【Report】Summary of the symposium “Frontiers of Research on Norm Contestation in International Relations”

30 May 2024

In this symposium, three speakers, drawing from their own research projects, discuss developments in research on norm contestation in International Relations.

The first speaker was Adam Bower from the University of St. Andrews, presenting his research on U.S. “antipreneurship” in norms governing outer space. There are growing security concerns on the governance of outer space and low-earth orbit, especially with the rapid pace of development of direct ascent anti-satellite weapons. New norms are needed to govern outer space, but so far, progress towards a binding international treaty has been limited. Bower argues there has been successive attempts by the United States at “antipreneurship”—defined as deliberate attempts to preserve the normative status quo—which prevents actors from challenging existing norms. In his presentation, Bower shows that antipreneurship may be distinguished in three different forms, namely rhetorical, procedural, and behavioural. In doing so, Bower presents “antipreneurship” as conceptually distinct from norm contestation, as contestation involves actively challenging, clarifying, or modifying existing norms instead of deliberately obstructing change.

The second speaker was Kazushige Kobayashi from Ritsumeikan University, presenting on his research project on norm contestation and the global peacebuilding order. Norms and practices of peacebuilding are generally Western-centric, which overlooks non-Western norms and practices of peacebuilding. The aim of the project is to understand how non-Western countries, specifically Russia, China, and Japan, view norms and practices of peacebuilding. The project found slightly differing views of peacebuilding between China and Japan, which were primarily motivated by the understanding that peacebuilding should be geared towards economic development. However, China’s practices of peacebuilding are also grounded in statist interpretations which challenge Western notions. For example, while Western countries may consider human rights associated with personal liberty as the goal of peacebuilding, China would interpret human rights as the “right to economic development”, which centres peacebuilding efforts to the state. Russia, on the other hand, sees peacebuilding less in economic terms, and more as a form of “conflict freezing” and providing security assistance.

The final speaker was Hiro Katsumata from Tohoku University, presenting on the rise and fall of constructivist research on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Katsumata first elaborated the rise of constructivist interest in ASEAN as a security community focusing on norm diffusion, or the spread of norms, through both norm entrepreneurs and emulation. However, as great power competition intensified, the constructivist agenda started to decline. Research on ASEAN members have been increasingly trending towards Realist explanations, indicated in the rising interest in hedging as a strategic behaviour.

Prior to the question-and-answer session, Kenki Adachi as the chairperson of the discussion, briefly summarised and reiterated the main points of the three speakers. During the lively question-and-answer session, participants and the speakers discussed whether the study of norms was still relevant in IR, especially in the midst of intensifying geopolitical rivalry. Participants also discussed the role of the Global South countries in norm contestation, and the methods used to conduct research on international norms.