A norm is 'collective expectations of the appropriate behavior of an actor with a particular identity.' (as per our class discussion)
BBC News published an article today, 'West 'embraces sham democracies', in which it is stated 'HRW said Pakistan, Thailand, Bahrain, Jordan, Nigeria, Kenya and Russia had been falsely claiming to be democratic.' This article also cites HRM as accusing the US and EU member states of accepting less than democratic regimes.
This report brings to light the interplay between two primary norms that are fighting for supremacy: democracy and state sovereignty, in the international system. These two concepts are primary elements that structure the international regime (as defined by Krasner, 1983) of politics, economics, and law. However, these two norms may restrict state behavior in the international system. Democracy (political openness) has become the expected regime type (Simmons et al, 2006) and as "[Vaughan] Lowe points out, state responsibility is a fundamental, primary norm, on which other norms are built.' (Percy, 2007).
First, democracy.
The USA and EU member states 'push' for democracy and NGOs such as Freedom House and the Center for International Development and Conflict Management rank states according to their compliance with the norm of a 'democratic' regime. There is 'Western' condemnation of a state that denies its citizens democratic freedoms. However, if a state holds questionable elections or denies elections or is clearly not pursuing a democratic regime, aside from tailored criticism, not much is done by other states to enforce democratic practices (other than withholding financial aid). The pursuit of a democratic regime, I think can be labeled as a regulative and constitutive norm, if that is possible. I think democracy is a regulatory norm because sometimes aide is withheld from a state by another state or an IO unless it implements greater democratic reforms. This can be seen in application of the Washington Consensus implement by the IMF and World Bank. Those states that do not comply are made to justify why they are not complying and then reform themselves. However, this weak, voluntary form of compliance does not have universal support and only functions in those countries that agree to the terms of the IO loans. There are also other states that in times of financial crisis seek their own path to stability, ignoring international pressures to conform.
Second, state sovereignty.
As the state structure is the norm by which the international system is structured, maintaining this norm is essential even if the dominant states of the system do not agree with the regime type of a weaker state. International laws and IHL are structured on the state structure. Both regimes expect/rely on the state to enforce the norms that develop. However, states adapt and utilize international laws and IHL to their own advantage as and when necessary. For example, the US's continued usage of Guantanamo Bay, usage of 'secret' prisons in less than democratic states, and reported violations of Iraqi civilian right by US soldiers/PMFs - are all explained in terms of securing and protecting state sovereignty (national security). State is a norm based on the constitutive nature of a norms as the state is often used to identified a group.
State sovereignty is enshrined as the key norm which international law seeks to ensure regardless of regime type and strength. However, it appears that a state's sovereignty is strengthened by its ability to put into place democratic practices. For a state to increase its legitimacy within the international system it has to implement greater political reforms that lead to democracy. States may choose to open or not to open. If a state chooses not to create a democratic regime, it is exercising its sovereignty. However, capital flows and international trade may be effected forcing the state to chose to follow the norm of democracy over protecting its sovereign self-interest of retaining corrupt or more authoritarian regimes. As per HRW claims in the article, democratic states are accepting less then democratic regimes in non-democratic states enable to secure the norm based system based on states.
- Feedback will be appreciated as I feel that my thoughts are jumbled and not pulled together into a coherent argument/fashion.
- Do you see an interplay between state sovereignty and democracy?
1 comment:
I don't see so much an interplay between the norms of 'democracy promotion' and 'state sovereignty' as tension.
In the Post-Cold War era, the promotion of democracy has become a norm. Developed states are supposed to help foster it, and developing states are supposed to embrace it-- or else.
If a developed state doesn't actively promote democracy in a developing state, for whatever reason, then the developed state is called to task. Ditto if the developing state doesn't rush out and embrace western-style democracy. I argue that this pattern exists because there are times when it is rationally appropriate NOT to promote/embrace democracy.
In the BBC article linked to the main post, HRW critised the US and European states for acting as if elections equal democracy, without emphasising the need for democratic institutions. But there are states that simply cannot manage creating democratic institutions instantly. This is especially true to states in a poor stage of development. The HRW people forget that American or European democracy wasn't ordered ready-made of the shelf. It had to be built, piece by piece, as each country was in a stage of development that was favourable to that piece of democracy. It's not an instant process, and different countries have different levels of development, priorities and politico-cultural meanings for what democracy is. Maybe Vietnam isn't ready to just abandon socialism tomorrow morning-- maybe there are things the majority of people like about their brand socialism, for example.
As for when it is appropriate for developed countries to promote democracy, that's the real clash with sovereignty. When is it appropriate for one state to influence the events in another? Is it a question degrees? (The UN Charter seems to imply so: States should refrain from interfering by force in the affairs of other states (Art. 2(4)) Is the purpose of an intervention taken into account?
Post a Comment