Norm linkage as politics of legitimacy: The interaction of protection and prosecution norms in humanitarian intervention debates

作为合法性政治的规范联系：人道主义干预辩论中保护和起诉规范的相互作用

• 批准号: 280446800
• 负责人: Dr. Caroline Fehl
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Leibniz-Institut Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung (HSFK)
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Research Grants
• 财政年份: 2016
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2015-12-31 至 2020-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/280446800?language=en
• 关键词: Norm; linkage; politics; legitimacy; interaction

What should the „international community“ do in the face of mass atrocities being committed in a country? Since the end of the Cold War, different international norms have emerged that call for an international intervention in such cases: a “duty to protect”, which postulates that the international community should intervene with military means, if necessary, if a state is unwilling to shield its citizens from violence; and a “duty to prosecute”, which demands that atrocity crimes that would go unpunished in the respective state be prosecuted by international criminal justice mechanisms. Although both intervention norms have different objectives – the prevention of atrocities on the one hand and their punishment on the other –, potential synergies and conflicts between them have been debated ever since their inception: Can prosecutions deter violence and protect civilians, or do they have escalating effects? Do Military interventions for the protection of civilians further or jeopardize the goals of international criminal justice? The ongoing debate about these questions is not limited to academic circles, but is also conducted by political actors. The project examines this political discourse and its underlying political dynamics: Which interpretations of the relationship between protection and prosecution duties have prevailed in international debates about interventions – and why? This research question is investigated on the basis of a quantitative content analysis, combined with comparative and process-tracing methods. Can we confirm the claim by some observers that political actors construct linkages between protection and prosecution strategically to legitimize contested intervention decisions? For instance, do governments use the alleged deterrence effect of criminal trials as an excuse to avoid more costly military protection measures? Or is the international community’s discourse – and thus ultimately its collective intervention practice – driven by different factors? To answer these questions, the project develops a theoretical model of norm linkage, which can be transferred to other policy Areas to make a broader theoretical contribution to research about international norms. According to this model, positive or negative linkages between norms are discursively constructed by political actors. These linkage discourses can be driven by different Motives and structural conditions. The first phase of the project focused on analyzing whether strategic motives can be discerned in debates about Darfur, Libya and Syria, and whether the evolution of the discourse reflects the influence of power inequalities, institutional authorities or precedents. Following the only partial confirmation of these hypotheses, the proposed extension project will use a broadened database and a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to test alternative hypotheses connecting norm linkage to political actors’ cultural predispositions and to collective learning.

面对一个国家正在发生的大规模暴行，“国际社会”应该怎么做？自冷战结束以来，出现了不同的国际准则，要求在这种情况下进行国际干预：“保护的责任”，即如果一个国家不愿意保护其公民免受暴力侵害，国际社会应在必要时以军事手段进行干预；还有一项“起诉的义务”，即要求国际刑事司法机制起诉在各自国家不受惩罚的暴行罪行。尽管这两种干预规范都有不同的目标——一方面是防止暴行，另一方面是惩罚暴行——但它们之间潜在的协同作用和冲突从一开始就一直在争论：起诉能否阻止暴力并保护平民，还是会产生升级的影响？保护平民的军事干预是否会进一步或危害国际刑事司法的目标？关于这些问题的持续辩论不仅限于学术界，而且也由政治行动者进行。该项目考察了这种政治话语及其潜在的政治动态：在有关干预的国际辩论中，对保护和起诉职责之间关系的哪种解释占了上风，为什么？本研究问题是在定量内容分析的基础上，结合比较法和过程追溯法进行调查。我们能否证实一些观察家的说法，即政治行为者在保护和起诉之间建立了战略联系，以使有争议的干预决定合法化？例如，政府是否利用所谓的刑事审判的威慑作用作为借口，以避免更昂贵的军事保护措施？还是国际社会的话语——以及最终的集体干预实践——受到不同因素的驱动？为了回答这些问题，本项目建立了规范联动的理论模型，该模型可以推广到其他政策领域，为国际规范研究做出更广泛的理论贡献。根据这个模型，规范之间的积极或消极联系是由政治行为者话语建构的。这些联动话语可以受到不同动机和结构条件的驱动。该项目的第一阶段侧重于分析是否可以在关于达尔富尔、利比亚和叙利亚的辩论中看出战略动机，以及讨论的演变是否反映了权力不平等、体制当局或先例的影响。在这些假设得到部分证实之后，拟议的扩展项目将使用一个扩大的数据库和定性比较分析（QCA）来测试将规范联系与政治行为者的文化倾向和集体学习联系起来的其他假设。