Abstract
This article theoretically examines the political dimensions of international norm dynamics in the process of which the parties concerned reach some consensus on general standards of appropriate behavior but nevertheless continue to disagree over specific interpretations of the behavioral standards. It focuses on the idea of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from atrocities such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing committed within territorial sovereign states.
Most existing studies on international norms share in common the definition of norm as “collective expectations for the proper behavior of actors within a given identity” as in Katzenstein (1996). When are such norms formed within the society of states? Finnemore and Sikkink (1998) interpret the increased consent from states to a specific standard of appropriate behavior as the evidence that those states come to share expectation for the proper behavior. According to their model of the “norm life-cycle,” the idea of R2P is interpreted to have gained the status of an international norm after the UN World Summit in 2005 when heads of states and governments reached consensus on its definition. However, subsequent debates especially in the UN Security Council demonstrated that states still have a long way to go to achieve an agreement about exactly what each of them is expected to do as before 2005. This suggests that the very idea of R2P consisting of vague or abstract notions is subject to mutually conflicting interpretations by those pursue political advantage in authorizing or withholding interventions in the name of responsibility to protect.
This article examines political factors in the contested interpretations of R2P by considering two political principles: ‘complementarity’ and ‘necessity’. The principle of complementarity means that national jurisdictions of sovereign states in protecting civilians are not replaced but complemented by international organizations. This logic leads to controversy over the ability and willingness of states to protect their own citizens between the interveners and the intervened. On the other hand, the principle of necessity means that military means are considered legitimate in protecting civilians only when necessary in that all the other means have been exhausted. This logic leads to controversy over effectiveness of actual and considered options. Analyzing cases of R2P in Myanmar in 2008 and Syria since 2011, this article examines the political origins of the contested interpretations over the behavioral standards in the process of international norm dynamics.
