Why norms rarely die

Abstract

Significant challenges to core international norms have prompted debate over whether or not norms decay, decline, or die. We argue that claims of norm death are empirically incorrect and theoretically misleading. Norms rarely die, and the processes that happen instead are far more complex. The idea of norm death embodies two misconceptions borne out of methodological incentives in empirical constructivism; that norms are single entities that exist separately from larger structures, and that compliance is the most effective way to measure if a norm is under challenge. We argue that the literature on “norm death” epitomizes the pitfalls of this approach, and as a result neither empirically or theoretically captures what happens when norms are under challenge. Norms are fundamentally resilient and can withstand even high levels of non-compliance. We examine four cases of alleged norm death—the norms against mercenary use, unrestricted submarine warfare, and torture, and the norm requiring declarations of war—and demonstrate that in these cases norms are not disappearing, but are rather subject to processes of obsolescence, replacement, and modification. We further argue that once we recognize that norms are embedded in wider structures, and move away from the notion that compliance indicates norm strength, it is possible to see why norms are generally resilient.