Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:03:13.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contestation ‘all the way down’? The grammar of contestation in norm research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2016

Holger Niemann  and
Henrik Schillinger
Holger Niemann*
Affiliation:
Associate Fellow, Institute for Development and Peace (INEF), University of Duisburg-Essen Leuphana University Lüneburg
Henrik Schillinger*
Affiliation:
Researcher, Institute of Political Science, University of Duisburg-Essen
*
*Correspondence to: Holger Niemann, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335 Lüneburg. Author’s email: [email protected]
**Correspondence to: Henrik Schillinger, Institute of Political Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstrasse 65, 47057 Duisburg. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The meaning of norms is empirically contested. Supposing an inherent instability of norm meaning, contestation, therefore, represents a fundamental conceptual challenge to the mainstream view on norms as shared understandings. By offering a grammatical reading of Antje Wiener’s approach to contestation, we examine how norm research addresses this challenge to its theoretical core assumption. We argue that the grammar of Wiener’s approach, despite its reflexive starting point, ultimately reintroduces an understanding of norms as facts and leads to a normative ‘politics of reality’. This effectively turns contestation into a disruption of the ‘normal’ state of norms. Demonstrating the challenges of theorising norms with rather than against contestation, the article concludes that norm research has yet to find ways to account for contestation ‘all the way down’ in order to sustain norms as a productive analytical concept in IR.

Keywords

ContestationNorm ResearchGrammatical ReadingMeaning-in-use
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 29 - 49
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 We presume that not only primary norms are contested, but also secondary norms, that is, rules on norm application and rules over rules, including rules on legal reasoning. See Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘How do norms matter?’, in Michael Byers (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics: Essays in International Relations and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar. We thank one reviewer for pointing out this differentiation.

2 Birdsall, Andrea, ‘But we don’t call it “torture”! Norm contestation during the US “War on Terror”’, International Politics, 53:2 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Liese, Andrea, ‘Exceptional necessity – how liberal democracies contest the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment when countering terrorism’, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5:1 (2009)Google Scholar; Panke, Diana and Petersohn, Ulrich, ‘Norm challenges and norm death: the inexplicable?’, Cooperation and Conflict, 51:1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Acharya, Amitav, ‘How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bucher, Bernd, ‘Acting abstractions: Metaphors, narrative structures and the eclipse of agency’, European Journal of International Relations, 20:3 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Capie, David, ‘Localization as resistance: the contested diffusion of small arms norms in Southeast Asia’, Security Dialogue, 39:6 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zwingel, Susanne, ‘How do norms travel? Theorizing international women’s rights in transnational perspective’, International Studies Quarterly, 56:1 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Wiener, Antje, The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, Antje, A Theory of Contestation (Berlin: Springer, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deitelhoff, Nicole and Zimmermann, Lisbeth, ‘Things we lost in the fire: How different types of contestation affect the validity of international norms’, PRIF Working Papers, no. 18 (Frankfurt am Main, 2013)Google Scholar.

5 Bailey, Jennifer L., ‘Arrested development: the fight to end commercial whaling as a case of failed norm change’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:2 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blok, Anders, ‘Contesting global norms: Politics of identity in Japanese pro-whaling countermobilization’, Global Environmental Politics, 8:2 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bloomfield, Alan, ‘Norm antipreneurs and theorising resistance to normative change’, Review of International Studies, online first (2015)Google Scholar.

6 Kratochwil, Friedrich, Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Björkdahl, Annika, ‘Norms in International Relations: Some conceptual and methodological reflections’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 15:1 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

8 Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations: Why returning to language is vital to prolonging the owl’s flight’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:3 (2013), p. 501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 By addressing stability as opposed to change, we take up the mainstream understanding of norm stability based on a fixed meaning. This, however, should not imply that the ambiguity of norm meaning cannot generate norm stability in a different way. However, the focus on the intersubjective understanding of norm meaning in mainstream norm research precludes such a view. We thank one of the reviewers for clarifying that point.

10 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’, p. 891.

11 Guzzini, Stefano, ‘A reconstruction of constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Albert, Mathias, Kessler, Oliver, and Stetter, Stephan, ‘On order and conflict: International Relations and the “communicative turn”’, Review of International Studies, 34:SI (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weldes, Jutta and Saco, Diana, ‘Making state action possible: the United States and the discursive construction of “The Cuban Problem”, 1960–1994’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 25:2 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Hopf, Ted, ‘The promise of constructivism in International Relations theory’, International Security, 23:1 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Doty, Roxanne Lynn, ‘Aporia: a critical exploration of the agent-structure problematique in International Relations theory’, European Journal of International Relations, 3:3 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fierke, K. M., ‘Critical methodology and constructivism’, in K. M. Fierke and Knud E. Jørgensen (eds), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001)Google Scholar; Weldes, Jutta, ‘Constructing national interests’, European Journal of International Relations, 2:3 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of the relationship between constructivism and critical approaches in IR, see also Price, Richard M. and Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations, 4:3 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 There is a growing body of grammatical readings analysing the theoretical construction of concepts. Examples include Pin-Fat, Véronique, Universality, Ethics and International Relations: A Grammatical Reading (London; New York: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Mulligan, Shane P., ‘The uses of legitimacy in International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 34:2 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Read, Roisin, ‘Language as a middle ground: Using grammatical reading to “find” theory in development practice’, Progress in Development Studies, 14:3 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Considine, Laura, ‘“Back to the rough ground!”: a grammatical approach to trust and International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 44:1 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009)Google Scholar.

16 Pin-Fat, Universality, Ethics and International Relations, pp. 21–2.

17 Zehfuss, Maja, Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Pin-Fat, Universality, Ethics and International Relations, pp. 4–30.

19 Ibid., p. 14.

20 In this regard, our approach also follows a line of critical engagements with theory such as Hanrieder, Tine, ‘The false promise of the better argument’, International Theory, 3:3 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schindler, Sebastian and Wille, Tobias, ‘Change in and through practice: Pierre Bourdieu, Vincent Pouliot, and the end of the Cold War’, International Theory, 7:2 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations.

21 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’; Björkdahl, ‘Norms in International Relations’; Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security.

22 van Kersbergen, Kees and Verbeek, Bertjan, ‘The politics of international norms: Subsidiarity and the imperfect competence regime of the European Union’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:2 (2007), p. 221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Wiener, Antje, ‘The dual quality of norms and governance beyond the state: Sociological and normative approaches to “interaction”’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10:1 (2007), p. 49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Klotz, Audie, Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Keck, Margaret and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Finnemore, Martha, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Price, Richard M., The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Tannenwald, Nina, ‘The nuclear taboo: the United States and the normative basis of nuclear non-use’, International Organization, 53:3 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Steve C., and Sikkink, Kathryn (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Ulbert, Cornelia and Risse, Thomas, ‘Deliberately changing the discourse: What does make arguing effective?’, Acta Politica, 40:3 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, Neta C., Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Joachim, Jutta, Agenda Setting, the UN, and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders.

28 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics’, p. 911; Payne, Rodger A., ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:1 (2001), p. 38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elgström, Ole, ‘Norm negotiations: the construction of new norms regarding gender and development in EU foreign aid policy’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7:3 (2000), p. 462 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Kratochwil, Friedrich and Ruggie, John G., ‘International organization: a state of the art on an art of the state’, International Organization, 40:4 (1986), p. 767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Legro, Jeffrey W., ‘Which norms matter? Revisiting the “failure” of internationalism’, International Organization, 51:1 (1997), p. 34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Rosert, Elvira and Schirmbeck, Sonja, ‘Zur Erosion internationaler Normen: Folterverbot und nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion’, Zeitschrift für InternationaleBeziehungen, 14:2 (2007)Google Scholar; McKeown, Ryder, ‘Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm’, International Relations, 23:1 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Panke, Diana and Petersohn, Ulrich, ‘Why international norms disappear sometimes’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:4 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Bailey, ‘Arrested development’.

33 Liese, ‘Exceptional necessity’; Heller, Regina, Kahl, Martin, and Pisoiu, Daniela, ‘The “dark” side of normative argumentation – the case of counterterrorism policy’, Global Constitutionalism, 1:2 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Bloomfield, ‘Norm antipreneurs’.

35 Tannenwald, ‘The nuclear taboo’.

36 Acharya, ‘How ideas spread’; Zimmermann, Lisbeth, ‘Same same or different? Norm diffusion between resistance, compliance, and localization in post-conflict states’, International Studies Perspectives, 17:1 (2016)Google ScholarPubMed; Capie, ‘Localization as resistance’; Joachim, Jutta and Schneiker, Andrea, ‘Changing discourses, changing practices? Gender mainstreaming and security’, Comparative European Politics, 10:5 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gurowitz, Amy, ‘The diffusion of international norms: Why identity matters’, International Politics, 43:3 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cortell, Andrew P. and Davis, James W., ‘When norms clash: International norms, domestic practices, and Japan’s internalisation of the GATT/WTO’, Review of International Studies, 31:1 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43:1 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Checkel, ‘Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe’.

38 Acharya, ‘How ideas spread’, p. 248; Cortell, Andrew P. and Davis, James W., ‘Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: a research agenda’, International Studies Review, 2:1 (2000), p. 69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, ‘Things we lost in the fire’; Zwingel, ‘How do norms travel?’.

40 Badescu, Cristina G. and Weiss, Thomas G., ‘Misrepresenting R2P and advancing norms: an alternative spiral?’, International Studies Perspectives, 11:4 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Capie, ‘Localization as resistance’; Zimmermann, ‘Same same or different?’.

42 Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights.

43 Hofferberth, Matthias and Weber, Christian, ‘Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 18:1 (2015), p. 82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bucher, ‘Acting abstractions’, p. 750.

44 Sandholtz, Wayne, ‘Dynamics of international norm change: Rules against wartime plunder’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008), p. 105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 van Kersbergen and Verbeek, ‘The politics of international norms’, p. 219.

46 Krook, Mona L. and True, Jacqui, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: the United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2012), p. 106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Renner, Judith, Discourse, Normative Change and the Quest for Reconciliation in Global Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013), p. 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Stop telling us how to behave: Socialization or infantilization?’, International Studies Perspectives, 13:2 (2012), p. 137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krebs, Ronald R. and Jackson, Patrick T., ‘Twisting tongues and twisting arms: the power of political rhetoric’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:1 (2007), p. 41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Engelkamp, Stephan, Glaab, Katharina, and Renner, Judith, ‘Office hours: How (critical) norm research can regain its voice’, World Political Science Review, 10:1 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hofferberth and Weber, ‘Lost in translation’; Engelkamp, Stephan and Glaab, Katharina, ‘Writing norms: Constructivist norm research and the politics of ambiguity’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, online first (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inayatullah, Naeem and Blaney, David L., ‘The dark heart of kindness: the social construction of deflection’, International Studies Perspectives, 13:2 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Symposium: Interrogating the use of norms in International Relations: an introduction’, International Studies Perspectives, 13:2 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Deitelhoff and Zimmermann, ‘Things we lost in the fire’, p. 1.

51 Ibid., pp. 4–5.

52 Ibid., p. 4.

53 van Kersbergen and Verbeek, ‘The politics of international norms’, p. 219.

54 Ibid., p. 231.

55 Kratochwil and Ruggie, ‘International organization’, pp. 769, 774.

56 van Kersbergen and Verbeek, ‘The politics of international norms’, pp. 234–5.

57 Wiener, Antje, ‘Contested meanings of norms: a research framework’, Comparative European Politics, 5:1 (2007), p. 6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 19.

59 Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations; Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions.

60 Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions.

61 Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations.

62 Renner, Discourse, Normative Change and the Quest for Reconciliation; Methmann, Chris, ‘“Climate protection” as empty signifier: a discourse theoretical perspective on climate mainstreaming in world politics’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 39:2 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Epstein, Charlotte, The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, ‘The play of international practice’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:3 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pouliot, Vincent, International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Bigo, Didier, ‘Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of practices, practices of power’, International Political Sociology, 5:3 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, International Practice Theory: New Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Adler-Nissen, Rebecca, ‘Stigma management in International Relations: Transgressive identities, norms, and order in international society’, International Organization, 68:1 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Wiener has presented her concept in two monographs and numerous journal publications, including Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics; Wiener, Antje, ‘Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 10:2 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, A Theory of Contestation; Wiener, ‘The dual quality of norms and governance beyond the state’; Wiener, ‘Contested meanings of norms: a research framework’; Wiener, Antje, ‘Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 35:1 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, Antje and Puetter, Uwe, ‘The quality of norms is what actors make of it’, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5:1 (2009)Google Scholar.

69 This includes, among others, Begg, Iain, ‘Contested meanings of transparency in central banking’, Comparative European Politics, 5:1 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jenson, Jane, ‘The European Union’s citizenship regime: Creating norms and building practices’, Comparative European Politics, 5:1 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Park, Susan, ‘The World Bank, dams and the meaning of sustainable development in use’, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5:1 (2009)Google Scholar; Liese, ‘Exceptional necessity’; Venzke, Ingo, ‘Legal contestation about enemy combatants: On the exercise of power in legal interpretation’, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5:1 (2009)Google Scholar. Discussions regarding the normative status of the responsibility to protect and its (non-)application in Darfur, Libya and Syria also refer to Wiener’s concept of contestation, see Contessi, Nicola, ‘Multilateralism, intervention and norm contestation: China’s stance on Darfur in the UN Security Council’, Security Dialogue, 41:3 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welsh, Jennifer M., ‘Norm contestation and the Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:4 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zähringer, Natalie, ‘Norm evolution within and across the African Union and the United Nations: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a contested norm’, South African Journal of International Affairs, 20:2 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Wiener, ‘Enacting meaning-in-use’, p. 179.

71 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 38.

72 Ibid.

73 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 30.

74 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 47.

75 Wiener, ‘Enacting meaning-in-use’, p. 180.

76 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 63; Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 27.

77 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 27.

78 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 64.

79 Whereas the 2008 monograph refers to transnationalisation and internationalisation, the 2014 monograph includes the terms transnationalisation and globalisation. See Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 56.

80 Ibid., p. 21.

81 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 47.

82 Ibid., p. 131.

83 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 56.

84 Checkel, ‘Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe’.

85 At least, Wiener does not offer an argument to explain how encounters could affect the domestic cultural validation of norms.

86 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 64.

87 We thank one of the anonymous reviewers for clarifying that point.

88 Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations, p. 92.

89 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 69.

90 In her 2014 monograph, Wiener shifts her argument from the invisible constitution to a distinction between empirical contestation (‘contestedness’) and contestation as a political practice. However, empirical contestation is still connoted with being unreflected and unintended by political actors. We argue that it is conceptually equivalent to invisibility. See Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, pp. 58–62.

91 Ibid., p. 41.

92 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 69.

93 Ibid., pp. 112–13.

94 Ibid., p. 147.

95 Wiener, ‘Contested meanings of norms’ pp. 3–4.

96 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 33.

97 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 85.

98 Such a move yet again points to the accidental rather than deliberate character of contestation and to the ontologisation of norms as fixed meaning. Accordingly, Wiener later distinguishes a (empirical and unintended) practice of contestation, a normative principle of contestedness, and a policy instrument of regular contestation. Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 58.

99 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 70.

100 Ibid., p. 211. Wiener develops the notion of agonistic institutions with reference to the political philosophy of James Tully. See Tully, James, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tully, James, ‘The unfreedom of the moderns in comparison to their ideals of constitutional democracy’, The Modern Law Review, 65:2 (2002)Google Scholar.

101 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 204.

102 Ibid., p. 211.

103 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 59.

104 Derrida, Jacques, ‘Force of law: the “mystical foundation of authority”’, in Drucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld, and David Carlson (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice (London; New York: Routledge, 1992)Google Scholar; Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions; Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘Miserable comforters: International Relations as new natural law’, European Journal of International Relations, 15:3 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 209.

106 Ibid., p. 204.

107 Mouffe, Chantal, Über das Politische: Wider die kosmopolitische Illusion (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2007)Google Scholar.

108 For a broader discussion of ‘essentially contested concepts’ in political theory see, inter alia Connolly, William E., The Terms of Political Discourse (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)Google Scholar; MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘The essential contestability of some social concepts’, Ethics, 84:1 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Care, Norman S., ‘On fixing social concepts’, Ethics, 84:1 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Swanton, Christine, ‘On the “essential contestedness” of political concepts’, Ethics, 95:4 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collier, David, Hidalgo, Fernando Daniel, and Maciuceanu, Andra Olivia, ‘Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 11:3 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Kenneth, ‘Mutually contested concepts and their standard general use’, Journal of Classical Sociology, 2:3 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Guzzini, ‘A reconstruction of constructivism in International Relations’, p. 150.

110 Zehfuss, Constructivism in International Relations, p. 141.

111 For a similar argument on the inherent normativity of Wiener’s as well as other’s understanding of contestation see Wolff, Jonas and Zimmermann, Lisbeth, ‘Between Banyans and battle scenes: Liberal norms, contestation, and the limits of critique’, Review of International Studies, 42:3 (2016), pp. 513–534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, pp. 149–50.

113 Ibid., p. 99.

114 Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics, p. 211.

115 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation, p. 60.

116 Ibid., p. 66.

117 This also holds true for the potential of organising principles and ‘regular contestation’ as they explicitly tend to normalise contestation.

118 Epstein, ‘Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations’, p. 501.

119 Lakatos, Imre, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 48–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 See our earlier discussion on the various perspectives on contestation in constructivist norm research.

121 For example, Renner’s account of reconciliation, in Renner, Discourse, Normative Change and the Quest for Reconciliation or Methmanns examination of climate change discourse, in Methmann, ‘“Climate protection” as empty signifier’ could be understood as applying norms in that direction.

122 Kratochwil, ‘How do norms matter?’.