Agency of the governed in global international relations: access to norm validation

Abstract

This article analyses two requirements that distinguish research on the ‘agency of the governed’: a better concept of ethics and moral values, and a better understanding of the effect of norm-generative practices. To operationalise empirical research on the conditions for, and effect of, the norm-generative agency of the governed, it discusses the crucial issue of local stakeholders’ access to regular negotiations about norms. This includes the interpretation of regulations, treaties and conventions, which affect local decisions, as well as contestations of norms, which affect national, regional or global politics. It is argued that it is vital to identify the conditions of access to contestation, given the norm-generative effect of such practices of interpretation and contestation. Who enjoys access to contestation and how to establish regular access are therefore identified as important factors in having agency in global international relations. This article distinguishes between reactive and proactive contestation and presents the cycle model of norm validation to illustrate how the agency of the governed can be better researched.

Keywords:

• Norms
• contestation
• agency
• culture
• practice
• validation

Notes

1. Acharya, “Global International Relations”; Acharya, “Advancing Global IR”; Hurrell, “Beyond Critique”; and Zwingel, “How Do Norms Travel?”

2. Compare Draude’s introduction to this collection; see also Acharya, “How Ideas Spread”; Zwingel, “How Do Norms Travel?”; and Zimmermann, “Same Same or Different?”

3. Frost, “A Turn Not Taken”; Price, Moral Limit and Possibility; Havercroft, “Sovereignty, Recognition and Indigenous peoples”; Robinson, “Bridging the Real and the Ideal”; Robinson et al., Routledge Handbook on Ethics; and Havercroft, “Introduction.”

4. Havercroft, “Introduction”; Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security; critically: Wiener, “Dual Quality of Norms.”

5. Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, 1; Tully, “The Unfreedom of the Moderns”; Wiener, “Theory of Contestation – Concise Summary”; and Wiener, “Reply to My Critics.”

6. Tully, “Middle East Legal and Governmental Pluralism.”

7. Wiener, A Theory of Contestation; Acharya, “Global International Relations”; Acharya, “Advancing Global IR”; Zwingel, “How Do Norms Travel?”; and Hurrell “Beyond Critique.”

8. Wiener, Invisible Constitution of Politics, 6.

9. Owen and Tully, “Redistribution and Recognition”; Laden and Owen, Multiculturalism and Political Theory; and Ackerly et al., “Grounded Normative Theory.”

10. Wiener, Invisible Constitution of Politics, 66.

11. UN General Assembly, A/66/749, 16 March 2012: Delivering justice: programme of action to strengthen the rule of law at the national and international levels https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/delivering-justice-programme-of-action-to-strengthen-the-rule-of-law-at-the-national-and-international-levels-report-of-the-secretary-general-a66749/.

12. Park and Vetterlein, Owning Development.

13. Kratochwil and Ruggie, “International Organization.”

14. Brunnée and Toope, Legitimacy and Legality.

15. Wiener, “Dual Quality of Norms.”

16. Tully, “Recognition and Dialogue,” 86.

17. Bueger, “Pathways to Practice”; Bueger and Gadinger, “The Play of International Practice”; and Hofius, “Community at the Border.”

18. Bueger, “Pathways to Practice”; Hofius, “Community at the Border”; and Hofius et al., “Den Schleier Lichten?”

19. Walker, “Beyond Boundary Disputes”; and Hofius, “Community at the Border.”

20. Hofius, “Community at the Border.”

21. Kratochwil, “The Force of Prescription.”

22. Forst and Lechner, “Two Conceptions of International Practice.”

23. Niemann and Schillinger, “Contestation ‘All the Way Down’?”

24. Havercroft, “Introduction.”

25. Wolff and Zimmermann, “Between Banyans and Battle Scenes”; Niemann and Schillinger, “Contestation ‘All the Way Down’?”; and Havercroft, “Introduction.”

26. Price, Moral Limit and Possibility; Robinson, “Bridging the Real and the Ideal”; and Havercroft, “Introduction.”

27. Frost, “A Turn Not Taken.”

28. Finnemore and Toope, “Alternatives to ‘Legalization’.”

29. Liese, “Exceptional Necessity”; and Price and Sikkink, “From Micro to Neuro.”

30. Niesen, “‘Mixed’ Constituent Legitimacy.”

31. For the former see: Owen and Tully, “Redistribution and Recognition”; for the latter see Lindemann and Ringmar, International Politics of Recognition; and Honneth, “Recognition between States.”

32. Note that this approach to struggles over recognition differs from what is widely referred to as ‘recognition theory’ (Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition; Honneth, “The Point of Recognition”; Honneth, “Rejoinder”; and Fraser, “Distorted Beyond All Recognition.”) which focuses on the sphere of recognition in relation with the state and is developed with reference to theories of ethics or justice (Rawls, A Theory of Justice; Taylor, “To Follow a Rule ….”). Notably, what is widely referred to as ‘recognition theory’ usually focuses on ‘a sphere of ethical life and social freedom formed in the processes of recognition between individuals and groups across, over, and beyond, the state’ (Brincat, “Cosmopolitan Recognition: Three Vignettes,” 1.). Building on its predominant focus on the role of the state as a facilitator of recognition and/or distribution, IR scholars have applied it to study inter-state relations (see e.g. Lindemann and Ringmar, International Politics of Recognition.).

33. The ongoing challenge for all diversity-minded approaches lies in the choice of principles and procedures to accommodate the particular validity claims of diverse stakeholders vis-à-vis universal validity claims of a norm (Coulthard, “Culture, Consent, and the State.”).

34. Searle, Construction of Social Reality.

35. Laden and Owen, Multiculturalism and Political Theory, 19 (emphasis in original text).

36. Searle, Speech Acts, 35; cf. Frost and Lechner, “Two Conceptions of International Practice,” 345.

37. Krook and True, “Rethinking Life Cycles of International Norms,” 103ff; cf. Wiener, “Enacting Meaning-in-use,” 183ff.

38. Müller, “Conclusion: Agency is Central,” 5; Park and Vetterlein, Owning Development; and Sandholtz and Stiles, International Norms and Cycles of Change, 17; cf. Müller, “Conclusion: Agency is Central.”

39. Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, 7.

40. See note 37 above, 21.

41. March and Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions.

42. See note 37 above, 9.

43. Tully, “The Unfreedom of the Moderns.”

44. Adler-Nissen and Pouliot, “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya”; Kornprobst and Senn, “Introduction: Background Ideas in International Relations”; and McCourt, “Practice Theory and Relationalism.”

45. For summarizing this research question, I am thankful to Stephen Toope, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, Seminar on the cycle model on March 26, 2017. For critical discussion of the model I am thankful to all participants of that seminar especially Emanuel Adler, Jutta Brunnee, Randall Hansen, Ron Levi, Stephen Bernstein and Marion Laurence.

46. Wiener, “Contested Norms in Inter-national Encounters”; Wiener, “Reply to My Critics”; and Wallaschek, “Solidarity in the Making.”

47. For the criminal indictment of former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and others, which was filed on 30 November 2004 with the German Federal Court (German: Bundesgerichtshof) in Karlsruhe, see: https://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/Germany/Rumsfeld_CriminalIndictment_29-11-2004.pdf.

48. For the first of a series of judgments in this case, see: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 September 2008 – Yassin Abdullah Kadi, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P); OJ EU 11.8.2008, C/285 2ff, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri = uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2008.285.01.0002.01.ENG.

49. Liese, “Exceptional Necessity.”

50. This was the US NGO: Center for Constitutional Rights, represented by the President, Michael Ratner, Lawyer and the Vice President, Peter Weiss, Lawyer, 666 Broadway, New York, NY 10012, USA. And these are the names of the Iraqi citizens: Ahmed Hassan Mahawis Derweesh, Faisal Abdulla Abdullatif
Ahmed Salih Nouh Ahmed Shehab (compare: https://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/Germany/Rumsfeld_CriminalIndictment_29-11-2004.pdf, 2).

51. Fischer-Lescano, “Torture in Abu Ghraib.”

52. Kaleck, “From Pinochet to Rumsfeld.”