Why norms rarely die
| Author | Sarah V. Percy,Wayne Sandholtz |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221126018 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221126018
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(4) 934 –954
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221126018
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Why norms rarely die
Sarah V. Percy
University of Queensland, Australia
Wayne Sandholtz
University of Southern California, USA
Abstract
Significant challenges to core international norms have prompted debate over whether
or not norms decay, decline, or die. We argue that claims of norm death are empirically
incorrect and theoretically misleading. Norms rarely die, and the processes that happen
instead are far more complex. The idea of norm death embodies two misconceptions
borne out of methodological incentives in empirical constructivism; that norms are
single entities that exist separately from larger structures, and that compliance is
the most effective way to measure if a norm is under challenge. We argue that the
literature on “norm death” epitomizes the pitfalls of this approach, and as a result
neither empirically or theoretically captures what happens when norms are under
challenge. Norms are fundamentally resilient and can withstand even high levels of
non-compliance. We examine four cases of alleged norm death—the norms against
mercenary use, unrestricted submarine warfare, and torture, and the norm requiring
declarations of war—and demonstrate that in these cases norms are not disappearing,
but are rather subject to processes of obsolescence, replacement, and modification. We
further argue that once we recognize that norms are embedded in wider structures,
and move away from the notion that compliance indicates norm strength, it is possible
to see why norms are generally resilient.
Keywords
Constructivism, norms, torture, private security, international relations, rules
Corresponding author:
Sarah V. Percy, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
Email: s.percy@uq.edu.au
1126018EJT0010.1177/13540661221126018European Journal of International RelationsPercy and Sandholtz
research-article2022
Article
Percy and Sandholtz 935
Various international norms have come under challenge in recent years. US interroga-
tion practices in the “war on terror” created exclusions and narrowed the definition of
torture, leading some to argue that the norm was dead or dying (McKeown, 2009).
Military interventions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Syria raised questions about whether the
prohibition on the use of force was being weakened by the carving out of exceptions.
These and other challenges have led to discussions of norm death.1 Scholars have con-
cluded, for example, that the norm prohibiting the use of force (Glennon, 2005), the
norm against torture (McKeown, 2009), the norm against the use of mercenaries (Panke
and Petersohn, 2012), the norm requiring a formal declaration of war (Fazal, 2012), and
the norm against unrestricted submarine warfare (Panke and Petersohn, 2012) are either
dead or dying.
We argue that these norms are not dead and, more generally, that norms rarely die.
Compliance fluctuates over time. Interpretations of norms shift. Sometimes, norm “sabo-
teurs” seek to weaken or roll back international norms (Schneiker, 2021). Actors alter the
scope of norms, creating exceptions or extending norms to new categories of behavior.
And, when norms are no longer relevant to the needs and interests of those who live
under them, they can be replaced. But they seldom simply die, if by “die” we mean
“cease to exist in any form.” As we argue below, research on norm death has so far built
on a misconception of norms as individual, atomized entities that have a life cycle out-
side of the larger normative and social structures of which they are a part. Empirical
norms research has overwhelmingly tended to assess individual norms, too often ignor-
ing their interconnectedness in larger structures.2 Conceptions of norm death also tend to
rely on a misleading assumption that compliance is the primary indicator of a norm’s
durability. Both tendencies have led to misdiagnoses of norm death and obscured the
more complex processes of norm change and replacement that are in fact taking place.
The norm death literature is the culmination of a tendency in research on international
norms to focus on single norms3 and compliance. The problem is that it inadequately
captures what is happening when norms are under challenge. We argue that norms are
more resilient than much recent work suggests and that compliance fluctuates; norms can
survive even high levels of non-compliance. By norm “resilience,” we mean the ability
of a norm to recover, or retain its viability, in the wake of non-compliance or challenge.
Norms are resilient because they are embedded in larger normative structures. We also
suggest that the resilience of norms is more visible in a long historical perspective. The
longer view reveals that norms that appear at one stage to be declining sometimes reap-
pear later, even if in modified form. In fact, we will contend that at least some interna-
tional norms that have been described as dead or dying are neither. We propose that it is
more useful to think of norm obsolescence, norm replacement, and norm modification.
We argue that once we recognize that norms are embedded in wider structures and at
different levels, and once we move away from the notion that compliance indicates norm
strength, norms presumed to be dead or dying appear in a different light. Norms do not
die except when the social domains they regulate vanish and take the associated norma-
tive structures with them. The first section examines norms that have been pronounced
dead and finds that they have not died but rather have undergone modification or replace-
ment. The second section offers an account of processes of norm change that occur
instead of death: obsolescence, modification, and replacement. The third section
To continue reading
Request your trial