When democratic governance unites and divides: Social status and contestation in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836720906191 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720906191
Cooperation and Conflict
2021, Vol. 56(1) 44 –64
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836720906191
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
When democratic governance
unites and divides: Social
status and contestation in
the Organization for Security
and Co-operation in Europe
Catherine Hecht
Abstract
Scholars and practitioners are increasingly attentive to contestation against symbols and
institutions underpinning international order(s). Yet International Relations scholarship can benefit
from greater understanding of ways in which contestation interacts with salient dimensions of
social status in specific international organizations (IOs). Drawing on evidence from the history of
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with a focus on democratic
governance and human rights, this article analyzes status-related contestation as a significant,
yet under-examined type of contestation in multilateral diplomacy. Status-related contestation
conveys dissatisfaction about symbols, institutions, and actors which reinforce socially significant
divisions that place a state (or group of states) at a social disadvantage in a particular multilateral
venue. International organizations provide unique social contexts which affect the content of
contestation. Building on scholarship in social psychology, constructivism, and status hierarchies
in world politics, the article analyzes the evolution of a dimension (or basis) of social status in
the OSCE and illustrates that, beyond domestic and material interests, state representatives
communicate social identity-related concerns through language, for example, that expresses
discontent with dividing lines, unfairness, or (dis)respect, in attempting to minimize negative social
identities in multilateral organizations.
Keywords
Contestation, democratic governance, international organizations, salience, social status
Introduction
At a time when there is heightened attention to contestation against principles underpin-
ning international order(s), it is important to gain greater understanding of the content of
Corresponding author:
Catherine Hecht, Käte Hamburger Kolleg/Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-
Essen, Schifferstraße 44, 47059 Duisburg, Germany.
Email: hecht@gcr21.uni-due.de
906191CAC0010.1177/0010836720906191Cooperation and ConflictHecht
research-article2020
Article
Hecht 45
grievances as well as how specific social contexts shape the ways in which contestation
is manifested. Each international organization (IO) offers a unique social context, which
contributes to the content of contestation therein. What authors often view as contesta-
tion against norms, institutions, or actors, I contend, also often challenges deeper and
less directly visible patterns of social stratification. Through a case study of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), this article calls attention
to status-related contestation, a significant, yet under-studied type of contestation in
multilateral diplomacy which conveys dissatisfaction about a state’s (or group of states’)
marginalization in a particular social setting. Status-related contestation is especially
relevant in international organizations with minimal accession criteria and formal com-
mitment to sovereign equality, yet which (informally) differentiate among participating
states based on codified norms.
Significant gaps exist in our knowledge of how patterns of social stratification and
status markers co-evolve with and contribute to shaping contestation in international
organizations over time. Recent scholarship on social hierarchies in international politics
has valuably shown that norms shape (and are shaped by) patterns of social stratification,
that is, ‘the differential ranking’ and treatment of actors (including states) as ‘superior
and inferior relative to one another in certain socially important respects’ (Parsons, 1940:
841; Towns, 2010: 44–45; Larson et al., 2014; Towns and Rumelili, 2017; Epstein, 2012;
Bially Mattern and Zarakol, 2016; Adler-Nissen, 2014; Miller et al., 2015; Wohlforth
et al., 2017). Yet this literature has often analyzed social contexts other than formal inter-
national organizations. Of studies that examine aspects of social stratification in formal
IOs (Pouliot, 2014, 2016; Eagleton-Pierce, 2013; Fehl and Freistein, 2015; Flockhart,
2005; Hecht, 2012, 2016a; Johnston, 2008; Paul and Shankar, 2014; Schulz, 2017; Viola
et al., 2015), most have focused on issues other than democracy and human rights, or on
IOs other than the OSCE, and more empirical research is needed on historical trends in
the evolution of social hierarchies in multilateral diplomacy over time.
In this article, I illustrate how a particular dimension of social status (based on demo-
cratic governance and human rights) has evolved, together with patterns of status-related
contestation, during the OSCE’s history. Contestation is a means by which diplomats
shape the evolution of status markers in global politics (Bjola and Kornprobst, 2011:
10–12; Pouliot, 2016). International organizations are key venues for status-related con-
testation (Larson and Shevchenko, 2010: 70), in part because IOs amplify the social
significance of normative divisions and make relative standing more socially visible,
including by ascribing social identities to states (e.g., as non- or partially compliant with
an IO’s codified norms).
This approach builds on global governance scholarship which argues that institutional
structures, with their corresponding power inequalities, endogenously produce contesta-
tion (Pouliot, 2016: 36–38, 46; Zürn, 2018: 1, 11–12). When states politicize an issue or
institution, discursive challenges are often aimed at delegitimation (Zürn, 2018: 68, 69,
138–141; Steffek, 2003: 267; Barker, 2001). Although effects of status-related contesta-
tion are beyond the scope of this article, contestation of core institutions may jeopardize
an IO’s ability to achieve other goals.
The article raises a puzzle and dilemma for large, heterogenous IOs with minimal
membership criteria, yet which have institutionalized democratic norms. Scholars and
To continue reading
Request your trial