Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction: Norm Breakers as Norm Makers? Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Against the Norms of International Society: Rogues, Outlaws, and Pariahs

verfasst von : Carmen Wunderlich

Erschienen in: Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The concept of the “rogue state” has been introduced into the political and scholarly debate to label—and delegitimize—norm-breaking behavior. The chapter traces the concept’s construction and evolution in the context of US foreign policy with a focus on how it has been linked to (alleged) norm transgressions and it discusses the selective and arbitrary usage of the concept, particularly with regard to policy making. Wunderlich draws attention to the fact that both in the political and scholarly discourse, “rogue states” are typically characterized as outsiders to the international community, who are neither willing nor able to comply with the rules of the prevailing normative order and thus deprived normative agency. As a top-down construction, the concept primarily serves to stabilize a narrative contrasting a Global North following reputable “liberal” norms with a Global South which is increasingly characterized by “rogues” or “failed states” and the promotion of “illiberal” norms. As a consequence, adhering to the stigmatizing label does not seem to be sustainable.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Dedicated to the Good: Norm Entrepreneurs in International Relations
Nächstes Kapitel The Ugly? Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs
Fußnoten
1
Countries suspected of considering a nuclear option, such as Israel, South Africa, South Korea or Taiwan were repeatedly been labeled as outlaws or pariahs during that period (Quester 1975; Betts 1977; Harkavy 1981). Some authors claim that this paved the way for a change of perspective on the external misconduct of alleged “rogue states” (Litwak 2007: 28).
 
2
This list was created in 1979 by the State Department under the Export Administration Act. Since then, it has been published annually by the Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the State Department. Until 2003, it was entitled “Patterns of Global Terrorism” and since 2004, it has been named “Country Reports on Terrorism.” All documents are available at https://​www.​state.​gov/​j/​ct/​rls/​crt/​; 28.04.2017.
 
3
The term was coined by Bush's speechwriter at the time, David Frum. Originally, he had suggested an “axis of hatred,” which Bush changed to the “axis of evil” (Frum 2003: Chap. 12).
 
4
Contrary to the idea of evil, the term “rogue state” opens up courses of action other than preemption and regime change. These include containment, coexistence, or even the prospect of punishing the perceived “rogue,” but ultimately leading him back on the right track and reintegrating him into the international community (Geis and Wunderlich 2014).
 
5
This study does not take into account the current U.S. administration under Donald Trump as forty-fifth president of the USA, because the period of investigation for the empirical analysis ended in spring 2015. While it is noteworthy that President Trump reintroduced the “rogue state” label into the foreign and security policy discourse, this fact is not crucial for the question guiding the research interest here, namely whether Iran acts as a norm entrepreneur. It is suffice to note here that President Trump has clearly distanced himself from his predecessor’s policies and political style, particularly in the area of foreign and security policy, and has made ample use of rhetorical provocations and threatening gestures. He has repeatedly labeled Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela as “rogue states” and he has promised to use “maximum pressure” (Trump 2018) in order to prevent these states from threatening vital interests.
 
6
India conducted its first “peaceful” nuclear test in 1974. The second test was carried out in 1998 immediately after the indefinite extension of the NPT. Pakistan followed shortly in May of the same year. North Korea conducted underground nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and, most recently, 2017.
 
7
Israel supposedly initiated its military nuclear weapons program in 1968, the same year that the NPT was submitted for signature. Israel’s tolerated nuclear weapons status has led to conflicts, particularly in the Middle East region. The perceived injustice and unequal treatment have repeatedly led to expressions of displeasure on the part of some Arab states, Iran, and members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Experts have expressed concern that dealing with Israel’s nuclear status has given other countries in the region a pretext to develop their own programs.
 
8
However, the legality and validity of North Korea’s withdrawal from the NPT are controversial (Bunn and Timerbaev 2005).
 
9
In this context, the lack of definition of the term in international law and in international legal language is also criticized (George 1993: 49; Litwak 2000: 47–48; Caprioli and Trumbore 2005).
 
10
O’Reilly (2007) and Senn (2009: 138–140) come to similar conclusions.
 
11
Some of these authors refrain from using the term “rogue state” and refer more generally to “deviant states” (e.g., Geldenhuys 2004; Nincic 2005).
 
12
It is not argued here that the governments designated as “rogue states” are usually not among the most norm-compliant members of the international community. In fact, they have often been found guilty of norm-breaking behavior, particularly when it comes to human rights or security policy. Yet this does not change the fact that similar norm violations have been and still are committed by “legitimate” members of the international community, whose membership in the circle of “respected” states—for whatever reasons—is officially not questioned.
 
13
In sociology, deviance is characterized by the fact that anomalous behavior is primarily attributed to an actor by its respective social reference group. Rather than being an actor quality, deviance is a social construct used for exclusory purposes. Geldenhuys lists eleven “sins” commited by deviant international actors: (a) the threat to world peace and international security, including the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, (b) support for international terrorism, (c) conventional armament, (d) regional (territorial) aggression, (e) an autocratic system and domestic human rights violations, (f) crimes against humanity, (g) war crimes, (h) export of the revolution, (i) anti-Americanism/ “anti-Westernism”, (j) “international assertiveness,” and (k) drug trafficking (Geldenhuys 2004: 23–37).
 
14
The states usually considered as “rogue states” by the USA are not necessarily the same states designated as such in the scholarly literature. However, both attributions stigmatize certain states and deprive them of their right to have a say because of perceived deviations from prevailing norms.
 
15
Nevertheless, many authors stress the intentionality of deviant behavior of so-called “rogue states” (Senn 2009: 24–25; Ogilvie-White 2010). Indeed, the intentional, strategic deviation from international norms might serve to maintain or expand domestic political power, albeit driven by ideological motives (ethno-nationalist, religious, political-ideological) which justify deviations from international norms—particularly so if these are in opposition to national normative structures (Nincic 2005: 14, 24).
 
16
See for example, the common accusation that Iran is governed by “mad mullahs.” In the academic field, Dror (1971) uses the term “crazy states.”
 
Literatur
Beeman, W. O. (2005). The “Great Satan” vs. the “Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran demonize each other. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Betts, R. (1977). Paranoids, pygmies, pariahs & nonproliferation. Foreign Policy, 26, 157–183.CrossRef
Blum, W. (2002). Rogue state: A guide to the world’s only superpower. London: Zed Books.
Bunn, G., & Timerbaev, R. (2005). The right to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT): The views of two NPT negotiators. Yaderny Kontrol, 10(1–2), 20–29.
Caprioli, M., & Trumbore, P. (2005). Rhetoric versus reality: Rogue states in interstate conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 770–791.CrossRef
Caprioli, M., & Trumbore, P. F. (2003). Identifying “Rogue” states and testing their interstate conflict behavior. European Journal of International Relations, 9(3), 377–406.CrossRef
Chomsky, N. (2000). Rogue States: The rule of force in world affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Claes, J. (2012). Protecting civilians from mass atrocities: Meeting the challenge of R2P rejectionism. Global Responsibility to Protect, 4(1), 67–97.CrossRef
Cohen, A. (1999). Israel and the bomb. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRef
De Graaff, N., & van Apeldoorn, B. (2011). Varieties of US post-cold war imperialism: Anatomy of a failed hegemonic project and the future of US geopolitics. Critical Sociology, 37(4), 403–427.CrossRef
Derrida, J. (2006). Schurken. Zwei Essays über die Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Dror, Y. (1971). Crazy states: A counterconventional strategic problem. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.
Frum, D. (2003). The right man: The surprise presidency of George W. Bush. New York: Random House.
Geis, A., & Wunderlich, C. (2014). The good, the bad, and the ugly. Comparing the notions of “Rogue” and “Evil” in international politics. International Politics, 51(4), 458–474.
Geldenhuys, D. (2004). Deviant conduct in world politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
George, A. (1991). Forceful persuasion: Diplomacy as an alternative to war. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
George, A. (1993). Bridging the gap. Theory and practice in foreign policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Harkavy, R. E. (1981). Pariah states and nuclear proliferation. International Organization, 35(1), 135–163.CrossRef
Henriksen, T. H. (2001). The rise and decline of rogue states. Journal of International Affairs, 54(2), 349–371.
Heradstveit, D., & Bonham, M. (2007). What the axis of evil metaphor did to Iran. Middle East Journal, 61(3), 421–440.CrossRef
Herring, E. (2000). Rogue rage: Can we prevent mass destruction? Journal of Strategic Studies, 23(1), 188–212.CrossRef
Herrmann, R., & Fischerkeller, M. (1995). Beyond the enemy image and spiral model: Cognitive-strategic research after the cold war. International Organization, 49(3), 415–450.
Homolar, A. (2011). Rebels without a conscience: The evolution of the rogue states narrative in US Security Policy. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 705–727.CrossRef
Hoyt, P. (2000). The “Rogue State” image in American Foreign Policy. Global Society, 14(2), 297–310.CrossRef
Jacobi, D., Weber, C., & Hellmann, G. (2014). Dissident foreign policy and the (re-)production of international orders. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 106–131). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Joyner, D. H. (2008). International law and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Joyner, D. (2009). International law and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Klare, M. (1995). Rogue states and nuclear outlaws: America’s Search for a new foreign policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Koh, H. (1998). The 1998 Frankel lecture. Bringing international law home. Houston Law Review, 623, 646–655.
Kustermans, J. (2014). “Roguery” and citizenship. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 15–35). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Lake, A. (1994). Confronting backlash states. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 45–55.CrossRef
Litwak, R. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. foreign policy: Containment after the cold war. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.
Litwak, R. (2007). Regime change: U.S. strategy through the prism of 9/11. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.
Litwak, R. (2012). Outlier states: American Strategies to change, contain, or engage regimes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lodgaard, S. (2008). Dealing with the outliers. In J. du Preez (Ed.), Nuclear challenges and policy options for the next U.S. Administration. Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
Malici, A. (2009). Rogue states: Enemies of our own making? Psicología Política, 39, 39–54.
Malici, A., & Walker, S. G. (2014). Role theory and “Rogue States”. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 132–151). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Müller H. (2007). The exceptional end to the extraordinary libyan nuclear quest. In M. Bremer & S. Lodgaard (Eds.), Nuclear proliferation and international security (pp. 73–95). New York, NY: Routledge.
Müller, H. (2011). Habermas meets role theory. Communicative action as role playing? In S. Harnisch, C. Frank, & H. Maull (Eds.), Role theory in international relations. Approaches and analyses (pp. 55–73). London: Routledge.
Müller, H. (2014). Evilization in liberal discourse. From Kant’s “Unjust Enemy” to today’s “Rogue State”. International Politics, 51(4), 475–491.CrossRef
Nincic, M. (2005). Renegade regimes: Confronting deviant behavior in world politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRef
O’Reilly, K. (2007). Perceiving rogue states: The use of the “Rogue State” concept by U.S. Foreign Policy elites. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3(4), 295–315.
Ogilvie-White, T. (2007). International responses to Iranian Nuclear Defiance: The non-aligned movement and the issue of non-compliance. European Journal of International Law, 18(3), 453–476.CrossRef
Ogilvie-White, T. (2010). The defiant states: The nuclear diplomacy of North Korea and Iran. The Nonproliferation Review, 17(1), 117–138.
Onderco, M. (2014). From a “Rogue” to a parolee: Analyzing Libya’s “De-roguing”. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 171–192). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Quester, G. (1975). What’s new on nuclear non-proliferation. Aspen: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.
Rawls, J. (2002). Das Recht der Völker. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rotberg, R. (2007). Worst of the worst: Dealing with repressive and rogue nations. Cambridge, MA: World Peace Foundation.
Rubin, M. (2014). Dancing with the devil: The perils of engaging rogue regimes. New York, NY: Encounter Books.
Saunders, E. (2006). Setting boundaries: Can International Society exclude “Rogue States”? International Studies Review, 8(1), 23–53.CrossRef
Schmittchen, D. (2006). “Rogue States”—“Schurkenstaaten”. Ein stringentes US-Konzept im Kampf gegen Terrorismus und Proliferation von ABC-Waffen? Resource document. Forschungsgruppe Sicherheitspolitik. Berlin.
Senn, M. (2009). Wolves in the woods: The rogue state concept from a constructivist perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRef
Stritzel, H., & Schmittchen, D. (2011). Securitization, culture and power: Rogue states in US and German discourse. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization theory. How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 170–85). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tanter, R. (1999). Rogue regimes: Terrorism and proliferation. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Wagner, W., Werner, W., & Onderco, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wagner, W. (2014). Rehabilitation or exclusion? A criminological perspective on policies towards “Rogue States”. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 152–170). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Wendt, A. (1998). On constitution and causation in international relations. Review of International Studies, 24(5), 101–118.CrossRef
Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics: Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Wunderlich, C. (2014). A “Rogue” gone norm entrepreneurial? Iran within the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue States” and international security (pp. 83–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef
Wunderlich, C. (2017). Delegitimisation à la Carte: The “Rogue State” label as a means of stabilising order in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In S. Gertheiss, S. Herr, K. Wolf, & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Resistance and change in world politics: International dissidence (pp. 143–189). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Metadaten
Titel
Against the Norms of International Society: Rogues, Outlaws, and Pariahs
verfasst von
Carmen Wunderlich
Copyright-Jahr
2020
Buch
Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27989-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-27990-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27990-5_3