII) Nuremberg Tribunal (Teitel, 2000), others pinpoint the emergence of a justice
norm in Latin America in the late 1980s to early 1990s (Roht-Arriaza, 2006; Sikkink,
2011), and yet others (Ben-Josef Hirsch, 2014) argue that a distinct truth-seeking norm
emerged after the 1996 South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
Tracing variations over time in the strength of expectations related to truth-seeking and
accountability, this article demonstrates the existence of two distinct norms: while legal
accountability became a norm in the early 1990s and is today a strong norm, truth-seek-
ing emerged later and remains a weak norm.
In addition to resolving these empirical questions, a clear conceptualization of norm
strength should advance existing debates within norms scholarship and contribute to the
accumulation of knowledge about International Relations (IR) more generally. This
framework offers a way to distinguish between principled ideas that are norms and those
that are “emerging.” It can also be used to assess the ways in which a norm’s strength
To continue reading
Request your trial