Antje Wiener

Contested Compliance: Interventions on the Normative Structure of World Politics

This article argues that ‘contested compliance’, i.e. a situation in which compliance conditions are challenged by the expected norm followers, offers an empirical access point for studying changes in the normative structure of world politics. It conceptualizes the normative structure as the ‘structure of meaning-in-use’ that works as a reference frame for decision-makers. The argument builds on a distinction between type, category and meaning of norms. In addition, the article distinguishes between a behaviorist approach to the impact of regulative and constitutive norms on state behavior, and a reflexive perspective on the impact of discursive interventions on the normative structure of world politics. The intention of the argument is twofold. First, it addresses the puzzle of good norm following despite increasingly contested norms, e.g. regarding the European Union’s accession criteria, on the one hand, and the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, on the other. Second, it draws on and develops further the input of reflexive sociology on International Relations theory.

Enacting Meaning-in-Use: Qualitative Research on Norms and International Relations

This article proposes a framework for empirical research on contested meaning of norms in international politics. The goal is to identify a design for empirical research to examine associative connotations of norms that come to the fore when norms are contested in situations of governance beyond-the-state and especially in crises. If cultural practices shape experience and expectations, they need to be identified and made ‘accountable’ based on empirical research. To that end, the proposed qualitative approach centres on individually enacted meaning-in-use. The framework comprises norm-types, conditions of contestation, types of divergence and opposition-deriving as a specific interview evaluation technique. Section one situates the problem of contestation in the field of constructivist research on norms. Section two introduces distinctive conditions of contestation and types of norms. Section three details the methodology of conducting and evaluating interviews and presents the technique of opposition-deriving with a view to reconstructing the structure of meaning-in-use. Section four concludes with an outlook to follow-up research.

Constitution-making and Citizenship Practice – Bridging the Democracy Gap in the EU?

The article identifies the democracy gap as the tension in the European Union (EU) between demands for participatory constitutionalism and the limited capacity of constitutional engineering to meet them. It works with the concept of citizenship practice as the process that establishes the institutionalized terms of citizenship within a polity. The article argues that conventional views of constitutionalism have not accounted for a process that will bridge this gap; and uses the case of citizenship and constitutionalism to illustrate the paradox that, while there is a widespread consensus in favour of liberal democratic constitutional objectives and principles, constitutional agreements have faced significant opposition.

A theory of contestation

Introduction: Contestation as a Norm-Generative Social Practice.- The Normativity Premise: The Normative Power of Contestation.- The Diversity Premise: The Legitimacy Gap in International Relations.- Cultural Cosmopolitanism: Contestedness and Contestation.- Thinking Tools and Central Concepts of the Theory of Contestation.- Applying the Theory of Contestation: Three Sectors of Global Governance.- Conclusion: Why a New Theory of Contestation?.

'Something rotten' and the social construction of social constructivism: a comment on comments

The issue of the Journal of European Public Policy on ‘The Social Construction of Europe’ documents not only the arrival of social constructivism in European Union (EU) studies, but also the fact that this approach is already taken sufficiently seriously by an established journal. At the same time, even the term ‘social constructivism’ remains deeply contested and is subject to construction and deconstruction by established scholars in the field such as Andrew Moravcsik (Moravcsik 1999) and Steve Smith (Smith 1999). The former smells something rotten emanating from a ‘Copenhagen School’ which he (mis-)constructs as the ‘force of continental constructivist theories’ (Moravcsik 1999: 669). The latter is more sympathetic to the constructivist enterprise, but then (de-)constructs most of us as being ‘far more “rationalist” in character than “reflectivist”’ (Smith 1999: 683). At least, we do not smell (yet), but we are probably neither fish nor fowl. At this point, we would like to (re-)construct the pleasant aroma emanating from social constructivism against both rationalist and reflectivist critics. We proceed in two steps. First, we argue with and against Steve Smith that social constructivism constitutes indeed the somewhat messy middle ground between the rationalist mainstream and more radical ‘reflectivism’ or ‘postmodernism’. Second, we argue with and against Andrew Moravcsik that most theoretical claims derived from social constructivism in the Special Issue ‘compete with and should be tested against other mid-range theories’ (Moravcsik 1999: 670).

The Dual Quality of Norms and Governance beyond the State: Sociological and Normative Approaches to 'Interaction'

Abstract This essay develops a critique of modern constructivist approaches to norms in international relations theory. It distinguishes between a behaviourist and a societal perspective on norms. The former explains compliance with norms and/or norm diffusion via the logic of appropriateness and the logic of arguing, respectively, the latter understands divergence in normative meaning via the logic of contestedness. Using Habermass approach to facts and norms as a framework, the article discusses the possibilities of legitimate governance based on core constitutional norms such as democracy, the rule of law and fundamental and human rights and their role in contexts beyond the modern nation‐state.

The Embedded Acquis Communautaire: Transmission Belt and Prism of New Governance

The European Union offers crucial insights into the gradual shift from a Weberian form of modern ‘government’ towards the institutionalisation of post-Weberian ‘governance’. The article argues that the emerging ‘polity of polities’ context, not only threatens the constitutional basis of democratic rule but also raises the questions of what exactly the new institutions of governance beyond the nation-state are, and what they imply for the functioning (rules of the game) and legitimacy (democratic processes) of the political order. In an effort to elaborate on these questions, the article develops two themes. First, it raises critical questions about the conceptual boundedness of ‘governance’ in the discussion of constitutional and policy studies within the field of European integration. Secondly, it advances a methodological access point for the study of the institutionalisation of governance in the Euro-polity. It suggests situating the legal concept of acquis communautaire at the boundary of legal studies and politics. The concept is then applied to a case study of citizenship policy in the EU to demonstrate how the acquis communautaire–more precisely, the ‘embedded acquis communautaire’–facilitates methodological access to the study of the institutionalisation of governance beyond the state and despite states.

Global constitutionalism: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law

When the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its judgment in Kadi and Al Barakaat 2 – better known now as the Kadi case – it highlighted the constitutional dimension that results from the interaction between different political and legal arenas in the global system. The ECJ challenged the hierarchic international legal order in which the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was understood to have fi nal normative authority. In so doing, the ECJ reiterated the centrality of the rule of law in the protection of human rights. In the process the case promoted the constitutionalisation of the global system. At the same time, the ECJ justifi ed its judgment by the need to protect the constitutional order of the EU and the constitutional values of its member states. While scholars of European law have addressed the far-reaching implications of this case, there has been less attention paid to it by those working on wider issues in international relations theory, international law and political science more generally. This case demonstrates how the interaction between different political and legal orders impacts on the fundamental rights of individuals in ways that deserve much more attention. It is, therefore, a good example of how constitutional questions and claims are emerging beyond the state and how they require the input of different disciplines at the intersection of law and politics. If we take the range of academic output on the case as an indicator, it clearly is infl uential far beyond the discipline of European or International Law, possibly marking a critical juncture for the fi eld of international

Accommodating Normative Divergence in European Foreign Policy Co-Ordination: The Example of the Iraq Crisis

In situations of international crises normative divergence regarding policy responses is a recurrent phenomenon. It is a problem which remains to be addressed despite assumptions about internationally established communities such as the liberal community of Western states. The case of the European Unions failure to co-ordinate a common policy response in connection with the war on Iraq demonstrates that conflict between Member States about appropriate common policy responses is enhanced by external crises. Common commitment to shared community norms is hence considered as an insufficient basis for policy consensus or, for that matter, sustainable compromise. The article discusses how and why these divergences emerge and suggests institutionalizing collective processes of norm contestation at the European level.

Finality vs. enlargement : constitutive practices and opposing retionales in the reconstruction of Europe

The paper argues that the parallel development of the debate over political finality, on the one hand, and compliance with the accession acquis, on the other, brings two opposing action rationales to the fore. Depending upon how deliberation about finality and compliance proceeds, compliance can either mean conflict or smooth adaptation and successful revision of political procedures. The benchmark for success might not be constituted by an ever growing reservoir of detailed elaborations on governance principles or yet another plan to bring Europe ‘closer to the citizen’ but might lie in a concept that enables the establishment of equal access to deliberation for all participating parties. The paper focuses on the necessity of interdisciplinary work that straddles the boundaries of law and the social sciences in order to bring the constitutive impact of the interrelated finality and compliance rationales to the fore. It argues that resonance with evolving constitutional substance will be enhanced by a constitutionalized space for deliberation that allows for dialogic politics. Theoretically, the paper advances a societal approach to compliance.