Norms have never been absent from the study of international politics, but the sweeping “ideational turn” in the 1980s and 1990s brought them back as a central theoretical concern in the field. Much theorizing about norms has focused on how they create social structure, standards of appropriateness, and stability in international politics. Recent empirical research on norms, in contrast, has examined their role in creating political change, but change processes have been less well-theorized. We induce from this research a variety of theoretical arguments and testable hypotheses about the role of norms in political change. We argue that norms evolve in a three-stage “life cycle” of emergence, “norm cascades,” and internalization, and that each stage is governed by different motives, mechanisms, and behavioral logics. We also highlight the rational and strategic nature of many social construction processes and argue that theoretical progress will only be made by placing attention on the connections between norms and rationality rather than by opposing the two.

/pdf/international-norm-dynamics-and-political-change-37ig9r9dlq.pdf

International Norm Dynamics and Political Change

The New Transnational Activism, first published in 2005, shows how even the most prosaic activities can assume broader political meanings when they provide ordinary people with the experience of crossing transnational space. This means that we cannot be satisfied with defining transnational activists through the ways they think. The defining feature of transnationalism in this book is relational, and not cognitive. This emphasis on activism's relational structure means that even as they make transnational claims, transnational activists draw on the resources, the networks, and the opportunities in which they are embedded, and only then - if at all - on more distant transnational links. But we can no more sharply draw a line between domestic and international politics in studying transnational activism than we could ignore local politics in studying its national equivalent. Understanding the processes that link the local, the national and the international is the major undertaking of the book.

/pdf/the-new-transnational-activism-2os8nvnlue.pdf

The New Transnational Activism

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

The causal logic behind many arguments in historical institutionalism emphasizes the enduring impact of choices made during critical junctures in history. These choices close off alternative options and lead to the establishment of institutions that generate self-reinforcing path-dependent processes. Despite the theoretical and practical importance of critical junctures, however, analyses of path dependence often devote little attention to them. The article reconstructs the concept of critical junctures, delimits its range of application, and provides methodological guidance for its use in historical institutional analyses. Contingency is the key characteristic of critical junctures, and counterfactual reasoning and narrative methods are necessary to analyze contingent factors and their impact. Finally, the authors address specific issues relevant to both cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of critical junctures.

/pdf/the-study-of-critical-junctures-theory-narrative-and-qt3ouv9nvn.pdf

The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism

This article takes initial steps in evaluating contending models of EU governance. We argue that the sovereignty of individual states is diluted in the European arena by collective decision-making and by supranational institutions. In addition, European states are losing their grip on the mediation of domestic interest representation in international relations. We make this argument along two tracks. First, we analyse the conditions under which central state executives may lose their grip on power. Next, we divide up the policy process into stages and specify which institutional rules may induce various actors to deepen EU policy-making.

/pdf/european-integration-from-the-1980s-state-centric-v-multi-43g6cwx8fu.pdf

European integration from the 1980s: State-centric v. multi-level governance

Review of The Rules of Federalism, R. Daniel Kelemen, Harvard University Press: European Union Studies Association Review

Most scholars think of courts as a single category of adjudicative bodies or triadic dispute resolution. But courts play a variety of roles in the domestic political system. Increasingly, the roles and tasks delegated to ICs mimic in form and content the roles and tasks delegated to courts in liberal democracies. Thus where initially international courts were created to be dispute resolution bodies, now ICs are delegated the roles of administrative review, enforcement, and even constitutional review. This paper overviews the variety of judicial roles delegated to courts, explaining how each role puts courts in a different relationship to the state. The paper then considers how delegating a role to international courts is fundamentally different than delegating the exact same task to domestic courts, assessing the implications for national sovereignty of delegating specific roles to ICs. Introduction Most theories of law and courts—domestic or international—treat legal bodies as a single category, often for good reason. For those who believe in the overall good of the rule of law, distinctions among the way different courts promote the rule of law are irrelevant. But while it can make sense to consider all courts as a single category, to do so papers over the reality that courts play distinct roles within a political system. This article focuses on four distinct roles courts play within political systems—dispute resolution, administrative review, criminal enforcement and constitutional review. Some of these judicial roles have legislative actors delegating decision-making authority to courts as a means of social control, thus legislatures are primarily delegating to courts to bind others to follow the law. In other judicial roles, legislative bodies are binding themselves, delegating decision-making authority to courts to enhance their own credibility as a “rule of law” political system. Delegating to courts to control others is far less likely to be sovereignty compromising than is self binding—and thus we find variation in the ways in which judicial authority interacts with state power, and variation in the extent to which delegation to courts is sovereignty compromising. In their earliest incarnations, international courts (ICs) played a single role—dispute resolution. Especially when the international court’s jurisdiction was not compulsory (so each party had to consent to jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis), ICs were unlikely to impinge on

Delegating Sovereignty to International Courts

I have to begin by noting that I was asked to review these three books together. They all compare legal institutions across countries, and the authors share a belief that legal institutions structure and decisively shape national politics and polities. The three books are excellent in their different ways. The similarity ends there; thus I will seek insight in their differences. Shifting Legal Visions is a puzzle-driven book focused on actor agency. Ezequiel Gonzáles-Ocantos wants to understand how national judicial practices, with respect to criminally prosecuting human rights violations, changed in response to international law and domestic legalpolitical strategies. The book examines two Latin American countries where judges reversed positivist legal traditions, embracing interpretations supported by international human rights law (Argentina and Peru), and one where legal practice did not significantly change (Mexico). The goal is to understand the permissive and necessary conditions for judicial change, and the micro processes—the interactions between judges, advocates, and governments—that advance or thwart change in legal practices, and thereby the willingness of national judges to confront human rights violators. Constitutional Courts as Mediators also examines the role of courts in Latin American post-conflict settings, and it includes two of the same country cases. But the book is a theory-testing enterprise, and the theory is mostly structural. Julio Ríos Figueroa expects that certain formal features of national judiciaries—the structural independence of judges, rules of access to initiate legal review, and the formal judicial review powers—will determine whether or not judges become mediators whose rulings help to inform the choices of members of the military. The country cases (Colombia, Peru, and Mexico) were selected because of variation in the structural features associated with Ríos Figueroa’s theory. The conclusion briefly discusses Israel, Turkey, and Pakistan as a plausibility probe of the generalizability of the theory. MakingWe the People engages philosophical debates about how peoples are constituted, and it employs macro-historical analysis to identify features of post-World War II Japan and South Korea’s constitutions and policies that, according to ChaiharkHahm and SungHoKim, shaped national political identities. Courts are not central to the analysis. While the authors see U.S. actions and national policy decisions as important factors shaping national understanding of themselves, probably for reasons and in ways that were not fully intended, this is not a story about actor agency and the authors are not really interested in causality. As a group, we can see the intellectual vibrancy that is now comparative law with a political science bent. We are long past the days where comparative law meant legal scholars describing differences in laws and judicial decisions across countries with respect to issue X. Together the books demonstrate how insight can come from a range of social-science methods, and especially from cross-country comparisons. Karen Alter is Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S153759271800004X

Law in Action: Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and National Identity

The spectacular failings of international organizations (IOs) generate front page news. UN peacekeepers, for example, are blamed for triggering a cholera epidemic in Haiti,1 and for sexual exploitation in the Central African Republic.2 The notion that international intervention makes an already bad situation even worse raises anew concerns that international institutions are unaccountable actors.3 Because international institutions enjoy legal immunity, Kristina Daugirdas suggests that reputation might be a substitute force that disciplines IOs.4 Harnessing reputational concerns towards this end, however, is challenging. This symposium engages the challenge that Daugirdas sets out when she asks us to consider whether reputational concerns might be a force that promotes better oversight and behavior by IOs and their employees.

/pdf/introduction-to-the-symposium-on-kristina-daugirdas-5c3qzz9i3y.pdf

Karen J. Alter

Papers

Review of The Rules of Federalism, R. Daniel Kelemen, Harvard University Press: European Union Studies Association Review

Delegating Sovereignty to International Courts

Law in Action: Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and National Identity

Introduction to the symposium on Kristina daugirdas, “Reputation as a disciplinarian of international organizations”

Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union, by Daniel R. Kelemen