ABSTRACT
In this chapter I develop a theoretical framework for conceptualising norm development and generating a more systematic understanding of the interplay of scientific knowledge and normative beliefs in the process of norm evolution. This framework is based on the research and findings of two fields of social research – social constructivism in international relations and the sociology of scientific knowledge. After examining these paradigms and outlining some of their limitations, I propose a synthetic model, which reflects the main stages in the evolution of international norms. There are a few key questions that this chapter seeks to address, namely, how international norms evolve, what roles different actors play, how the interplay between knowledge and norms changes during the different stages of the process, and how closures on new norms are reached. The emphasis on theoretically informed process tracing throughout this study makes it crucial that the studies of conventional constructivism are engaged.1 The analysis of the types of actors involved in the process of norm development is one of the meeting points of social constructivists of IR and the sociologists of knowledge. Both of these theories examine a larger spectrum of internationally active social groups and engage in analysing the varying degrees of persuasion, argumentation and coercion that they use. The moment of closure, which has been studied in more depth by the sociologists of knowledge and to a lesser degree by social constructivists, is considered in this research to have three vital components – social, scientific and political. My discussion, however, will begin with the definition of the concept and form of international behavioural norms, which are then distinguished from other ideational phenomena that affect actors’ behaviour and decision-making patterns. Norms are often defined as shared expectations about or standards of appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity.2 These definitions, however, are not precise, because ‘shared expectations of appropriate behaviour’ do not constitute norms – they result from
already existing norms or a given normative context. Furthermore, the concept of shared expectations does not indicate with enough authority the level of agreement and support needed to create a norm. The term ‘standard of appropriate behaviour’ should not be perceived as a synonym for the term norm either, because standards presuppose a high degree of specificity and not all norms are always stipulated in precise terms. Moreover, within a context which has not been precisely regulated, states can still project would-be standards of appropriate behaviour within the context of existing normative principles, but that would not constitute a norm. In other words, while ‘shared expectations’ is a term that is too loose to be synonymous to a norm, ‘standards of appropriate behaviour’ is a term too strict to convey the same meaning as ‘norm’, since ‘standards of behaviour [are] defined in terms of rights and obligations’,3 while that is not always true for norms. The term ‘norm’ will be used here to mean prescriptions for appropriate and acceptable behaviour,4 from which the standards of behaviour are further negotiated and institutionalised. Farrell argues that norms ‘regulate action by defining what is appropriate (given social rules) and what is effective (given laws of science)’.5 However, the internal division of a norm into a technical and normative part is artificial and only helpful for the study of the interplay between technical knowledge and normative beliefs in the process of constructing norms. Norms are a product of both social rules and laws of science and they carry forward elements of both. Norms are guiding posts for state behaviour; they become embedded in the belief systems of policy-makers, thus influencing state behaviour. Norms can remain tacit prescriptions for appropriate behaviour but they can also develop into legal principles – either customary or codified. Legal rules institutionalise norms by stating them in technical terms – asserting the parameters of a norm, its definition, its subjects, what constitutes a breach of it, often including specific consequences of non-compliance. In this research ‘norms’ and ‘behavioural norms’ will be used interchangeably. Neta Crawford draws attention to the need to differentiate between behavioural norms and normative beliefs.6 Normative beliefs are thus similar to the conventional understanding of moral principles and/or ethical principles. They are held by individuals and result from the overall social constructions of good and bad, appropriate and inappropriate, right and wrong. Breaking these principles does not result in an institutionalised punishment, but is condemned and ostracised within the social group. ‘Idea’ is another term that is used in this research and it indicates individual perceptions. They result from the interaction between the individual and the social, and political environment, as well as from the interactions among individuals. Ideas can be beliefs held by individuals, normative
judgements and proposals for normative change that are not necessarily shared by others. Scientific knowledge has come to occupy an important place in normative research. Drori et al. argue that the role of science is expanding, and so is its authority, and that globalisation is both demanding and assisting the spread of scientific knowledge in all parts of the world.7 Researchers of epistemic communities also indicate the prominent place of scientific knowledge in the policy-making process, while the sociologists of knowledge assert the social nature of science. Constructivists in international relations agree that science plays an important role in certain areas of policy-making – economic policy, environmental politics, military policy.8 The current research argues that rationality, precision, understanding of causal relationships, and possessing the professional authority to produce scientific knowledge play a vital role in the development of norms in all spheres of political activity. Furthermore, knowledge is one of the indispensable components of a normative campaign. The terms technical and scientific knowledge will be used interchangeably in this research, because both these terms indicate knowledge that is accumulated in a systematic manner, and that complies with the basic laws of scientific research – involving method, testing, interpretation, peer review, authority.
