International Norms in Conflict: Contestation and Norm Robustness

20世纪90年代曾乐观地认为，在集团对抗结束后，基本准则将在全球范围内传播，但近年来这种乐观情绪已经动摇。甚至连基本人权也遭到严重侵犯。围绕禁止酷刑或国际保护责任等国际准则，冲突一再爆发。与此同时，在现有的研究中，围绕规范的这种冲突如何影响规范的稳健性，如果它们有助于削弱或加强规范，仍然存在争议。自由建构主义的规范研究，最初，没有分析围绕规范的冲突，在这一分支的最新研究概念化的规范弱化的标志。相反，对（法律的）规范的批判性研究赋予了权力，它通过规范的持续实现来加强规范。然而，一项规范在被其处理者视为共同的规范期望的同时，能够承受多大的冲突，这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。我们分析了什么情况下，社会主义制度导致规范弱化或规范强化。我们解决这个问题的比较设计的四个案例研究的高度争议的规范和两个案例的规范，已经完全侵蚀。利用法律和规范性的话语理论（Deitelhoff 2006; Günther 1988; Habermas 1992）的见解，我们分析了（1）规范稳健性取决于规范的类型的假设，因此，如果规范的立场涉及应用的维度或有效性的维度。(2)我们还将研究哪些因素促进了一种特定形式的稳定性，以及与此相关的规范鲁棒性的变化。

The optimism of the 1990s that, after the end of the block confrontation, fundamental norms would diffuse globally has been unsettled in recent years. Even fundamental human rights have witnessed severe contestation. Time and again conflict erupts around international norms such as the torture ban or the international responsibility to protect. At the same time, it remains contested in existing research how such conflicts around norms affect the robustness of norms, if they contribute to their weakening or to their strengthening. The liberal-constructivist norm research has, initially, not analyzed conflicts around norms; latest research in this branch conceptualizes norm contestation as a sign of norm weakening. In contrast, critical research on (legal) norms assigns contestation a normative power of its own which strengthens norms by their continuous actualization. It remains an open question, however, how much conflict a norm can bear while still being perceived as a shared normative expectation by their addresses. We analyze when contestation leads to norm weakening or to norm strengthening. We tackle this question with a comparative design of four case studies of highly contested norms and two cases of norms that have completely eroded. Utilizing insights fom the discourse theory of law and normativity (Deitelhoff 2006; Günther 1988; Habermas 1992), we analyze (1) the hypothesis that norm robustness depends on the type of contestation, thus, if contestation concerns the dimension of application or the dimension of validity. (2) We will also investigate which factors advance a specific form of contestation and, linked to this, a change of norm robustness.