1. Why and when do Actors develop or deploy norms?
1.1. Filling a need?
1.1.1. Responsibility to Protect to deal with the experiences of Rwanda, Somalia
1.1.2. Responding to a crisis -- new norms after WWII
1.1.2.1. Development
1.1.2.2. Humanitarian Intervention
1.1.2.3. New economic world order?
1.1.3. Westphalian Sovereignty as part of a need to create positive international law to cope with the anarchy of the international system?
1.2. Becoming more popular?
1.2.1. Use of Free Trade to justify Opium wars/ empire?
2. Sovereignty
2.1. Norm Formation/Development
2.2. Divided Sovereignty
2.2.1. Colonialism and degrees of sovereignty
2.2.1.1. Not all areas of land were considered states, even under a ruler (terra nullius of African communities/ indigenous American communities)
2.2.1.2. Protectorates -- the colonial alternative, in which the non-civilized “state” would be under the protection of a European state while “sovereignty” remained with the indigenous ruler
2.2.1.2.1. Paramount power in the British crown, subordinate power in the protectorates
2.2.1.2.2. Could be used to exclude competing European powers from trade
2.2.1.3. How did the colonial encounter shape sovereignty as a concept?
2.2.2. Coexisted with the Westphalian type after the Peace
2.2.2.1. This weakened when Napoleon began to build his empire into the rest of Europe, at which point the rest of Europe decided to emphasize how the French advances violates the “aged norm” of Westphalian sovereignty
2.2.3. Is Europe now becoming a guinea pig for mechanisms of pooled sovereignty?
2.2.3.1. Rules governing communal interactions in a way that aims to maximize economic benefits for everyone?
2.3. As Responsibility
2.4. International Law
2.4.1. Grotius and Natural law
2.4.1.1. Grotius worked on defining the reach and limitations of sovereignty -- Keene Ch. 2 and Darwin Chs. 1-2
2.4.1.2. Ships as carrying the jurisdiction of the relevant sovereign -- and can enforce natural law and treaties
2.4.1.3. Consent of the states is needed for international law
2.4.2. Rule of law might discourage wars?
2.4.3. Gottingen School?
2.4.3.1. Referred to the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire as defined in the Peace of Westphalia
2.4.3.1.1. All within the sovereignty of the emperor, who held "reserved rights" over the empire
2.4.3.2. Landeshoheit (defining the German liberties given to princes with territorial soverreignty)
2.4.4. Int'l law applies to members of a community, the international community, in which units must be defined
2.4.4.1. The family of civilized states defined the community to which "Westphalian" sovereignty applied, everything else was terra nullius
2.4.4.1.1. Civilization as a measure of who gets to be sovereign
2.4.5. Positive law
2.4.5.1. Focused on institutions -- the law comes from institutions, and so Europeans looked for the institutions when determining whether there was "law".
2.4.5.1.1. Non-civilized groups did not have the institutions the Europeans deemed necessary for international law to apply to them?
2.4.5.2. The problem with positivism in international law is that there is no overarching sovereign in the international system -- and so, from a positivist perspective, it is difficult to accept international law as law
2.4.6. John Austin
2.4.6.1. Positive law is a command that comes from a source, and that source is a sovereign
2.4.6.1.1. International law isn't positive law
2.4.6.2. Late 1800s
2.4.7. Francisco de Vittoria -- partial sovereignties/ ownership without full sovereignty
2.4.8. Natural Law
2.4.8.1. International law as based on an overarching morality --
2.4.8.2. International law as states observing a common set of rules and norms -- unwritten or customary law
2.5. Westphalian Sovereignty
2.5.1. The Myth of Westphalian Sovereignty
2.5.1.1. Westphalia as a tool for lawmakers -- the ahistorical approach to Westphalia that paints it as the origin of sovereignty as complete territorial authority
2.5.1.2. A foil for Napoleon's expansionism?
2.5.1.3. Not in the spirit of the original document?
2.5.1.4. Can obscure the reality of other models of state organization, like the bifurcated post-Westphalian international system -- the transmission of European “civilization,” which pitched sovereignty as a right to be bestowed on those who meet the standard of civilization, as vaguely and inconsistently determined by the European powers.
2.5.1.5. Westphalian sovereignty may be in the interests of those in power within states, but may not be in the best interests of citizens whose rights are being violated by their governments
2.5.1.6. There are many competing forms of sovereignty, and the type that benefits those in power is the type that is given emphasis in justification
2.5.1.7. Conditional sovereignty, sovereignty as responsibility
2.5.1.8. Croxton: Westphalian sovereignty as the recognition of states as having absolute authority over their jurisdictions and the right to not be interfered with. Westphalian sovereignty is based on the idea that the international system is state-centric and that states are the main unitary actors within that system.
2.5.1.9. In 1648, no one conceived of sovereignty as absolute authority -- the HRE has some authority, and so did the states within it.
2.5.2. The UN Charter helped codify Westphalian sovereignty (maybe more so than the Treaty of Westphalia?) -- Art. 2 para 4. In para. 7, the UN bars states from interfering in what is the domestic jurisdiction of states… raising the question of when an issue ceases to be domestic jurisdiction.
2.6. What is sovereignty? What constitutes a sovereign? Who should benefit from sovereignty? Limits of sovereignty and the rights of non-sovereign entities (is the existence of an international community that includes states but not the overarching governance structures or citizens below)
2.7. Popular Sovereignty
2.7.1. The French Revolution transmitted an imperial idea of sovereignty within Europe
2.7.2. Created a state of lawlessness between France and the rest of Europe
2.7.3. Treated as a “new” idea
2.7.4. Raised questions about where legitimacy comes from
2.7.5. Abused in Corsica, and perhaps Avignon
2.7.6. The Haitian Revolution as an expression of the will of the people?
3. Development
3.1. Echoes of Commerce as a standard of civilization/ the justification of colonialism as a civilizing mission or somehow beneficial for the colonized
3.2. Economic Institutions after WWII
3.2.1. Post-WWII, the GATT (which began with 23 signatories and then expanded quickly from there), responded to the economic failures of the 1930s with a multilateral trading system that was intended to serve as a foundation for a peaceful world order with a prosperous economy that would prevent anything like WWII happening again. (Robert Azevedo -- head of WTO)
3.2.2. Is development the civilizing mission sans racial justification?
3.3. Two goals of the modern international order: progress and good governance
3.3.1. The new civilization is technological, economic and ideological “progress” (adopting hr, women’s rights, etc.)
3.3.2. Good governance as respecting the rights of citizens as individuals (with some debate over whether group rights should be considered).
3.3.2.1. Instability -- the idea that states that remain underdeveloped are a risk to international peace and security because their citizens are more likely to fight, tear, down the state, or start a civil war that renders the territory unlivable.
3.3.2.2. Tensions between respecting rights and tolerating a variety of practices
3.3.2.3. There was also a push for states to remain sovereign, and for nations to seek and acquire states, but with the condition that sovereignty came with certain responsibilities
3.3.2.3.1. Maintaining their citizens’ welfare, and to cooperate within the international system responsibly. (This second one is hardly mentioned)
3.4. A need to justify one's wealth: private entity-led development, like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
3.5. What are the goals of development?
3.5.1. Spreading ideology?
3.5.2. Poverty reduction?
3.5.2.1. A better standard of life for all? MDGs/ SDGs?
3.5.3. Facilitating world trade?
3.6. Evidence of a Unipolar concert?
3.7. The means
3.7.1. Focus on poverty
3.7.2. Human rights
3.7.3. Local involvement and ownership
3.7.4. Advancing democracy
3.7.5. Whole of Government approach?
3.7.5.1. criticized as being driven by security concerns -- development no longer justified as intrinsically good, but in the interests of national security
3.7.6. Changes over time?
3.8. An unquestioned good? Is it a norm?
3.9. Norm formation
3.9.1. What were the relevant dominant norms at the time the new norm emerged?
3.9.2. What new ideas did norm entrepreneurs bring to the existing normative framework?
3.9.3. What ideas did they appeal to within the existing normative framework?
3.9.4. How did they convince the relevant community of actors?
3.9.5. Changes over time?
3.9.5.1. Development from the sovereign to the liberal orders
3.9.6. Rise and fall of the golden age of capitalism?
4. Free Trade
4.1. Landless free men found the job search difficult given the availability of slaves
4.2. Norm Formation/Development
4.2.1. Rome initially had agrarian law, which divided public land amongst the citizens, but this had to end as marriage and inheritance concentrated the land into the hands of the very few…
4.2.2. both Greek and Roman colonial expansions responded to a domestic need that came from citizens, or some form of “clear and evident utility” -- unlike European colonial policies, which often either benefitted only a few merchants, or seemed to be a matter of pride
4.2.3. Rise of Capitalism -- and depersonalized rule
4.2.3.1. The Dutch Republic’s economic success made its system of government, which was quite depersonalized, more appealing for the British in the late 1500s-1600s (See Module 2.3)
4.3. Adam Smith
4.3.1. Merchants and Adam Smith -- Smith tried to clarify that what was being done was being done to benefit a small group of influential merchants at the expense of British trade.
4.3.2. Joseph Chamberlain’s Tariff Reform Movement -- and change of policy from Cobden-loving, to protectionist? -- Adam Smith also become a *supporter* of empire?
4.4. Anti-slavery and free trade -- The Emancipation Act in 1833 seemed to have put the two concepts at odds for a bit, as those who were against slavery fought to keep the sugar tax, while free trade advocates fought to have it removed, which it eventually was in 1846.
4.5. Manchester Doctrine -- Richard Cobden and John Bright
4.5.1. Anti Corn Law League
4.5.2. Free trade will lead to a more equitable society
4.5.3. Economic liberalization should be the basis of government policy
4.5.4. Pacifist, anti-slavery, freedom of press, secularist (separation of church and state)
4.5.5. Picked up Smith's ideas as a foundation for their philosophy
4.6. Free Trade as an Instrument of Empire?
4.6.1. Selective "Smithianism"
4.6.1.1. How did British policymakers use Smith to justify their views on empire?
4.6.1.2. The norm of free trade, as it became more popular, took on a life of its own and became more detached from the historical context of its origins
4.6.2. Imperial expansion as an economic tool
4.6.2.1. British empire expanded formally and informally based on the value of the colony and the requirements of the British
4.6.2.1.1. 1840 Opium War -- War as a tool of imperialism
4.6.2.1.2. But war wasn't the only tool
4.6.2.2. Trade with informal control where possible -- trade with rule where necessary
4.6.2.2.1. How did the rest of Europe respond to the economic expansion of the British?
4.6.2.3. But what of the scramble for Africa?
4.6.2.3.1. Economic/rational thinking hardly explains the behaviour here -- there seemed to be a "diplomatic contest" rather than a quest for wealth
4.7. Neoliberalism and structural violence/ inadequacy of free trade in dealing with poverty and inequality?
4.7.1. Jim Kim and the duties of the World Bank
4.7.1.1. International development vs. trade?
4.7.1.2. Inequality and environment in the new priorities for the Bank
4.7.1.3. WB development statistics
4.7.1.3.1. Text on important issues as determined by the staff
4.7.2. New BRICS development bank as a challenger to the World Bank -- a development lending competitor?
4.7.2.1. Will it undermine the World Bank, or try to achieve similar goals?
4.7.2.2. Does it set a precedent for further challenges to the Bretton Woods system of international institutions?
5. Humanitarian Intervention
5.1. Norm Formation/Development
5.1.1. After WW1 came a search for new Western values -- humanitarian concern, reasonable compromise, tolerance, and compassion, which were foreign to everyone at that time -- especially in the context of racism.
5.1.2. Clash with toleration/civilization -- bifurcation of sovereignty, sovereignty as it applies to Europe vs. how it applied to non-Europe (reborn into the North-South divide between the developed and developing worlds)
5.1.3. The UN must juggle its occasionally conflicting mandates -- to serve as a forum for sovereign states to interact with each other as formal equals, and to maintain international peace and security, especially by protecting citizens.
5.1.4. Early ideas (popular sovereignty/ abuse of the will of the people for the gain of the powerful) Revolutionary France and Corsica -- Corsica was integrated as a province of France (and removed from Genoa) in 1789, with justification based on the “Will of the people”, which was supposed to be leaning more towards independence, but which the French interpreted as “wanting to be freed from the tyranny of not being part of France”
5.2. If ever justified, humanitarian intervention requires:
5.2.1. 1) Clear rules and procedures for when and how to intervene
5.2.2. 2) A way of establishing the legitimacy of a military intervention when one is deemed necessary
5.2.3. 3) Any military action is carried out only to achieve the aims of the intervention (or is this not necessary? Self-interest might make an intervention stronger?)
5.2.4. 4) the elimination of the causes of conflict and the enhancement of the prospects for durable and sustainable peace.
5.3. Tension between sovereignty norms and human rights norms
5.4. Does Humanitarian intervention protect human rights?
5.4.1. Or does it just hinder states from becoming strong, legitimate and independent?
5.4.1.1. Haiti and the republic of NGOs: an exercise in in "there, I fixed it" (See Module 4.5)
5.4.1.1.1. The US supported a dictatorship and crumbled the power of an elected ruler they didn't like
5.4.1.1.2. Monroe Doctrine
5.4.1.1.3. Repayments to France, and later the US
5.4.1.1.4. And back again: what constitutes "Leta"?
6. Responsibility to Protect
6.1. Our current conceptions of sovereignty do not match Westphalian sovereignty as articulated in its most restrictive sense, but this does not make current ideas of R2P or humanitarian intervention revolutionary, or even necessarily a break from the norm of sovereignty as responsibility.
6.2. Reflective of a global but divided international order -- In the 19th Century and earlier, there was one form of international law for the family of civilized states, and another arrangement for the uncivilized -- In the 20th to 21st Centuries, after the experience of WWII and then after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a push, through bodies like the UN, to create a universal set of rules that applies to everyone (like human rights, and numerous other rules and laws that are meant to represent - or encourage - global consensus on an issue)
6.3. Norm Formation/Development
6.3.1. Shared experiences of Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. shaped approached to R2P
6.3.1.1. ICISS: International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
6.3.1.2. In Kosovo and Somalia, the call was answered with controversial consequences
6.3.1.3. In Rwanda, the call was answered with severe consequences
6.3.1.4. Do R2P and the humanitarian interventions it allows for constitute an unacceptable infringement on state sovereignty? Does it even help prevent or mitigate atrocities?
6.3.1.5. Whose R2P is it, anyway? Which members/ bodies in the international community are responsible for assisting in a crisis? NATO sure didn’t react promptly to the crisis in Ukraine, though they *killed it* in Kosovo. Perhaps the size, power, and popularity of the enemy to be defeated matters here.
6.3.1.6. The League of Nations and the Armenian Experience: Exercises in paternalism
6.3.1.6.1. Experience of the Armenian refugees, which Turkey still claims wasn't a genocide (but let's call a spade a spade)
6.3.1.6.2. The LoN was formed within the colonial framework, and behaved that way -- it did a terrible job of creating an environment that would discourage conflict
6.3.2. Raphael Lemkin and the word "genocide"
6.4. Not just a regulation of states behaviour towards each other, but a question of how they behave domestically towards their own citizens
6.4.1. The rights of individual citizens and the rights of states are defended by the same organization, the UN
7. Self-Determination
7.1. What are the criteria for a sovereign state? How can we evaluate the validity of claims to self-determination? South Sudan, Scotland, Crimea, ISIS?
7.2. LoN tried to protect groups with mandates, as well as treaties offering favour to minorities
7.2.1. Conditions for the "new" states -- protecting the rights of minority populations in exchange for the rights to be a state -- Chechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Turkey etc had to protect minorities within their borders
7.2.2. This set a precedent for Human Rights in the UN
7.3. Woodrow Wilson implied that all peoples deserved the right to build a nation (self-determination) -- and that communities of people should not be bartered between powers. These imply that it is for the people in a nation that a state should exist, not merely for the elites or for a foreign power’s merchants.
7.4. The expansion of sovereignty into the world outside Europe -- decolonization and the idea of positivism as promoting the subordination of the non-Europeans via the split between “civilized” and “non-civilized” states (Positivists would claim that international law only applied within the family of nations)
7.4.1. Why do groups seek to become states? Is it a desire to join the "European society of states" or merely to be protected from imperial domination? To seek collective rights for a distinct ethnic/religious group, or for some other reason?
7.4.1.1. I suppose it's when their state is not doing the actions that are constitutive of a state, in the eyes of the group -- and when the nation is large and powerful enough to try for independence
7.5. Cold War and decolonization -- see Congo and Guinea (Module 2.7)
7.6. Namibia (South West Africa Mandate) -- Class C, horrid history under Germany, given to South Africa as a mandate, S.Africa decided to increase white population, initiated a regime of high taxes, forced labour, and native reserves
7.7. Palestine
7.7.1. Balfour Declaration 1917 -- giving a home to the Jewish people in Palestine?
8. Abolition of Slavery
8.1. Is this only relevant in the context of its clash /communion with free trade norms in 1846-8?
8.1.1. 1790 – Adam Smith dies; slave trade peaks
8.1.2. 1807 – Parliament abolishes the Slave Trade
8.1.3. 1833 – Abolition of slavery
8.1.3.1. Increased Sugar duties to compensate former slave owners
8.1.3.2. Higher prices for consumers
8.1.4. 1838 – Anti-Corn Law League – Richard Cobden and John Bright; campaign against sugar tariff
8.1.4.1. Based off of Smith's philosophy
8.1.4.1.1. In support of free trade and against slavery
8.1.4.1.2. Free trade as the key to peace and prosperity
8.1.4.2. Cobden was against aggressive economic imperialism à la Palmerston
8.1.5. 1839-1842 – First Opium War
8.1.5.1. Courtesy of Lord Palmerston
8.1.6. 1846 – Corn Laws repealed; sugar tariff phased out
8.2. Free trade as not incompatible with moral correctness -- a universally acceptable morality in free trade (allowing for free labour to compete fairly allows for it to trump slave labour)
9. Understanding Norm Formation and Development
9.1. Tracing Norm Formation:
9.1.1. What were the dominant norms when this happened?
9.1.2. What new ideas did norm entrepreneurs introduce?
9.1.3. What older norms and values did they appeal to?
9.1.4. How did they convince the relevant community of decision-makers or actors to accept the new ideas?
9.1.5. Appeals to self-interest; morality; self-image
9.2. Process of Norm Development
9.2.1. Emergence
9.2.1.1. Norm Entrepreneurs notice a need or gap, and try to address it with a new norm
9.2.1.2. Entrepreneurs seek out those in power to spread the norm
9.2.1.2.1. Or a wide enough audience
9.2.1.3. Information-seeking/ Fact-finding mission and dissimulation of information
9.2.2. Acceptance
9.2.2.1. Wide enough (a critical mass) of support brings the norm to a tipping point after which it can be said to have been generally accepted
9.2.3. Internalization
9.2.3.1. Norm reaches "taken for granted" status
9.2.3.1.1. Violations require special justification
10. Human Rights
10.1. Norm Formation
10.1.1. Shared experience of WWII
10.1.1.1. Many of the previously dominant norms regarding racial discrimination were challenged after WWII
10.1.1.1.1. Nazism as a barbarous ideology that put civilization against scientific justifications for racial discrimination
10.1.1.2. There was a new understanding of the extent of humans' capacity for self-destruction -- and perhaps this led to increased interest in protecting individuals who have nothing to do with the war from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?
10.1.2. What were they trying to achieve with the UDHR?
10.1.3. Moving past a hierarchy of races to individual equality -- emphasis on individuals rather than groups
10.1.4. Norm entrepreneurs: Eleanor Roosevelt? Perhaps Raphael Lemkin?
10.1.4.1. They appealed to the idea that there should be rights that every person, no matter who they are or where they were born, is deserving of a basic set of rights
10.1.4.2. The UDHR was a moral declaration, as opposed to a binding treaty
10.1.4.2.1. Became useful for colonized people with the objective of enlarging the community of states
10.1.4.2.2. humans as including everyone -- or trying to -- what about stateless people?
10.1.4.3. Human Rights are meant to represent a universal consensus on what every human needs to pursue happiness in any culture or climate
10.1.4.3.1. Looking for universal principles traces to the Victorians, who tried to find a universally applicable morality in free trade, perhaps in abolition,
10.1.4.4. Why did they succeed when they did, while other rights advocates failed?
10.1.4.4.1. States needed them -- the norms they were pushing were adopted because the UN needed them to -- the minority treaties approach failed to protect minorities
10.1.4.4.2. Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set a precedent for the use of criminal law to punish actions by individuals in war
10.1.5. How did they spread the norm? Appeals to morality?
10.1.5.1. The holocaust as the archetypal human rights violation
10.1.6. How did they convince relevant communities to take action?
10.1.6.1. I guess... they helped build the community of relevant actors -- the UN?
10.1.6.2. Made it not a binding law so that nations could commit to Human Rights without committing to anything they didn't want to
10.1.6.2.1. everyone was afraid of a human rights enforcement, international community interference in domestic affairs
10.1.6.3. France and Algerian FLN -- Algeria complied with Red Cross demands faster than France, Showing legitimacy as members of the international community
10.2. Legislating to protect HR: Who is meant to pass it? Who does it apply to?
10.2.1. Group Rights: UNDRIP
10.2.1.1. What about instances where individual rights compete with/ are violated by cultural activities or seem to be crushed by a group's self-expression? Cultural relativity
10.2.1.1.1. FGM issue and North-South HRINGO disagreement about appropriate action
10.2.1.2. Why not just emphasize their rights as individuals?
10.2.1.2.1. Issues of cultural genocide only apply to groups?
10.2.1.3. Collective rights to live in freedom, peace, and security as a people (Art. 7 (2))
10.2.1.3.1. No genocide against them (apparently not taken for granted) or take away their children and force them to become some other ethnicity Art 8 (1).
10.2.1.3.2. Collective rights in the Wilsonian context as attempted by the LoN managed to create an incentive for ethnic cleansing, the reverse of protecting group rights
10.2.1.4. Bare minimum here, as opposed to Human Rights, which are something to aspire to.
11. Was "civilization" a norm? Is it gone now? Is development just an extension of civilization?
11.1. Through the long 19th century, the idea that the world could be split along [largely] racial lines into the civilized and uncivilized worlds prevailed
11.2. The rise of "barbarous ideologies" (Keene ch.5) in Europe , like communism, fascism, and Nazism clouded the racial element of the split
11.2.1. Nazism delegitimized "scientific" justification for racial discrimination
11.2.2. But it was the pseudo-scientific basis of the divide that gave it much of its legitimacy
11.2.2.1. Once discrimination by race became less acceptable, so did the bifurcated international system
11.2.2.1.1. See Keene pg 122 for summary
11.2.2.1.2. As barbarism became associated with militarism/communism, civilization became associated with peace?
11.2.3. Civilization as a two-way street -- Europeans could slide in an out of it with different prevailing ideologies
11.3. The destruction/havoc of the world wars challenged the notion that Europe had reached the peak of civilization and was "done" civilizing
11.4. To create a unified international community, it is necessary to eliminate these kinds of inequalities, which were formally eliminated by the UN/LoN, but persist informally in exploitative/strong-arming relationships between states
11.4.1. Aided by structures that make it difficult for underdeveloped states to grow their economies
11.5. Civilization as technological progress, good governance, and respect for individual rights -- this idea is more or less development and human rights now
11.5.1. Something for intra-European relations as well as for relations between Europe and the rest of the world
11.6. Under what authority was it possible for the League of Nations to issue a mandate?
11.6.1. Divided sovereignty made the US uncomfortable?
11.6.2. The United Nations went much further towards the elimination of the bifurcated world system, formally removing the gap between the family of civilized states and the rest of the world
11.6.2.1. Duality of purpose: the UN as promoting civilization (economic and social progress, respect for individual rights), as well as toleration (sovereignty of states,independence to develop the institutions of their choice) at the same time and for everyone
11.7. Norm Formation:
11.7.1. Perhaps the civilizing mission began as a justification for the unfair trade practices?
11.7.1.1. 1885 Berlin Treaty -- set the minimum amount of involvement a power would have to invest in a colony to claim it as one
11.7.1.1.1. Civilization as a by-product of trade
11.7.2. Framed as a more genuine help in the Congo Reform Movement 1904-08?
11.7.2.1. Justified as Belgians not sufficiently bringing commerce to the people who needed civilizing