Constructivist Approaches in International Relations Theory: Puzzles and Promises

By raising the question of what made constructivism possible the paper discusses the puzzle and promises of constructivist scholarschip in IR. It is argued that the communicative style which coined constructivism as a movement provides the key. Two puzzles are the focus, first, a lack of epistemological overlap, secondly, a disciplinary culture of consecutive debates which reached their high point of non-communication with the so-called Third Debate. However, while the constructivist movement gathered influence as a reference frame in the late 1990s, it is neither genuine to international relations theory nor does it originate in the 1990s. Why and how did constructivism manage to bring such a diverse group of scholars to one table? Section 2 of the paper develops the argument and introduces the concept of framing to understand the puzzle of conversation in IR. Section 3 recalls the emergence of constructivism, identifies the theoretical discussions and the significant conceptual moves. Section 4 summarizes the value-added and flags ‘norms’ research as the core of constructivist political science.international relations; political science

Making normative meaning accountable in international politics

"Wenn es zutrifft, dass kulturelle Praxen Erfahrung und Erwartungen prägen, dann müssen sie eindeutig bestimmt und für die empirische Forschung als aussagekräftig gewertet werden. Mit Bezug auf die Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen (IB-Theorie), Internationales Öffentliches Recht und normative Demokratietheorie entwickelt dieser Artikel einen Ansatz, um die umstrittenen Bedeutungen von Normen in der internationalen Politik unter der Bedingung von Konstitutionalisierung jenseits des Staates zu erforschen. Ziel ist es, ein Forschungsdesign zur Untersuchung der unsichtbaren Konstitution von Politik, das heißt, zur Erforschung von individuell gehaltenen assoziativen Konnotationen, die zur umstrittenen Interpretation normativer Bedeutung führen, zu entwickeln. Diese Überlegungen werden in dem Papier in zwei Teilen vorgestellt. Teil I entwickelt Forschungsannahmen und Hypothesen aufgrund der relevanten Literatur im ersten Abschnitt. Er zeigt unterschiedliche Typen von Normen und Bedingungen von Normumstrittenheit auf (Abschnitt 1), definiert Forschungsannahmen und Hypothesen (Abschnitt 2), argumentiert für die Rückbesinnung auf die Dimension der Kultur im Konstitutionalismus (Abschnitt 3) und schließt mit der Leitfrage nach Konvergenz, Divergenz oder Diffusion normativer Bedeutungen (Abschnitt 4). Teil II richtet den Blick auf die Operationalisierung des Forschungsdesigns. Er stellt die Forschungslogik und Art der Untersuchung (Abschnitt 5), die Methode der Interviewauswertung (Abschnitt 6) und die Forschungsindikatoren nach sozialer Gruppe, Fundamentalnormen und politischen Arenen (Abschnitt 7) vor. Abschnitt 8 fasst das Forschungsdesign und -vorgehen zusammen." (Autorenreferat)"If cultural practices shape experience and expectations, they need to be identified and made accountable based on empirical research. Drawing on international relations (IR) theory, international law and normative democratic theory this article develops a framework approach to studying the contested meaning of norms in international politics under conditions of constitutionalisation beyond the nation-state. The goal is to formulate observations and identify a design for empirical research, which is suitable to examining the 'invisible constitution' of politics, that is, the individually held associative connotations which inform contested interpretation of normative meaning. To do so, the article is organised in two parts. Part I derives research assumptions and hypotheses from the literature. It turns to the distinction of types of norms and conditions of norm contestation in section 1, identifies research assumptions and hypotheses in section 2, argues to bring culture back into constitutionalism in section 3, and summarises the guiding question of convergence, divergence, or diffusion of normative meanings in section 4. Part II then focuses on research operationalisation. Section 5 elaborates on the rationale of the research framework and type of enquiry. Section 6 highlights the method of interview evaluation. Section 7 identifies the research indicators including type of social group to be interviewed, fundamental norms that are likely to be contested, domestic political arenas in which the social groups operate, and issue areas linked with core constitutional norms. Section 8 summarises the case study's design and procedure." (author's abstract

Chapter 13 Practising Academic Intervention

The digital pdf of Chapter 13 is available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. This collection brings together leading figures in the study of international relations to explore praxis as a perspective on international politics and law. With its focus on competent judgments, the praxis approach holds the promise to overcome the divide between knowing and acting that marks positivist international relations theory. Building on the transdisciplinary work of Friedrich Kratochwil, this book reveals the scope, limits and blind spots of praxis theorizing

A Conceptual Framework

Current contestations of the liberal international order stand in notable contrast with the earlier rise of international law during the post-cold war period. As Krieger and Liese argue, this situation calls for assessment of the type of change that is currently observed, i.e. norm change (Wandel) or a more fundamental transformation of international law – a metamorphosis (Verwandlung)? To address this question, this paper details the bi-focal approach to norms in order to reflect and take account of the complex interrelation between fact-based and value-based conceptions of norms. The paper is organised in three sections. The first section presents three axioms underlying the conceptual framework to study norm(ative) change which are visualised by a triangular operation to analyse this change in relation with practices and norms. The second section recalls three key interests that have guided IR norms research after the return to norms in the late 1980s. They include, first, allocating change in and through practice, second, identifying behavioural change with reference to norm- following, and third, identifying norm(ative) change with reference to discursive practice. The third section presents the two analytical tools of the conceptual frame, namely, the norm-typology and the cycle-grid model. It also indicates how to apply these tools with reference to illustrative case scenarios. The conclusion recalls the key elements of the conceptual framework for research on norm(ative) change in international relations in light of the challenge of establishing sustainable normativity in the global order

Taking Stock of Integration Theory

This concluding chapter of the third edition of European Integration Theory (OUP 2018) takes stock of the updated mosaic of integration theory. The chapter is organised in three sections. The first section offers a comparative perspective on the book’s chapters. To that end, it presents the preferences of each approach from a comparative perspective, against the backdrop of three leading metaphorical perceptions of the EU. The second section addresses the absence of security crises in the book’s contributions. To explore, how security crises may be brought into focus in integration theory, it distinguishes the impact of integration along two dimensions. These include first, the horizontal regional comparative perspective and the ‘litmus test’ of the applicability of integration theory to other regions; and second, the vertical dimension which connects normative crises in EU sub-units with global conflicts. And the concluding third section asks how integration theory fares sixty years on from the Treaty of Rome, and points out potential issues and themes for the future of European integration theory

Demokratischer Konstitutionalismus jenseits des Staates? Perspektiven auf die Umstrittenheit von Normen

Der Beitrag diskutiert die verfassungsrechtliche Berücksichtigung von Vielfalt in demokratischen Ordnungen jenseits des Staates. Der empirische Fokus richtet sich auf die Rolle von Normen und ihre unterschiedliche Konzeptionalisierung in der Sozialwissenschaft. Es wird gezeigt, dass zwar der in behavioristischen Fragestellungen wurzelnde moderne oder ‚konventionelle’ Konstruktivismus (welche Norm wirkt sich wie aus?) durch Bezug auf die Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Legitimationsfragen in den Vordergrund rückt (welche Norm zählt in einer guten Ordnung?). Der Beitrag zeigt jedoch mit Rekurs auf Tullys Arbeiten, dass eine normative Erweiterung auf Grundlage der konsequenten Anwendung des Demokratieprinzips in Zusammenwirkung mit dem Konstitutionalismusprinzip notwendig ist (welche Normbedeutung ist in einer vielfältigen Gemeinschaft akzeptabel?), denn erst durch die Berücksichtigung dieser Dimension gelingt es, die derzeit in den Theorien der internationalen Beziehungen oft handlungstheoretisch verkürzte Umsetzung des Habermasschen Beitrags zur Rechtsphilosophie auf demokratietheoretischer Ebene einzuholen und für die Diskussion um das demokratische Regieren jenseits von Staatlichkeit fruchtbar zu machen. --

Lost Without Translation?: Cross-Referencing and a New Global Community of Courts

Anne-Marie Slaughter has described the new world order as characterized by some conceptual shifts, including an increasing cooperation of domestic courts across nation-state boundaries. The cross-jurisdictional referencing of legal norms and decisions, as Slaughter holds, would lead into a global community of courts. This article takes issue with that observation. We argue that for such a community to emerge, cross-referencing would need to be followed by an effective transmission of meaning from one (legal) context to another. Following recent insights in the field of International Relations norm research, however, we can expect such meanings to be contested-in particular, when different cultural repertoires operate on either side of the interactive processes. Therefore, a need for translation ensues (i.e., a translation of constitutional norms or concepts from one legal order into another). The conditions of a global community of courts are thus not easily met. In this respect, the aim of the article is to put Slaughter\u27s thesis to an empirical test. To extrapolate the normative structures of meaning-in-use the article builds on the analysis of semi-structured interviews with legal practitioners who were involved in the jurisprudence on anti-terrorism measures in two countries, Canada and Germany. During this empirical work, we found a global community of courts not yet emerged. Although the concept of community does matter as an explanatory reference for research on legal cross-referencing across national borders, our research suggests that practice of cross-referencing is still more culturally fragmented than unified, and normative references are more regionally diverse than globally shared. Moreover, the normative context within which referencing takes place remains strong, so that the meaning of foreign concepts is often constructed by means of contestation rather than transferred from one contest into another. Regulatory Translations: Expertise and Affect in Global Legal Fields, Symposium, May 16-18, 2013, Istanbul, Turke

Introducing the Mosaic of Integration Theory

This introductory chapter of the third edition of European Integration Theory (OUP 2018) addresses the rationale for a book on European integration theory and introduces the contributions to the book. It begins by addressing the question of Why Study Integration Theory; it then defines the terms ‘integration’ and ‘theory’ and introduces the ‘mosaic of European integration theory’ as the book’s central concept. The chapter also offers an overview of European integration as a process which has been studied for several decades now. To that end, the chapter recalls distinct phases of integration and the respective parts of the mosaic which have been developed to understand and explain them based on descriptive, analytical and constructive theorising. Each phase is distinguished by historical context, leading questions and relevant theoretical reference points. The book’s extensive section on Studying European Integration by taking account of ‘contexts of theoretical development’ and addressing the question of ‘competing or complementary theoretical approaches’ which also identifies the functions and areas of theory. In concluding, the chapter details the concept of the ‘Mosaic of Integration Theory’ and introduces the chapter structure of the book’s contributions

Chapter 4 Norms and Norm Contestation

There are growing connections between the IR constructivist focus on norms and norm contestation and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). FPA has long had a focus on agency within the state, particularly individual and group-based decision-making. Early constructivist work, by contrast, tended to prioritize agency outside of the state – focusing on norm entrepreneurs and transnational advocacy– and then the state itself in the norm institutionalization process. This led to critiques from FPA scholars that it dismissed human agency. Norms research, however, has evolved. It has moved away from an ontologisation of norms – which focused on structural effects rather than on their socially constructed quality – to examine the importance of norm contestations, practices whereby a diversity of societal agents working across the international/domestic divide seek to contest norm meaning. This leads to a focus on how norms are implemented at the domestic level and creates a closer engagement between constructivism and FPA

Lost Without Translation?: Cross-Referencing and a New Global Community of Courts

Anne-Marie Slaughter has described the new world order as characterized by some conceptual shifts, including an increasing cooperation of domestic courts across nation-state boundaries. The cross-jurisdictional referencing of legal norms and decisions, as Slaughter holds, would lead into a global community of courts. This article takes issue with that observation. We argue that for such a community to emerge, cross-referencing would need to be followed by an effective transmission of meaning from one (legal) context to another. Following recent insights in the field of International Relations norm research, however, we can expect such meanings to be contested-in particular, when different cultural repertoires operate on either side of the interactive processes. Therefore, a need for translation ensues (i.e., a translation of constitutional norms or concepts from one legal order into another). The conditions of a global community of courts are thus not easily met. In this respect, the aim of the article is to put Slaughter\u27s thesis to an empirical test. To extrapolate the normative structures of meaning-in-use the article builds on the analysis of semi-structured interviews with legal practitioners who were involved in the jurisprudence on anti-terrorism measures in two countries, Canada and Germany. During this empirical work, we found a global community of courts not yet emerged. Although the concept of community does matter as an explanatory reference for research on legal cross-referencing across national borders, our research suggests that practice of cross-referencing is still more culturally fragmented than unified, and normative references are more regionally diverse than globally shared. Moreover, the normative context within which referencing takes place remains strong, so that the meaning of foreign concepts is often constructed by means of contestation rather than transferred from one contest into another. Regulatory Translations: Expertise and Affect in Global Legal Fields, Symposium, May 16-18, 2013, Istanbul, Turke