現代国際政治理論の相克と対話

規範の変化をどのように説明するか

抄録

The Westphalian norms of state sovereignty, sovereign equality, and noninterfbrence are under great pressure for change. To improve the normativity of the international system, significant empowerment has taken place within international human rights law, humanitarian law, and liberal economic law, each of which seeks to remedy moral and distributive injustice associated with the Westphalian system. However, the transformation to a post-Westphalian liberal norm system is incomplete at best: many states still give priority to state sovereignty over human rights, cultural relativism over universalism, and protectionism over liberalism to justify their nationalistic behavior. As a consequence, the current system remains confusingly complex and pluralistic, containing both Westphalian and post-Westphalian elements.
In general, norm change is explainable by three principles of human behavior: the logic of appropriateness holds that norm change emerges along with change of social facts defined intersubjectively by states' political elites; the logic of consequences focuses on the coordinating function of norms in promoting states' joint interests; and the logic of coercion emphasizes the endogeneity of norms to international power structures. These principles constitute analytical cores of major international relations theories, including social constructivism, rational institutionalism, and political realism, respectively.
Yet, scholars disagree on the current status of international norms and hold varying opinions on causes and consequences of norm change. Having outlined basic concepts and theoretical frameworks for analysis, this essay suggests that, unless carefully executed, analyses of norm change may suffer from methodological problems of underdetermination, selection bias, and fallacious attribution. Given the imperfect nature of theory and human society, researchers need to focus on the relative rather than absolute validity of competing theories, by finding the conditions under which theories are descriptively superior to their alternatives. The essay concludes by stressing the imperative to bridge theoretical divides to improve our understanding of contemporary global politics that has been undergoing major normative transformations.