Cooperating for Peace and Security Evolving Institutions and Arrangements in a Context of Changing U.S. Security Policy
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- I FRAMEWORK
- II ADAPTING COLD WAR INSTITUTIONS
- III NEW TOOLS, NEW MECHANISMS
- 10 Normative Evolution at the UN: Impact on Operational Activities
- 11 Constructing Sovereignty for Security
- 12 New Arrangements for Peace Negotiation
- 13 International Humanitarian Cooperation: Aiding War's Victims in a Shifting Strategic Environment
- 14 The Evolution of Regional and Subregional Collective Security Mechanisms in Post–Cold War Africa
- 15 International Courts and Tribunals
- IV CONCLUSIONS
- Index
- References
10 - Normative Evolution at the UN: Impact on Operational Activities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- I FRAMEWORK
- II ADAPTING COLD WAR INSTITUTIONS
- III NEW TOOLS, NEW MECHANISMS
- 10 Normative Evolution at the UN: Impact on Operational Activities
- 11 Constructing Sovereignty for Security
- 12 New Arrangements for Peace Negotiation
- 13 International Humanitarian Cooperation: Aiding War's Victims in a Shifting Strategic Environment
- 14 The Evolution of Regional and Subregional Collective Security Mechanisms in Post–Cold War Africa
- 15 International Courts and Tribunals
- IV CONCLUSIONS
- Index
- References
Summary
The operational activities of international organizations do not occur in a normative vacuum. They are shaped by the normative climate in which they occur, and they in turn shape that climate. This chapter elucidates that proposition by tracing three especially important normative developments over the last fifteen years: the emerging “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” the growing consensus on the value of democratic governance, and the centrality of counterterrorism to global security policy. I will test the impact of norms by reviewing operational activities that have been most deeply affected, primarily in the field of peace operations, but also humanitarian action, development assistance, and nonproliferation.
These developments have occurred through a dynamic process that involves influential member states, key figures within international institutions, and nongovernmental entities. States are still the primary actors – especially the United States – but because the process has become more fluid, normative evolution at the United Nations (UN) is not driven entirely by the executive branches of government and their diplomatic representatives in New York and Geneva. The UN is both a venue for interaction among states and an “organizational platform” where actors other than states wield influence.
The chapter proceeds as follows. The next section presents a theoretical account of how and why norms matter in international politics and considers the role of the United States in promoting norms.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cooperating for Peace and SecurityEvolving Institutions and Arrangements in a Context of Changing U.S. Security Policy, pp. 187 - 214Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, “US-UN Relations after Iraq: The End of the World (Order) as We Know It?” European Journal of International Law 15, No. 4 (2004), pp. 813–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security,” in , ed., The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 5Google Scholar
and , “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization 52 (1998), pp. 887–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar
, “The Evolution of International Norms,” International Studies Quarterly 40 (1996), pp. 363–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,” World Politics 50 (1998), p. 340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Why Do Nations Obey International Law,” The Yale Law Journal 106 (1997), p. 2659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 2003)Google Scholar
, “American Hegemony and International Law: Speaking Law to Power: Popular Sovereignty, Human Rights, and the New International Order,” Chicago Journal of International Law 1, No. 1 (Spring 2000)Google Scholar
, “Multilateralism and its Discontents,” in and , eds., Multilateralism and US Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002), p. 7Google Scholar
, “Weak as Constraint, Strong as Tool: The Place of International Law in US Foreign Policy,” in and , eds., Multilateralism and US Foreign Policy: International Perspectives (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003), pp. 45–53Google Scholar
“Present at the Creation: A Survey of America's World Role,” The Economist, June 29, 2002, Special Survey, p. 20
, “Regulating the World: Multilateralism, International Law and the Projection of the New Deal Regulatory State,” in , ed., Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Practice of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 125–6Google Scholar
, , and , eds., US Hegemony and International Organizations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)CrossRef
and , eds., United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRef
and , eds., US Foreign Policy and the United Nations System (New York: Norton, 1996)
and , eds., The United States and Multilateral Institutions: Patterns of Changing Instrumentality and Influence (New York: Routledge, 1990)CrossRef
, Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization, 1919–1999 (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999)Google Scholar
, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar
and , “American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs 81, No. 4 (July/August 2002), p. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument,” European Journal of International Law 14, No. 3 (2003), pp. 464–6
. “The Plea of ‘Necessity’ in International Legal Discourse: Humanitarian Intervention and Counter-terrorism,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43, No. 2 (2005), pp. 337–88Google Scholar
and , “Intervention and State Sovereignty: Breaking New Ground,” Global Governance 7, No. 2 (April/June 2001), pp. 119–25Google Scholar
, “Dilemmas of Robust Peacekeeping,” in Annual Review of Global Peace Operations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006)Google Scholar
and , The Impossible Mandate? Military Preparedness, the Responsibility to Protect and Modern Peace Operations (Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2006)Google Scholar
, “Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq,” Ethics and International Affairs 19, No. 2 (2005), pp. 31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Use of Force in UN Peacekeeping: The Experience of MONUC,” African Security Review 18, No. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
, “The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as International Minimum Standard and Protection Tool,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 24, No. 3 (2005), pp. 27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: An Innovation in International Standard Setting,” Global Governance 10 (2004), pp. 459–80Google Scholar
, Developing a Normative Framework for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (Washington, DC: Bridge Street Books, 2005), p. 12Google Scholar
, “The Process and Prospects for the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to Become Customary Law,” Georgetown Journal of International Law 35 (Spring 2004)Google Scholar
, “Law-making through the Operational Activities of International Organizations,” George Washington International Law Review 40 (2008)Google Scholar
, An Agenda for Democratization (New York: United Nations Department of Public Information, 1996), para. 28Google Scholar
, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law,” in Democratic Governance and International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 48–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and , eds., Reimagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1998)
, ed., Democracy and International Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2006)
, Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy Promotion (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2004)Google Scholar
and , “Democracies of the World Unite,” The American Interest, Vol. 2(3), Jan–Feb, 2007Google Scholar
, “Minor League, Major Problems: The Case against a League of Democracies,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87(6), Nov–Dec, 2008Google Scholar
, “International Mechanisms for Protecting Democracy,” in and , eds., Protecting Democracies: International Responses (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2005)Google Scholar
, “Transforming the Institutions of War: Post-Conflict Elections and the Reconstruction of Failed States,” in , ed., When States Fail: Causes and Consequences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar
and , Making War and Building Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), pp. 18–19Google Scholar
, “Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges,” Third World Quarterly 21, Issue 5 (2000), p. 795ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Democratic Governance: toward a Framework for Sustainable Peace,” Global Governance Vol. 9, No. 2 (April-June 2003), pp. 141–6Google Scholar
, , and , “The Evolution of UN Peacekeeping: Unfinished Business,” Die Friedens-Warte 80 (2006)Google Scholar
and , “Global Non-Proliferation and Counter-Terrorism: The Role of Resolution 1540 and Its Implications,” in and , eds., Global Non-Proliferation and Counter-Terrorism: The Impact of UNSCR 1540 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2007), pp. 7–9Google Scholar
and , “US Peace Operations Policy in Africa: From ACRI to AFRICOM,” International Peacekeeping 15 No. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
, “The Backlash against Democracy Promotion,” Foreign Affairs 85, No. 2 (Mar/Apr 2007)Google Scholar
and , “Pre-emption, Iraq and International Law.” American Journal of International Law 97 (July 2003), pp. 557ffGoogle Scholar
, “Legislation and Adjudication in the UN Security Council: Bringing down the Deliberative Deficit,” American Journal of International Law 108 (2008)Google Scholar
, “Building a Republican Peace: Stabilizing States after War,” International Security 30, No. 4 (2006), pp. 87–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
argues that “soft power will help the US endure as the dominant state by turning its power into international consensus and U.S. principles into international norms,” in The Paradox of American Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 69Google Scholar
, “The UN Security Council: Ineffective but Indispensable,” Survival 45, No. 2 (2003), pp. 10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “How Al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups,” International Security 31, No. 1 (Summer 2006), pp. 7–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , Democracy and Counter-terrorism: Lessons from the Past (Washington DC: USIP, 2007)Google Scholar