Regina Heller

The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation – The case of counterterrorism policy

After 9/11 state actors in different parts of the world and to various degrees decided to give security and counterterrorism measures priority over human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order to legitimize their policy choices, governmental actors used normative argumentation to redefine what is ‘appropriate’ to ensure security. We argue that, in the long run, this may lead to a setback dynamic hollowing out established human and civil rights norms. In this article, we develop a theoretical and analytical framework, oriented along the model of the life cycle of norms, in order to trace ‘bad’ norm dynamics in the field of counterterrorism. We conceptualize the norm erosion process, particularly focusing on arguments such as speech acts put forward by governmental norm challengers and their attempts to create new meaning and understanding. We also draw on convergence theory and argue that when a coalition of norm challengers develops, using the same or similar patterns of arguments, established international normative orders protecting human rights and civil liberties might be weakened over time and a more fundamental process of norm erosion may take place.

Tracing and understanding “bad” norm dynamics in counterterrorism: the current debates in IR research

The focus of attention within the constructivist literature on norm dynamics has recently shifted from the “good” side of norm development to the investigation of reverse norm dynamics, through which established norms in liberal democracies, particularly those related to civil and political rights, are challenged and discursively put under pressure. This shift was triggered not least by counterterrorist security politics since 9/11, leading to a more thorough investigation of such dynamics in critical security studies and the literature on norm contestation. The basic research interest of these strands of literature is to critically assess and better understand the drivers of such processes. This article gives an overview of constructivist approaches to the study of “bad” norm dynamics and points to further research perspectives that could be used to enhance our understanding of “bad” norm dynamics in counterterrorism.

NOTIONS OF (IN)SECURITY WITHIN THE EU. HOW EUROPEAN POLICY‐MAKERS VIEW THE SOURCES AND COSTS OF TERRORISM AND ORGANISED CRIME

This article maps notions of (in)security and security policy within the European Union (EU) since the 1990s using the cases of terrorism and organised crime. It traces interpretations of European policy‐makers about the sources and costs that these two human‐induced insecurities incur on Europe’s societies and identifies the rationalities underlying the respective perceptions and policy actions. The analysis reveals that there are different logics at work that guide the economics of security: path dependency, reactive logics, emotions, integration dynamics and institutional interests, external pressures and more recently also considerations about the potential effects on the European economy. However, the EU’s attempts to model cost scenarios still remain underdeveloped.

Editors’ introduction: the “dark” side of normative argumentation in counterterrorism – an emerging research field

The post-9/11 threat environment has created the opportunity for numerous counterterrorism measures to assert themselves to the detriment of established human rights and civil liberties. In this process, governmental actors have frequently used normative argumentation as a discursive and rhetorical tool to legitimise the introduction or use of contested policy measures, or even the breach of taboos. In public statements, these actors have presented and framed terrorism as an “existential threat” and trivialised or recontextualised counterterrorism practices in order to justify such measures. They have used rhetorical strategies varying from denial, to justification and actual attempts to re-define the content and sphere of application of these basic norms. The use of such argumentative strategies is not without consequences. The more intense state actors argue in favour of human rights restrictions, the more these domestically and globally established norms come under pressure and lose their behaviour-guiding function. What used to be an exception may turn into normality; what used to be “bad” may turn into “good”. Our normative expectations may change over time – and state agents are the main drivers in this process of norm erosion. So far, this “dark” side of normative argumentation has not been adequately and systematically accounted for in academic research. Little has been written in the broader constructivist IR-literature on whether, how and why dominant global normative scripts change or erode. What is needed to hollow out established human rights norms and create acceptance for contested practices? How do “dark” discourses evolve? How are these new ideas strategically used? What role do powerful actors such as state representatives play in these processes? And what effects on social norms and political practices can we observe, or think of in the longer run? Counterterrorism policy is a paradigmatic field for investigating and answering these questions, not only because the empirics are compelling, but also due to a broad range of works in terrorism studies that adopt critical stances to the counterterrorism policy of the last decade. And there is also very good regional expertise when it comes to assessing and analysing normative change in specific local contexts. More than ten years after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, and in the context of policy responses to the “new” threat of international terrorism, it seems appropriate to draw a résumé of these

Terrorismusbekämpfung jenseits funktionaler Problemlösung: Was beeinflusst politisches Handeln im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus?

Zahlreiche Masnahmen, die der Bekampfung des Terrorismus dienen sollen, sind von fragwurdigem Nutzen. Wieso gelangen sie dennoch auf die politische Agenda? Um die Hintergrunde und Grundlagen der Entscheidungen fur bestimmte Masnahmen besser verstehen und systematischer erforschen zu konnen, schlagen wir eine explorative Forschungsagenda vor, die auf drei unterschiedlichen Entscheidungs-und Handlungslogiken beruht: der Logik der strategischen Aushandlung, des symbolischen Handelns und des kulturbedingten Verhaltens. Daraus leiten wir drei Sichtweisen auf die Terrorismusbekampfung ab: Terrorismusbekampfung als Moglichkeitsraum betont, dass politische Unternehmer Gelegenheitsfenster nutzen, um ihre praferierten Politiken durchzusetzen; Terrorismusbekampfung als Signalisierungsstrategie unterstreicht die symbolische Bedeutung politischer Entscheidungen, bei denen es vor allem auf Sichtbarkeit ankommt; Terrorismusbekampfung als kulturelle Praxis verweist auf kulturelle und habituelle Standards, durch die bestimmte Masnahmen als naturgegeben erscheinen, wahrend andere von vornherein ausgeschlossen werden. Wir illustrieren das Erklarungspotenzial dieser drei Perspektiven, die wir als komplementar betrachten, anhand von Beispielen aus westlichen Demokratien.

More Rigor to Emotions! A Comparative, Qualitative Content Analysis of Anger in Russian Foreign Policy

This chapter puts forward the argument that we can only make full sense of the constitutive role of emotions in international relations by integrating them into a broader and more systematic picture. Sometimes conventional interpretative methods appear unsystematic and arbitrary and lack the possibility of generalization. This chapter advocates for the inclusion of more systematic comparative elements, a more longitudinal perspective as well as a more sensitive treatment of the ‘anger agents’. Using the example of post-Soviet Russia, the chapter outlines the design of a comparative, qualitative content analysis (QCA) of semantic anger patterns in Russian official speech since the mid-1990s. The methodology has several advantages: It provides constructivist research with a more stringent ‘theory testing’ potential and it produces more robust insight about the interplay between emotions and international policy.

Frieden und Transformation

Das Theorem vom Demokratischen Frieden postuliert einen unmittelbaren Zusammenhang zwischen Demokratie und Frieden: Demokratisch verfasste Gesellschaften, so die Annahme, seien friedensfahiger und mit weniger Konfliktpotenzialen behaftet als Nicht- Demokratien.1 Eine liberale demokratische Grundordnung wirke nach innen wie nach ausen zivilisierend und konfliktmindernd, da die konstitutionell verankerten Regeln der Demokratie die Ausubung von Herrschaft und (physischer) Gewalt im Sinne eines friedlichen Konfliktaustrags beschranken und kontrollieren. Mit Blick auf die zwischenstaatliche Dimension der demokratischen Friedensthese hat die empirische Forschung zwar festgestellt, dass Demokratien nicht prinzipiell weniger Kriege als Autokratien fuhren, wohl aber verwickeln sie sich angesichts okonomischer Interdependenz und engerer politischer Zusammenarbeit untereinander nicht in kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen. Das Theorem vom Demokratischen Frieden gilt als einer der robustesten Satze, den die Sozialwissenschaft hervorgebracht hat.