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
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Introduction: Beyond the Practice-Norm Gap

verfasst von : Emanuela Piccolo Koskimies

Erschienen in: Norm Contestation, Sovereignty and (Ir)responsibility at the International Criminal Court

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This opening chapter offers an overview of the book’s intended contribution. Grappling specifically with the norm of sovereignty as responsibility, the book seeks to advance a critical constructivist understanding of norm development in international society, as opposed to the conventional constructivist (mis)understanding that still dominates the mainstream debate. Against this backdrop, the book delves into the institutionalization of sovereignty as responsibility within the lived practice of the International Criminal Court (ICC). More to the point, it revives questions about the power-laden nature of the normative fabric of international society, its dis-symmetries, and its outright hierarchies, in order to devise an original framework to operationalize research on how practice—notably, institutional practice—impinges on norm development. To this end, the book resorts to an original creole vocabulary, which, as outlined in the chapter, combines the contributions of post-positivist constructivist scholars with the legacy of key post-modernist thinkers, as well as post-colonial studies, and critical approaches to International (Criminal) Law.

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
Nächstes Kapitel Sovereignty and the Life-Cycle of Norms Revisited
Fußnoten
1
For a discussion about the differences between modernist and post-modernist orientations within critical theory, see Price and Reus-Smit 1998, 261–262. Roughly said, the two authors see modernist orientations as embracing a posture of ‘minimal foundationalism’ (Hoffman 1991, 170). In other words, albeit modernist approaches acknowledge the contingent nature of all knowledge, as well as the connection between morality and power, they, nevertheless, hold that some criteria are needed to distinguish plausible from implausible interpretations, and minimal (consensually-based) ethical principles are required for meaningful emancipatory political action. Post-modernist orientations, instead, reject all kinds of foundationalism.
 
2
Similar considerations have inspired the 27th Annual SLS/BIICL Workshop on Theory & International Law, ‘The Return of the ‘S’ Word: Sovereignty in Contemporary International Law’, held on 16 May 2018 at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
 
3
Article 2.7 of the UN Charter grants to states the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts within their jurisdiction.
 
4
At the end of 2017, the 16th Assembly of States Parties also activated the ICC jurisdiction with respect to the crime of aggression, with effect from 17 July 2018, on the basis of the definition and ratification process previously agreed at the Kampala Review Conference in 2010. However, see Sect. 3.​2.​1 of Chap. 3, for some cursory critical remarks about the limits of this achievement.
 
5
However, for an account of the limits of Buchanan’s approach, see Sutch (2012).
 
6
The 15th ASP was held at The Hague between 16 and 24 November 2016.
 
7
In order to protect the interviews from public exposure, all the interviews took place under a confidentiality agreement.
 
Literatur
Alexander, J. (1982). Theoretical logic in sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Alter, K. J. (2008). Delegating to international courts: self-binding vs. other-binding delegation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 71(1), 37–76.
Badescu, C. G. (2014). The evolution of international responsibility: from responsibility to protect to responsibility while protecting. International Studies Journal, 11(1), 45–77.
Bellamy, A., & Dunne, T. (2016). R2P in theory and practice. In A. Bellamy, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the responsibility to protect (pp. 3–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Betts, A., & Orchard, P. (2014). Introduction: the normative institutionalization-implementation gap. In A. Betts, & P. Orchard (Eds.), Implementation and world politics: how international norms change practice (p. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Branch, A. (2011). Neither liberal nor peaceful? Practices of “global justice” by the ICC. In S. Campbell, D. Chandler, M. Sabaratnam (Eds.), A liberal peace? The problems and practices of peacebuilding (pp. 121–137). London: Zed Books.
Brunnée, J., Toope, S. J. (2006). Norms, Institutions and UN Reform: The Responsibility to Protect. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 2, 121–137.
Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. J. (2018). International law and the practice of legality: stability and change. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 49(4), 429–445.CrossRef
Buchanan, A. (2004). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: moral foundations for international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carsten, S. (2015). Marital Stress or Grounds for Divorce? Re-Thinking the Relationship Between R2P and International Criminal Justice. Criminal Law Forum, 26(1), 13.
Chandler, D. (2010). Born posthumously: rethinking the shared characteristics of the ICC and R2P. Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 21, 5–13.
Checkel, J. T. (1999). Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly, 43(1), 83–114.CrossRef
Checkel, J. T. (2006). Constructivist approaches to European integration. Arena Working Paper Series, 6.
Contarino, M., & Negron-Gonzales, M. (2013). The International Criminal Court. In G. Zyberi (Ed.), An institutional approach to the responsibility to protect (pp. 411–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Dahms, H. F. (2015). Globalization, critique and social theory: diagnoses and challenges. Current perspectives in social theory. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Evans, G. (2016). R2P: the next ten years. In A. Bellamy, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the responsibility to protect (pp. 913–931). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Falk, R. (2002). Revisiting Westphalia, discovering post-Westphalia. The Journal of Ethics, 6(4), 311–352.CrossRef
Finnemore, M., & Goldstein, J. (2013). Puzzles about power. In M. Finnemore, & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 3–17). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Ginsburg, T. (2014). Political constraints on international courts. In C. P. Romano, K. J. Alter, Y. Shany (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international adjudication (pp. 483–502). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hehir, A. (2019). Hollow Norms and The Responsibility to Protect. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Korhonen, O., & Selkälä, T. (2016). Theorizing responsibility. In A. Orford, & F. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the theory of international law (pp. 844–861). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2001). The gentle civilizer of nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Lather, P. A. (1991). Getting smart: feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.CrossRef
Lohne, K. (2020). Towards a sociology of international criminal justice. In Bergsmo, M., Klamberg, M., Lohne, K., & Mahony, C. B. (Eds.), Power in international criminal justice (pp. 47–78), Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher.
Lyotard, J-F. (1979). The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge (G. Bennington and B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Luck, E. (2010). Building a norm: the responsibility to protect experience. In R. I. Rotberg (Ed.), Mass atrocity crimes: preventing future outrages (pp. 108–127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Mégret, F. (2012). ICC, R2P and the security council’s evolving interventionist toolkit Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 21, 21–52.
Morris, M. H. (2004) Democracy, global governance and the International Criminal Court. In R. C. Thakur, & P. Malcontent (Eds.), From sovereign impunity to international accountability: the search for justice in a world of states (pp. 187–194). Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Newman, S. (2005). Power and politics in poststructuralist thought: new theories of the political. New York: Routledge.
Orford, A. (2009). Jurisdiction without territory: from the Holy Roman Empire to the responsibility to protect. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30(3), 981–1015.
Pahuja, S. (2011). Decolonising international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ralph, J. (2007). Defending the society of states: why America opposes the International Criminal Court and its vision of world society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Ralph, J. G. (2016). The International Criminal Court. In A. Bellamy, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the responsibility to protect (pp. 638–654). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramos, J. M. (2013). Changing norms through actions: the evolution of sovereignty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Rastan, R. (2009). The responsibility to enforce: connecting justice with unity. In C. Stahn, & G. Sluiter (Eds.), The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court (pp. 163–182). Leiden: Brill.
Rudolph, C. (2017). Power and principle: the politics of international criminal courts. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRef
Sadat, L. N. (2000). The evolution of the ICC: from The Hague to Rome and back again. In S. B. Sewell, & C. Kaysen (Eds.), The United States and the International Criminal Court: national security and international law (pp. 31–50). Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Scheipers, S. (2010). Negotiating sovereignty and human rights: international society and the International Criminal Court. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRef
Schwöbel-Patel, C. (Ed.) (2014). Critical approaches to international criminal law. an introduction. Oxford: Routledge.
Sikkink, K. (2017). Evidence for hope: making human rights work in the 21st century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
Snyder, J., & Vinjamuri, L. (2004). Trials and errors: principle and pragmatism in strategies of international justice. International Security, 28(3), 5–44.CrossRef
Teitt, S. (2017). Sovereignty as responsibility. In C. Reus-Smit, & T. Dunne (Eds.), The globalization of international society (pp. 325–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Vos, C. M. de, Kendall, S., Stahn C. (Eds). (2015). Contested justice: The politics and practice of the International Criminal Court interventions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiener, A. (2018). Contestation and constitution of norms in global international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Wiener, A. (2020). The concept of contestation of norms - an interview. Yearbook on Practical Philosophy in a Global Perspective (YPPGP-JPPGP), 4, 196–206.
Metadaten
Titel
Introduction: Beyond the Practice-Norm Gap
verfasst von
Emanuela Piccolo Koskimies
Copyright-Jahr
2022
Buch
Norm Contestation, Sovereignty and (Ir)responsibility at the International Criminal Court

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85933-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-85934-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2022

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85934-3_1

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise