The “life cycle” model of international norms is a theoretical model developed by Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkin, describing the processes of evolution of international norms in the framework of the constructivist theory of international relations .
As part of the model, the authors use the traditional notion of “international norm”, proposed in the work of Peter Katzenstein, which means “standards of proper behavior for subjects with a certain identity [1] ”.
During the "life cycle" international standards go through three stages:
1. emergence, or the emergence of (emergence);
2. "cascade" or distribution (cascade);
3. internalization, or the widespread adoption (internalization) [2] .
Content
History
The model of the “life cycle” of norms was developed in the 1990s in the wake of the growing popularity of social constructivism , viewing the world through the prism of norms and ideas, and belonged to the “first generation” of studies of norms focused on studying the processes of development and dissemination of international norms [3] .
Model Description
International norms traditionally pass through three stages of the “life cycle”, each of which is characterized by the presence of certain political actors (actors) with certain motives (motives) that use certain dominant mechanisms (dominants mechanisms).
Table 1: Dynamics of norms according to M. Finnemore and K. Sikkin | ||||
Stage 1 The emergence of norms | "Crucial moment" | Stage 2 Cascade of norms | Stage 3 Internalization of norms | |
Actors | The makers of norms and organizational platforms | States, international organizations | National laws, professional sphere, bureaucracy | |
Motives | Altruism, empathy | Legitimacy, reputation, respect | Intra-group pressure | |
Basic mechanisms | Framing, persuasion | Socialization, institutionalization | Habit, institutionalization |
Source: Finnemore M. Sikkink K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization. Vol. 52 (4): S.898.
The emergence stage of norms
At the first stage, the key role is played by “norm entrepreneurs” and “organizational platforms” (organizational platform), from which the “creators” promote new norms at the international level. The “standards makers” include individuals, social activists who propose new norms for public life, and “organizational platforms” include international human rights NGOs and international organizations that have sufficient political and expert authority to promote standards at the international level.
The activity of the “creators” is aimed at persuading states to rethink the old and adopt new regulatory structures (the work of Henri Dudan to improve the fate of the wounded in land wars). The main mechanisms at this stage are the creation of cognitive “frameworks” for drawing attention to the problem or constructing the problem itself, as well as methods of persuasion.
Due to the fact that the beginning of the rethinking of norms by society and the state often requires actors to challenge existing norms ( suffragistic activities in the UK), or serious non-recoupable material costs, such human qualities as "altruism, empathy and ideological commitment " [2] .
The turning point
If the creators manage to convince the “ critical mass ” of countries (at least one third of the states, including the most significant from a normative point of view), then the norm overcomes the “turning point”. The criterion for selecting countries by significance varies depending on the spreading norm, but the general parameter is the significance for the further spread of the norm in the international arena (the participation of such large mine-producing countries as the United Kingdom and France in the Ottawa Treaty ).
Stage of the cascade of norms
After overcoming the “tipping point”, the dynamics of the spread of the norm, the actors, mechanisms and motives are transformed. In addition to the “creators” and “organizational platforms”, the actors themselves become the states that formalize the norm in national legislations, and the intragroup pressure of states (socialization) and the consolidation of norms in national law (institutionalization) become the main mechanisms guiding the spreading of norms.
The motivation for the dissemination of norms and their adoption is the need for internal and external legitimacy, group conformism (the authority of a group of states), the need for respect from other states and a sense of respect for oneself.
Internalization Stage
The adoption of the norm by the overwhelming majority of states and its subsequent institutionalization at the national level should ultimately lead to the internationalization of the international norm - that is, to its perception “for granted” by countries, and, accordingly, to its unquestioning observance.
The actors at this stage are national laws, representatives of professions and bureaucratic institutions, which, based on the mechanisms of institutionalization and the creation of a sense of familiarity, secure the feeling of “givenness” to the norms. The motive at this stage is intragroup pressure both at the international level (other states) and at the domestic (society) [4] .
Criticism
The main criticism of the model is associated with the lack of a developed description of the stages of "squeezing" and the disappearance of generally accepted international norms [5] . In addition, in theory, private mechanisms are not fully developed, which determine the processes of adoption and non-acceptance of norms by some different states [6] .
Further development
With the accumulation of empirical material and the development of constructivist theories, critical review and revision of the classical models of the evolution of international norms was begun. The “life cycle” model, in particular, formed the basis of the “reverse helix” theory developed in the early 2010s by R. Heller, M. Cal and D. Pisoy, describing the process of erosion of liberal norms and replacing them with repressive [7] .
Notes
- ↑ Katzenstein P. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. Cambridge University Press. 1996. 562 p.
- 2 1 2 Finnemore M. Sikkink K. International Dynamics and Political Change // International Organization. T. 52. N 4. 1998. C. 898.
- Al Bakalova E., Constructivism: From Genesis, Acceptance and Compliance to Violation, Contestation and Erosion, in: International Trends, Jg. 13, Nr. 1 (40), Januar 2015, p.
- ↑ Finnemore M. Sikkink K. (1998). - S.904.
- ↑ Rosert E., Schirmbeck S. Zur Erosion internationaler Normen. Folterverbot und nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion // Zeitschrift fur Internationale Beziehungen. T. 14. N 2. 2007. C. 253-288.
- ↑ Checkel JT Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe // International Studies Quarterly. 43. 1999. C. 83-114.
- ↑ Heller R., Kahl M., Pisoiu D. The Case of Counterterrorism Policy, Global Constitutionalism. T. 1. N 2. 2012. C. 278-312.
See also
- Theory of International Relations
- Social constructivism
- International law