The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation – The case of counterterrorism policy
The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation – The case of counterterrorism policy
复制标题
规范论证的“阴暗面”——反恐政策案例
DOI：
10.1017/s2045381711000049
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Daniela Pisoiu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Regina Heller;Martin Kahl;Daniela Pisoiu
9·11事件后，世界各地不同程度的国家行为者决定将安全和反恐措施置于人权和基本自由之上。为了使他们的政策选择合法化，政府行为者使用规范性论证来重新定义什么是“适当的”以确保安全。我们认为，从长远来看，这可能会导致现有的人权和公民权利规范被掏空。在这篇文章中，我们发展了一个理论和分析框架，以规范的生命周期模型为导向，以追踪反恐领域中的“坏”规范动态。我们将规范侵蚀过程概念化，特别关注诸如政府规范挑战者提出的言语行为等论点，以及他们试图创造新的意义和理解。我们还借鉴了趋同理论，并认为，当规范挑战者联盟发展起来时，使用相同或类似的论证模式，保护人权和公民自由的既定国际规范秩序可能会随着时间的推移而被削弱，可能会发生更根本的规范侵蚀过程。
Abstract After 9/11 state actors in different parts of the world and to various degrees decided to give security and counterterrorism measures priority over human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order to legitimize their policy choices, governmental actors used normative argumentation to redefine what is ‘appropriate’ to ensure security. We argue that, in the long run, this may lead to a setback dynamic hollowing out established human and civil rights norms. In this article, we develop a theoretical and analytical framework, oriented along the model of the life cycle of norms, in order to trace ‘bad’ norm dynamics in the field of counterterrorism. We conceptualize the norm erosion process, particularly focusing on arguments such as speech acts put forward by governmental norm challengers and their attempts to create new meaning and understanding. We also draw on convergence theory and argue that when a coalition of norm challengers develops, using the same or similar patterns of arguments, established international normative orders protecting human rights and civil liberties might be weakened over time and a more fundamental process of norm erosion may take place.