Disentangling norms, morality, and principles: the September 2019 Brexit rebellion
| Author | Anette Stimmer,Jess Gliserman |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117058 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221117058
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(4) 955 –982
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221117058
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Disentangling norms,
morality, and principles:
the September 2019 Brexit
rebellion
Anette Stimmer*
and Jess Gliserman*
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
Despite morality’s important role in international relations, we still lack a compelling
way to study it. Some scholars define norms as moral in nature but fail to define
morality or conceptualize it too narrowly. We address this problem by defining
morality subjectively, allowing us to differentiate it from norms and study its impact on
decisions of international significance. To do so, we adapt the moral convictions concept
developed by psychologists to qualitative, elite-focused political research. Actors with
moral convictions rely upon their individually held beliefs about fundamental right and
wrong, whereas norm-followers look outward to community expectations. Morality
requires sincere belief and weakens social influences.
The September 2019 Brexit rebellion is an ideal case because it endangered rebels’
careers, rendering material self-interest an unlikely motive. This allows us to investigate
the role of norms and moral principles. Based on interviews with British Members of
Parliament (MPs) and text analysis, we find that community norms and personal moral
principles interact: when existing norms give unclear guidance and identification with their
in-group weakens, actors are likely to rely on their own principles to interpret norms.
Morality can affect which norms matter but does not negate their influence altogether:
pre-existing norms channel and constrain morality and its consequences. Many MPs
moralized existing norms related to democratic decision-making, which mitigated some
consequences of moralization, such as intolerance toward those with opposing views.
*These authors contributed equally.
Corresponding author:
Anette Stimmer, Nuffield College, University of Oxford, 1 New Road, Oxford OX1 1NF, UK.
Email: anette.stimmer@nuffield.ox.ac.uk
1117058EJT0010.1177/13540661221117058European Journal of International RelationsStimmer and Gliserman
research-article2022
Article
956 European Journal of International Relations 28(4)
This new conceptual and methodological approach thus helps to disentangle ideational
factors and understand their influence on decisions of international significance.
Keywords
Norms, foreign policy, crisis, constructivism, logic of consequences, logic of
appropriateness
Introduction
What is the relationship between norms and morality in international affairs? Morality
is central to foreign policy decision-making and to international relations more gener-
ally, as a growing literature suggests (e.g. Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Kaufmann and
Pape, 1999; Kertzer et al., 2014; Kreps and Maxey, 2018; Rathbun and Stein, 2020).
However, we still lack a compelling way to study it. When scholars contrast ideational
factors with material self-interest, they often bundle phenomena such as moral princi-
ples and norms together as part of the logic of appropriateness, or simply focus on one
of these factors (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Rathbun and Stein, 2020). Morality is
also sometimes treated as a component part of norms. Many scholars then fail to define
morality (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Winston, 2018) or employ unsuitably narrow
definitions (Goertz and Diehl, 1992; Jurkovich, 2020). This prevents us from under-
standing how community norms conflict, shape, or coincide with individually held
moral principles.
Identifying morality at the international level is inherently difficult because the focus
on collective actors like states veils individuals’ beliefs. We propose studying morality’s
influence by examining the normative commitments of individuals whose actions have
significant international political, security, or economic implications.
When analyzing such decisions, costly actions increase our confidence that ideational
factors mattered more than material self-interest. One may think of whistleblowers like
Katharine Gun in government agencies, international organizations, the media, and polit-
ical parties who have risked their careers by speaking out against practices or decisions
with global consequences they perceived as wrong.
We study one such case: the September 2019 Tory rebellion in the British House of
Commons. While this decision was taken domestically, the content and effects of the
decision were international and had profound implications for global politics. It is
likely that both norms and morality mattered and unlikely that self-interest drove the
rebellion.1 Against their party line, 21 Tory Members of Parliament (MPs) voted for
legislation aimed at preventing a hard no-deal Brexit, which would likely have trig-
gered economic and political disruption domestically and internationally. As Prime
Minister (PM) Boris Johnson had threatened, the rebel MPs had the Conservative whip
withdrawn, preventing them from standing as Conservatives in future elections. Only
about half of these rebels later had the whip restored, which was not guaranteed at the
time. Hence, they rebelled knowing that this decision would jeopardize or end their
political careers.
To continue reading
Request your trial