IR Normative Theories

This doctoral dissertation investigates the development of the norm of sovereignty as responsibility by focusing on its institutionalization in the framework of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Prominent observers have regarded the emergence of a new norm of sovereignty as responsibility as one of the most significant normative shifts in international society since the aftermath of World War II. Against this backdrop, accounts have proliferated situating the ICC at the cutting edge of normative change. The present study critically engages with the whole set of theoretical foundations underlying this view, including the conventional constructivist understanding of norm development upon which the latter is premised. This, on the one hand, emphasizes the importance of norm institutionalization within “tangible” sets of rules or organizations. On the other, it understands institutionalization itself as a moment of clarity and stabilization, thus largely reducing it to an end-point of the norm emergence process. In other words, norm institutionalization is confined to a positivist view in which institutions fall back to the role of neutral fora. The result is a linear, static, and largely depoliticized account of norm content, which, while yielding to the traditional lack of communication between normative and empirical studies, ends up reiterating a dichotomic and simplistic view in which norms are scripts of emancipation, and power a practice of domination. The dissertation aims to unravel this dilemma altogether by offering a step forward in the development of a post-positivist constructivist approach. In other words, it takes a genuinely trans-disciplinary perspective and delves into the configuration of normativity as part of institutional practice, paying special attention to how the relative power of relevant actors reconstitutes norms during norm negotiation and implementation. Hence, the study  unfolds from an unusual location – at the intersection between normative international theory and the politics of international criminal law; and from there, it seeks to revive discussions about the power-laden nature of the normative fabric of international society, its own dis-symmetries, and its outright hierarchies. To this end, the dissertation asks two major sequential questions: how the overarching system negotiated by states at the Rome Conference affects the selection of situations and cases before the ICC and their outcomes; and how the selection of situations and cases and their outcomes, in turn, “feeds back” to the norm of sovereignty institutionalized through the Court’s practice. The resulting analysis shows the following. While the Rome Statute reflects the persistence of the state as the primary site of political authority and coercion, it also cuts against the normative aspirations of sovereignty as responsibility by leaving the Court specifically ill-equipped to break with a notorious pattern of hyper-protected sovereignty. Outstanding issues such as the ICC’s selectivity and African bias, as well as the Court’s future prospects, are then reconsidered under this light. Those findings are then discussed in the final part of the study. Focusing on questions of delegation to international institutions, this ends with a note of caution. It concludes that the prospects of sovereignty as responsibility, as well as the broader discussion about cosmopolitan governance, lie more with the re-politicization of the debate than a straightforward invocation of greater forms of supranationalism.

International Relations (IR) scholars are, generally, not good at engaging with different approaches, theories, and perspectives. We tend to brand ourselves, and others, with marks of methodological allegiance and intellectual loyalty. While such labeling can be extremely useful for ordering ideas, recording intellectual debts, and making nuanced distinctions between underlying assumptions, we seem compelled to take this further. We associate, often passionately, with particular positions and principles, and stake out a territory, to fortify and defend, with those who are compatibly aligned and similarly insigniaed. Of course, within the boundaries that we thereby establish, we quibble among ourselves, bicker about definitions and degrees, and even subdivide our turf. On good days, this discussion and debate results in clearer concepts, a more rigorous model, or a more compelling account of the world that we study. Yet, deliberation is inward-looking, spoken in our own vernacular, and, usually, respects internally agreed rules and parameters in a way that creates self-imposed conceptual constraints. We hesitate to venture further afield. Interaction across theoretical divides is best characterized by the extremes of either mutual indifference or something akin to trench warfare -and, when it is the latter, putting one's head above the parapet is risky. We form a well-disciplined field of self-regulating camps, neatly arranged 'isms', and easily identifiable targets. Unfortunately, what we gain in organization, we lose in understanding.

This article sets out the case for an international treaty to phase out the mining and burning of coal—a Coal Elimination Treaty, or CET—by 2030, as a way of addressing multiple weaknesses in the global climate change regime and as a medium-term success towards arresting average global heating at 1.5°C before 2050. Given the growing risk that the Paris agreement will fail to trigger rapid emissions reduction, we propose the CET as a global “supply-side” mechanism, and as a way of empowering climate-vulnerable and high-ambition states. We make an integrated environmental, public health and security case for a CET, specify its design principles, and propose three negotiation pathways, including a normative model inspired by the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; one that would progressively stigmatize, prohibit and eliminate coal so as to prevent a dire and unmanageable climatic future.

The FETRAT (original nature) theory, as one of the most fundamental concepts in Islamic paradigm, portraits a nature for human being which is comprehensive, unchangeable, non-acquired and immune to human error and indeed it is somehow dedicated to human being only.Accordingly, studying the dimensions of effectiveness of this theory would be able to make fundamental changes, due to its training-based approach, in all theoretical fields as well as policy-making areas towards intervention of governments and states in human communities which accept the monotheistic view. On the other hand, the normative theories in area of social policy-making (including theories of liberalism, emphasis on Neoliberalism, conservatism, socialism and social democracy) as valuable frameworks have important influences on social decisions made by the governments and states. Aim: The article addresses the question of what would be the achievements of the theory of FETRAT in social policy-making, with an emphasis on normative theories; as well as the question of how it can lead to changes in Iranian society and the international community. Method: Through utilizing the ascription way it has considered the contents of written works of theologian Ayatullah Mirza Muhammad Ali Shah Abadi in explaining the claim, analyzing as well as its interpreting. Results and Conclusion:  The results of the present article indicate that the authors try to explain the groundwork for formation and theoretical bases, objectives, definitions, its administrative organs and the main components in order to draw an Islamic normative theory based on the theory of FETRAT. 
نظریۀ فطرت، از بنیادی‌ترین مفاهیم در پارادایم اسلامی، سرشتی را برای انسان تصویر می‌کند که فراگیر، تبدیل‌ناپذیر،
غیراکتسابی و مصون از خطاست و به نوعی تنها به انسان اختصاص دارد. از این رو بررسی ابعاد اثرگذاری این نظریه قادر خواهد بود تغییراتی اساسی را- با توجه به رویکرد تربیت‌محور خود، در میان کلیه حیطه‌ها و عرصه‌های نظری و سیاستگذاری در نحوۀ دخالت دولتها و حکومتها- در جوامع بشری مبتنی بر قبول و پذیرش این نگاه توحیدی به همراه داشته باشد. از طرف دیگر، نظریه‌های هنجاری در حیطۀ سیاستگذاری اجتماعی(نظریه‌های لیبرالیسم با تأکید بر نئولیبرالیسم، محافظه‌کاری، سوسیالیسم، و سوسیال دموکراسی) همواره به عنوان چارچوب ارزشی، تأثیر مهمی بر تصمیمات اجتماعی دولتها و حکومتها دارند. هدف: محققان در مقالۀ حاضر به این پرسشها پاسخ داده‌اند که دستاوردهای نظریۀ فطرت در حیطۀ سیاستگذاری اجتماعی با تأکید بر نظریه‌های هنجاری چیست و چگونه می‌تواند به تحول در عرصۀ جامعۀ ایران و جامعۀ جهانی بینجامد. روش: این مقاله به روش تطبیقی با بهره‌گیری از آثار عارفِ حکیم، آیت‌الله میرزا محمدعلی شاه‌آبادی و نظریه‌های هنجاری نگاشته شده است. پژوهش به روش اسنادی انجام شده و در بخش تبیین مدعا، تحلیل و تفسیر محتوای آثار مکتوب ایشان مدّ نظر بوده است. یافته‌ها و نتیجه‌گیری: تبیین زمینه‌های شکل‌گیری و بنیانهای نظری، اهداف، تعاریف، نهادهای اجرایی آن و مؤلفه‌های اصلی در جهت ترسیم یک نظریۀ هنجاری اسلامی مبتنی بر نظریۀ فطرت.
کلیدواژه‌ها
سیاستگذاری اجتماعی؛ نظریۀ فطرت؛ سیاست اجتماعی؛ نظریه‌های هنجاری