Abstract
In their attempt to explain change in international politics, an emerging group of scholars in the 1990s emphasised the importance of ‘non-material factors’. Questions about the creation, evolution, and impact of norms obtained a prominent place in their theorising. Cast in a constructivist frame, this norm research promised to be a viable alternative to established approaches and while it has indeed broadened the perspective on state behaviour in International Relations, we argue that at the same time it entailed major conceptual and methodological problems which have not yet been spelled out comprehensively. Mainly, the insight that norms are constantly renegotiated in social interaction has been lost in the translation of social-theoretical claims of early constructivism into empirical research agendas. The ensuing research is best characterised as a cultural-determinist framework which is ultimately ill-equipped for the initial proposition of explaining change. We develop this critique by reconstructing the theoretical and methodological decisions of constructivist norm research. We then propose to re-conceptualise the connection between norms and action and suggest an interpretive methodology that allows delivering on the ambitious promise to explain processes of normative change in international politics. We illustrate this claim by reviewing constructivist norm research on ‘humanitarian interventions’ and by outlining a relational-processualist perspective on this issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Our interest in norms emerged in a graduate seminar offered by Tanja Brühl at Goethe University Frankfurt. Our critical examination of the methodological aspects of this literature has taken shape in conversations with Benjamin Herborth. We would also like to thank the discussant Jonathan Acuff as well as the participants of the ISA Annual Convention 2012 panel on Contemporary Debates in International Relations Theory and the anonymous JIRD reviewers for their helpful comments and criticism.
For earlier critical examinations of particular aspects of constructivist norm research, see Sending (2002) on the logic of appropriateness, Herborth (2004) on Wendt’s conceptualisation of the agency-structure issue, Wiener (2003, 2004, 2009) on the intricacies of norm compliance and contestation as well as Rosert and Schirmbeck (2007) and Panke and Petersohn (2012) on norm erosion.
Until today, constructivist approaches in IR are divided into critical or hard constructivism on the one hand and conventional or soft constructivism on the other hand (Fierke 2007: 172ff).
Martha Finnemore (1996a: 32), for example, addressed this directly by noting that Wendt, Dessler, Kratochwil, Ruggie, Onuf, ‘and other early proponents of these sociological approaches’ had been repeatedly ‘criticized for not demonstrating empirical applications’.
See, among others, Risse et al. (2013), Gillies (2010), Kelley (2008), Percy (2007).
The relevance of Friedrich Kratochwil and John Ruggie’s formulation of the internal inconsistencies of the mid-1980s regime theory remains undiminished here. Like regime theory then, constructivist norm research today suffers from an unproductive ‘tension between its ontological posture and its prevailing epistemological practices’ (Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986: 774). Consider the following paragraph in particular: ‘[J]ust as epistemology has to match ontology, so too does the explanatory model have to be compatible with the basic nature of the particular scientific enterprise at hand. The impact of norms within international regimes is not a passive process, which can be ascertained analogously to that of Newtonian laws governing the collision of two bodies. Hence, the common practice of treating norms as “variables” — be they independent, dependent, intervening, or otherwise — should be severely curtailed. […] Precisely because state behaviour within regimes is interpreted by other states, the rationales and justifications for behaviour which are proffered, together with pleas for understanding or admissions of guilt, as well as the responsiveness to such reasoning on the part of other states, all are absolutely critical component parts of any explanation involving the efficacy of norms’ (ibid.: 768)
Note that Finnemore and Sikkink refer to Cass Sunstein here. Although partially critical of game-theoretical models, Sunstein clearly draws his insights from behavioural economics and thus conceptualises norms in a very narrow, almost exclusively regulative way (Sunstein 1997: 32ff).
We thank the editors of JIRD for pointing this argument out to us.
Thus, the critique that Axel Honneth has levelled against the conceptualisation of culture in early critical theory can be applied equally to constructivist norm research: It has failed to demonstrate ‘that socialized subjects are not simply passively subjected to an anonymous steering process but, rather, actively participate with their own interpretative performances in the complex process of social integration’ (Honneth 1987: 355).
This argument obviously draws on the ideas from the tradition of American Pragmatism where reality is constantly in flux and beliefs, understood as ‘rules for action’, are questioned and put to the test in indeterminate situations of crisis, leaving the actor in doubt (Hellmann 2009: 638–41, 2010: 146–49; Roos 2010: 56–59).
This conception of structures of meaning is different from the conceptualisation of stable political cultures or unequivocal normative structures that prevail in norm research literature. For a critique of such static conceptualisations in the constructivist research of foreign policy, see Wagner et al. (2006: 3–19).
This view on the processuality of action is, to some extent, compatible with March and Olsen’s understanding of preference formation. They reject the ‘idea that preferences are produced and changed by a process that is exogenous to the processes of choice’ (March and Olsen 1984: 739–42). Instead, they maintain that realising action and generating preferences take place at the same time in an analysis of a particular situation. This allows them to theorise situations in which preferences remain uncertain. However, in contrast to the conceptualisation we are offering here, they put less emphasis on creativity, arguing that norms can be ‘activated’ selectively to guide behaviour.
For example, the unspecified notion of protecting civilians from massive state violence has to be related to the concrete instance in which it is invoked as a norm. Agents need to explain at what stage state violence is deemed unacceptable, what they understand by ‘protection’, and who bears the responsibility to ensure it. Obviously, there are different — and probably contentious — answers to these questions, so that quite different actions can be inferred from and legitimised through references to one and the same normative idea.
Wiener (2003: 297) captures this ‘dual quality of norms’ by arguing that norms ‘are constructed through social interaction on the one hand, and have a constitutive impact on behaviour, on the other’.
This distinction resonates with the distinction between constitutive and regulative norms that goes back to John Searle (among others, see Onuf 1989: 50–51; Finnemore and Sikkink 1998: 891).
Note in this context how many different phenomena in IR are referred to as norms. Racial equality and the abolishment of apartheid (Klotz 1995), women’s rights and suffrage (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998), the abolishment of land mines (Price 1998), human rights per se (Risse et al. 1999), international election monitoring (Kelley 2008), corporate social engagement (Flohr et al. 2010), to name but a few, have all been described and discussed as norms. Given that some of these phenomena could be characterised — perhaps more accurately — as sets of practices or nets of interconnected norms, it is often difficult to discern precisely which norm is actually being investigated.
To elaborate on this argument, the norms chosen for analysis by constructivist norm research were all ‘good’ norms whose diffusion and eventual implementation was considered desirable from a liberal Western perspective. In this vein, for example, it was ‘desirable’ for most IR scholars in the 1990s that states ‘internalise’ human rights norms and comply with them. Constructivist norm research has been deeply influenced by the political agenda to demonstrate that ‘normative progress’ is possible and that material interests and power politics can be transcended if norms are anchored in the cultural structure of international relations (Barkin 2003: 334f; Jackson and Nexon 2004).
As regards research on ‘the West’, Jackson (2010) suggests that there is a difference between, on the one hand, a substantialist approach that takes for granted what ‘the West’ is and then investigates what it does and, on the other hand, a relationalist-processualist approach that interprets references to ‘the West’ as moves in legitimation struggles. Equally, there is a difference between a substantialist approach that takes the meaning of norms for granted and then explores what they do and a relationalist-processualist approach that analyses and interprets references to norms as moves in legitimation struggles.
An example proving the opposite would be Theda Skocpol’s (1979) book on the causes of social revolutions. For a general discussion of this question, see Tilly (1984).
An example of this pattern of thought is Tony Blair’s speech on the ‘doctrine of international community’, which is in large part a justification for the ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo (Lindhof 2013).
The same logic of inquiry and commitment to interpreting meaning is advanced by Cecilia Lynch (2014) in her most recent book on the interpretive tradition of studying international politics.
References
Adler, Emanuel (2002) ‘Constructivism and International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, 95–118, London: Sage Publications.
Baldwin, David, ed. (1993) Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Barkin, Samuel J. (2003) ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review 5 (3): 325–42.
Bially Mattern, Janice (2005) Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force, London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Blumer, Herbert (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Campbell, David (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1998) ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory: Review Article’, World Politics 50 (2): 324–48.
Cohen, Michael D., James G. March and Johan P. Olsen (1972) ‘A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Change’, Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1): 1–25.
Deitelhoff, Nicole (2006) Überzeugung in der Politik: Grundzüge einer Diskurstheorie internationalen Regierens, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Dessler, David (1989) ‘What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’ International Organization 43 (3): 441–73.
Doyle, Michael W. (2013) ‘Ethics, Law and the Responsibility to Protect’, forthcoming in Gunther Hellmann, ed., Justice and Peace, 16–42, Frankfurt/New York: Campus.
Emirbayer, Mustafa (1997) ‘Manifesto for a Relational Sociology’, American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 281–317.
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische (1998) ‘What is Agency?’, American Journal of Sociology 103 (4): 962–1023.
Fearon, James and Alexander Wendt (2002) ‘Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, 52–72, London: Sage Publications.
Fierke, Karin M. (2007) ‘Constructivism’, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity, 166–84, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finnemore, Martha (1996a) ‘Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism’, International Organization 50 (2): 325–47.
Finnemore, Martha (1996b) National Interests in International Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Finnemore, Martha (1996c) ‘Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention’, in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security. Norms and Identity in Word Politics, 153–85, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Finnemore, Martha (2003) The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.
Flohr, Annegret, Lothar Rieth, Sandra Schwindenhammer and Klaus Dieter Wolf (2010) The Role of Business in Global Governance: Corporations as Norm Entrepreneurs, Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Franke, Ulrich (2010) Die Nato nach 1989: Das Rätsel ihres Fortbestandes, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Gillies, Alexandra (2010) ‘Reputational Concerns and the Emergence of Oil Sector Transparency as an International Norm’, International Studies Quarterly 54 (1): 103–26.
Goddard, Stacie E. and Daniel H. Nexon (2005) ‘Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 11 (1): 9–61.
Guzzini, Stefano (2000) ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 147–82.
Hansen, Lene (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London: Routledge.
Heinze, Eric C. and Brent J. Steele (2013) ‘The (D)evolution of a Norm: R2P, The Bosnia Generation, and Humanitarian Intervention in Libya’, forthcoming, in Aidan Hehir, ed., Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hellmann, Gunther (2009) ‘The Forum: Pragmatism and International Relations’, International Studies Review 11 (3): 638–62.
Hellmann, Gunther (2010) ‘Pragmatismus’, in Carlo Masala, Frank Sauer and Andreas Wilhelm, eds., Handbuch der Internationalen Politik, 148–81, Wiesbaden: VS Verlage für Sozialwissenschaften.
Herborth, Benjamin (2004) ‘Die via Media als konstitutionstheoretische Einbahnstraße: Zur Entwicklung des Akteurs-Struktur-Problems bei Alexander Wendt’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 11 (1): 62–87.
Herborth, Benjamin (2010) ‘Rekonstruktive Forschungslogik’, in Carlo Masala, Frank Sauer and Andreas Wilhelm, eds., Handbuch der Internationalen Politik, 261–80, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Herborth, Benjamin (2011) ‘Methodenstreit — Methodenzwang — Methodenfetisch’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 18 (2): 137–51.
Heupel, Monika and Bernhard Zangl (2004) ‘Von “alten” und “neuen” Kriegen — Zum Gestaltwandel kriegerischer Gewalt’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45 (3): 346–69.
Honneth, Axel (1987) ‘Critical Theory’, in Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner, eds., Social Theory Today, 347–82, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hopf, Ted (1998) ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’, International Security 23 (1): 171–200.
Hurrell, Andrew (2002) ‘Norms and Ethics in International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, 137–54, London: Sage Publications.
Jackson, Patrick T. (2003) ‘Defending the West: Occidentalism and the Formation of NATO’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3): 223–52.
Jackson, Patrick T. (2006a) Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Jackson, Patrick T. (2006b) ‘Making Sense of Making Sense: Configurational Analysis and the Double Hermeneutic’, in Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds., Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, 264–80, Armonk and London: Sharpe.
Jackson, Patrick T. (2010) ‘How to Think About Civilizations’, in Peter Katzenstein, ed., Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives, 176–200, London/New York: Routledge.
Jackson, Patrick T. (2011) The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, New York, NY: Routledge.
Jackson, Patrick T. and Daniel H. Nexon (1999) ‘Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 5 (3): 291–332.
Jackson, Patrick T. and Daniel H. Nexon (2004) ‘Constructivist Realism or Realist Constructivism?’, International Studies Review 6 (2): 337–41.
Jepperson, Ronald L., Alexander Wendt and Peter J. Katzenstein (1996) ‘Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security’, in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in Word Politics, 33–75, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Jervis, Robert (1999) ‘Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate’, International Security 24 (1): 42–63.
Joas, Hans (1996) The Creativity of Action, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl (2009) Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures, translated by Alex Skinner, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaldor, Mary (1999) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (1990) Analyzing Change in International Politics: The New Institutionalism and the Interpretative Approach, Discussion Paper 90/10, Cologne: Max Planck Institut fur Gesellschaftsforschung.
Katzenstein, Peter J. ed (1996a) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in Word Politics, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Katzenstein, Peter J. (1996b) Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kelley, Judith (2008) ‘Assessing the Complex Evolution of Norms: The Rise of International Election Monitoring’, International Organization 62 (2): 221–55.
Keohane, Robert O. (1988) ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, International Studies Quarterly 32 (4): 379–96.
Klein, Bradley S. (1990) ‘How The West was One: Representational Politics of NATO’, International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 311–25.
Klotz, Audie (1995) Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. (1989) Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. and John G. Ruggie (1986) ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State’, International Organization 40 (4): 753–75.
Lapid, Yosef and Friedrich Kratochwil, eds (1996) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder, CO: Rienner.
Lindhof, Matthias (2013) Die ‘Blair-Doktrin’: utilitaristisches Gemeinschaftsdenken und die Überlegenheit ‘des Westens’, paper presented at the Forschungskolloquium Internationale Politik, Prof Dr. Gunther Hellmann, Goethe Universität, Frankfurt, 20 November, 2013.
Lynch, Cecelia (2014) Interpreting International Politics, New York, NY: Routledge.
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1984) ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life’, American Political Science Review 78 (3): 734–49.
March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York, NY: Free Press.
Mead, George Herbert (1967 [1934]) Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mearsheimer, John J. (1994) ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security 19 (3): 5–49.
Neumann, Iver B. (1996) ‘Self and Other in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 2 (2): 139–74.
Neumann, Iver B. (1999) Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Oevermann, Ulrich (2000) ‘Die Methode der Fallrekonstruktion in der Grundlagenforschung sowie in der klinischen und pädagogischen Praxis’, in Klaus Kraimer, ed., Die Fallrekonstruktion: Sinnverstehen in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung, 58–156, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Oevermann, Ulrich (2001) ‘Zur Analyse der Struktur von sozialen Deutungsmustern; Die Struktur sozialer Deutungsmuster — Versuch einer Aktualisierung’, Sozialer Sinn 2 (1): 3–81.
Oevermann, Ulrich (2002) Klinische Soziologie auf der Basis der Methodologie der objektiven Hermeneutik: Manifest der objektiv hermeneutischen Sozialforschung, Frankfurt: Institut für hermeneutische Sozial- und Kulturforschung (IHSK).
Oevermann, Ulrich (2008) ‘Krise und Routine' als analytisches Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften, Abschiedsvorlesung am Fachbereich Gesellschaftswissenschaften der Frankfurter Universität, 28 April, 2008.
Oevermann, Ulrich, Tillmann Allert, Elisabeth Konau and Jürgen Krambeck (1987) ‘Structures of Meaning and Objective Hermeneutics’, in Volker Meja, Dieter Misgeld and Nico Stehr, eds., Modern German Sociology, 436–47, New York: Columbia University Press.
Onuf, Nicholas G. (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia, SC: Greenwood Press.
Palan, Ronen (2000) ‘A World of Their Making: An Evaluation of the Constructivist Critique in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 26 (4): 575–98.
Panke, Diana and Ulrich Petersohn (2012) ‘Why International Norms Disappear Sometimes’, European Journal of International Relations 18 (4): 719–42.
Percy, Sarah V. (2007) ‘Mercenaries: Strong Norm, Weak Law’, International Organization 61 (2): 369–97.
Price, Richard (1998) ‘Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines’, International Organization 52 (3): 613–44.
Risse, Thomas and Kathryn Sikkink (1999) ‘The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, 1–38, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds (1999) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Risse, Thomas, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds (2013) The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roos, Ulrich (2010) Deutsche Außenpolitik: Eine Rekonstruktion der grundlegenden Handlungsregeln, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Rosert, Elvira and Sonja Schirmbeck (2007) ‘Zur Erosion internationaler Normen: Folterverbot und nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 14 (2): 253–87.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine and Dvora Yanow (2012) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes, New York, NY: Routledge.
Sending, Ole Jacob (2002) ‘Constitution, Choice and Change: Problems with the “Logic of Appropriateness” and its Use in Constructivist Theory’, European Journal of International Relations 8 (4): 443–70.
Shalin, Dmitri N. (1986) ‘Pragmatism and Social Interactionism’, American Sociological Review 51 (1): 9–29.
Shi, Yinhong and Shen Zhixiong (2002) ‘After Kosovo: Legal and Moral Constraints on Humanitarian Intervention’, in Bruno Coppieters and Nick Fotion, eds., Moral Constraints on War: Principles and Cases, 247–63, Lanham and Maryland: Lexington Books.
Skocpol, Theda (1979) States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. (1997) Free Markets and Social Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tilly, Charles (1984) Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
Wagner, Wolfgang, Rainer Baumann, Monika Bosche and Gunther Hellmann (2006) ‘German Foreign Policy in Europe: An Interactionist Framework of Analysis’, in Gunther Hellmann, ed., Germany’s EU Policy on Asylum and Defense: De-Europeanization by Default?, 1–29, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weldes, Jutta, Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson and Raymond Duvall, eds (1999) Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wendt, Alexander (1987) ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization 41 (3): 335–70.
Wendt, Alexander (1992) ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It’, International Organization 26 (2): 391–425.
Wheeler, Nicholas (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiener, Antje (2003) ‘Constructivism: The Limits of Bridging Gaps’, Journal of International Relations and Development 6 (3): 252–75.
Wiener, Antje (2004) ‘Contested Compliance: Interventions on the Normative Structure of World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 10 (2): 189–234.
Wiener, Antje (2009) ‘Enacting Meaning-in-Use: Qualitative Research on Norms and International Relations’, Review of International Studies 35 (1): 175–93.
Wight, Colin (2002) ‘Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, eds., Handbook of International Relations, 23–51, London: Sage Publications.
Yanow, Dvora and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, eds (2006) Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, Armonk and London: Sharpe.
Zangl, Bernhard and Michael Zürn (2003) Frieden und Krieg: Sicherheit in der nationalen und postnationalen Konstellation, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofferberth, M., Weber, C. Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research. J Int Relat Dev 18, 75–103 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.1