Tracing and understanding “bad” norm dynamics in counterterrorism: the current debates in IR research

Abstract

AbstractThe focus of attention within the constructivist literature on norm dynamics has recently shifted from the "good" side of norm development to the investigation of reverse norm dynamics, through which established norms in liberal democracies, particularly those related to civil and political rights, are challenged and discursively put under pressure. This shift was triggered not least by counterterrorist security politics since 9/11, leading to a more thorough investigation of such dynamics in critical security studies and the literature on norm contestation. The basic research interest of these strands of literature is to critically assess and better understand the drivers of such processes. This article gives an overview of constructivist approaches to the study of "bad" norm dynamics and points to further research perspectives that could be used to enhance our understanding of "bad" norm dynamics in counterterrorism.Keywords: counterterrorismhuman rightsreverse norm dynamicssecuritisationpractice turnvalue theory AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by DFG grant KA 3089/1-1. We wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.Notes1. 1. Diffusion means the socially mediated incremental permeation of international norms to the domestic level (Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink Citation1999).2. 2. The core of these rights includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly (as a resolution with non-binding character, but recognised as constituting customary international law), Art. 3 of the Geneva Convention, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the ICCPR (1966), the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and in a regional context also the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, as well as the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987).3. 3. For an early problematisation, see Shannon (Citation2000).4. 4. Vice versa, Müller and Wunderlich (Citation2013) investigate the role of norm-averse actors, such as "rogue states", who might equally engage in norm entrepreneurship.5. 5. This observation is shared by scholars who are not working within an overtly constructivist framework, such as Western (Citation2005).6. 6. Finnemore and Sikkink (Citation1998, 906–907) considered the politics of legitimation in discursive disputes already in the 1990s.7. 7. To be "successful" means to find the appropriate form of rhetoric as an essential prerequisite for persuasion.8. 8. Policy convergence means "any increase in the similarity between one or more characteristics of a certain policy across a given set of political jurisdictions over a given period of time" (Knill Citation2005, 768), including material and non-material policies, under which Dolowitz and Marsh (Citation2000, 12) subsume "structures of meaning".Additional informationNotes on contributorsRegina HellerRegina Heller is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. Her research interests include norm dynamics, human rights, Russian domestic and foreign policy, and emotions in international relations.Martin KahlMartin Kahl is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. His research interests include terrorism and counterterrorism efforts, military strategy and security doctrines.