International Norms in Conflict: Contestation and Norm Robustness

20世纪90年代的乐观情绪认为，在集体对抗结束后，基本规范将在全球范围内传播，但近年来这种乐观情绪已经动摇。即使是基本人权也经历了激烈的争论。围绕禁止酷刑或国际保护责任等国际准则一次又一次地爆发冲突。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，如果它们有助于规范的削弱或加强，仍存在争议。自由-建构主义规范研究最初没有分析围绕规范的冲突；该分支的最新研究将规范之争概念化为规范弱化的标志。相比之下，对(法律)规范的批判性研究赋予了争辩一种自身的规范性力量，这种力量通过不断地实施规范来加强规范。然而，一种规范能够承受多大的冲突，同时仍然被它们的发言视为共同的规范期望，这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。我们分析了当竞争导致规范弱化或规范强化的时候。我们通过四个案例研究的比较设计来解决这个问题，这些案例研究的是极具争议性的规范，以及两个完全被侵蚀的规范。利用法律与规范性的话语理论(Deitelhoff 2006；Günther 1988；Haberas 1992)的见解，我们分析了(1)规范稳健性取决于辩论类型的假设，因此，如果辩论涉及应用维度或有效性维度。(2)我们还将调查哪些因素促进了特定形式的争辩，以及与此相关的常模稳健性的变化。

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.