Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:49:18.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Norm antipreneurs and theorising resistance to normative change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2015

ALAN BLOOMFIELD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Norm dynamics studies typically accord a special status to norm entrepreneurs, actors who promote new global norms. But conceptually privileging these agents of change has meant the norm dynamics literature has become unbalanced and marred by case selection bias. Accordingly, an oppositional role – the ‘norm antipreneur’ – should be recognised to correct these problems. When the normative status quo in an issue-area is entrenched, a clear distinction can be drawn between the entrepreneurs and antipreneurs, because in these contexts the antipreneurs enjoy significant but under-appreciated tactical and strategic advantages. Recognising this enables the construction of a norm dynamics role-spectrum – a sort of ‘typology of roles’ – including ‘competitor entrepreneur’ and ‘creative resister’ in addition to the entrepreneur and antipreneur roles which actors might play in particular norm contestation contexts. Understanding these roles promises to improve analyses of the dynamic interactions between actors in particular norm contestation processes, thereby bringing greater overall balance to the norm dynamics literature.1

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 310 - 333
Copyright
© 2015 British International Studies Association 

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 The author wishes to acknowledge a number of colleagues who viewed and commented on early versions of this article, including: Shirley Scott, Tanya Jakimow, Kim Richard Nossal, William Clapton, Monika Barthwal-Datta, Aidan Hehir, Christian Downie, Marlien Schlaphoff, Lisbeth Zimmermann, Malcolm Campbell-Verduyn, and Jeffrey Lantis. He also thanks the reviewers and the editorial staff of Review of International Studies.

2 Checkel, Jeffrey T., ‘The constructivist turn in International Relations theory’, World Politics, 50:2 (1998), pp. 324–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), p. 891CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., ‘The institutional dynamics of international political orders’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 951–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Ruggie, John G., Constructing the World: Essays on International Institutionalization (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 64–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Skinner, Quentin, ‘Some problems in the analysis of political thought and action’, in James Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 177Google Scholar.

7 Hoffman, Matthew J., ‘Norms and social constructivism in International Relations’, in Robert A. Denemark (ed.), The International Studies Encyclopedia (Blackwell Reference Online, 2010)Google Scholar, available at: {http://www.isacompendium.com} accessed 25 February 2014; Jeffrey Checkel, ‘Norms, institutions and national identity in contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly, 43:1 (1999), pp. 84–5.

8 Hopf, Ted, ‘The promise of constructivism’, International Security, 23:1 (1998), pp. 171–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guzzini, Stefano, ‘A reconstruction of constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), pp. 147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Finnemore, and Sikkink, , ‘International norm dynamics’, p. 887Google Scholar.

10 Ibid., pp. 896–9; Nadelmann, Ethan, ‘Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in international society’, International Organization, 44:4 (1990), pp. 479–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Wunderlich, Carmen, ‘Theoretical approaches in norm dynamics’, in Harald Müller and Carmen Wunderlich (eds), Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts and Justice (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2013), p. 37Google Scholar.

12 ‘Antipreneur’ can also refer to those who reject ordinary capitalism modalities; they are ‘against advertising, corporate America, and globalization’ and they ‘wear their contrarian politics on their sleeves and seek customers who do the same’: Jeremy Quittner, ‘Meet the antipreneurs’, BloombergBusiness (19 June 2008), available at: {http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-06-19/meet-the-antipreneurs} accessed 29 June 2015.

13 The ‘norm antipreneur’ concept – in the context of the norm dynamics literature (see previous footnote) – was first developed by the author in mid-2013. The initial notion that actors may ‘fit’ different categories or play distinct roles in norm contestation contexts was first discussed at a workshop convened by the author and Shirley V. Scott (‘Norm Antipreneurs: Enhancing Scholarly Understanding of Resistance to Global Normative and Legal Change’, International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention, Toronto, 25 March 2014), although the phrase ‘role-spectrum’ was not used at that time. Then Malcolm Cambell-Verduyn – who took part in the 2014 workshop – delivered a paper at a panel organised by the author to further develop the antipreneur concept at the following year’s ISA conference. His paper (‘Norm Entrepreneurs, Antipreneurs, and Creative Resistors: Conceptualising Agency in Unstable Financial Times’, ISA Annual Convention 2015, New Orleans, 18 February 2015) conceptualised norm entrepreneurs and norm antipreneurs as ‘ideal types’ at either end of a ‘continuum’, and he found some actors fell into a ‘creative resister’ role. The author has added the ‘competitor entrepreneur’ role and more-explicitly identified a ‘role-spectrum’ in this article.

14 Finnemore, and Sikkink, , ‘International norm dynamics’, pp. 894–905Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., p. 897.

16 Klotz, Audie, Norms in International Relations: The Struggles Against Apartheid (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Finnemore, Martha, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Price, Richard M. and Tannenwald, Nina, ‘Norms and deterrence: The nuclear and chemical weapons taboos’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

17 Krook, Mona and True, Jacquie, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2010), pp. 103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, Antje, A Theory of Contestation (Springer: Heidelberg, 2014), pp. 19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Hoffmann, , ‘Norms’, p. 3Google Scholar.

19 Wiener, Antje, ‘Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 10:2 (2004), p. 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for an illustration see Hehir, Aidan, ‘The Responsibility to Protect as the apotheosis of liberal teleology’, in Aidan Hehir and Robert Murray (eds), Libya: The Responsibility to Protect and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Wiener, ‘Contested compliance’, p. 192Google Scholar.

21 Klotz, Norms; Risse, Thomas and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction’, in Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Price, Richard M., The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca, NY: 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), pp. 433–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Price, Richard M., ‘Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines’, International Organization, 52:3 (1998), pp. 613–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Keck, Margaret E. and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

24 Acharya, Amitav, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion: Towards a framework of norm circulation’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:1 (2013), pp. 466–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Stop telling us how to behave: Socialisation and infantilization?’, International Studies Perspectives, 13:2 (2013), pp. 135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Wiener, Antje, ‘Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 35:1 (2009), pp. 175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rotmann, Philipp, Kurtz, Gerrit, Brockmeier, and Sarah, ‘Major powers and the evolution of a Responsibility to Protect’, Conflict, Security and Development, 14:4 (2010), p. 358Google Scholar; Wunderlich, , ‘Theoretical approaches’, pp. 24Google Scholar, 26–7; True, Krook and, ‘Rethinking’, p. 108Google Scholar.

26 Sikkink, Risse and, ‘The socialization’, pp. 8–10Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., p. 25.

28 That is, if regimes stop denying the validity of human rights norms outright and instead issue factual denials of atrocities they become ‘rhetorically entrapped’: ibid., p. 28. See also Hobson, John M. and Seabrooke, Leonard, ‘Everyday IPE: Revealing everyday forms of change in the world economy’, in John M. Hobson and Leonard Seabrooke (eds), Everyday Politics of the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 17Google Scholar.

29 Checkel, , ‘Norms, institutions’, p. 86Google Scholar; Wunderlich, , ‘Theoretical approaches’, p. 26Google Scholar.

30 Payne, Rodger A., ‘Persuasion, frames and norm construction’, European Journal of International Relations, 7:1 (2001), pp. 37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Fierke, Karin M., ‘Constructivism’, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith (eds), International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 175–177Google Scholar.

32 Wiener, , ‘Contested compliance’, pp. 191–192Google Scholar.

33 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), pp. 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wiener, ‘Enacting meaning-in-use’.

34 Wiener, A Theory of Contestation.

35 Hopf, , ‘The promise’, pp. 181–185Google Scholar; Fierke, , ‘Constructivism’, p. 193Google Scholar.

36 Wiener, , Theory of Norm Contestation, p. 10Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., pp. 74–7.

38 Sandholtz, Wayne, Prohibiting Plunder: How Norms Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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), pp. 217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krook, Mona and True, Jacquie, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2010), pp. 103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Hoffman defines a ‘normative community’ as ‘a group structured by the same norm(s)’; ‘Norms’, p. 9. The phrase is used herein to refer to groups of international actors that share similar values, have overlapping identities, and share similar interpretations of history, etc. Examples would include ‘South East Asian states’, ‘sub-Saharan Africa’, ‘the West’, and even ‘the Anglosphere’ (a subset of the West).

40 Hoffman, , ‘Norms’, pp. 9–11Google Scholar.

41 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), pp. 3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kornprobst, Markus, ‘Argumentation and compromise: Ireland's selection of the territorial status quo norm’, International Organization, 61:1 (2007), pp. 69–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Capie, David, ‘Localization as resistance: The contested diffusion of small arms norms in Southeast Asia’, Security Dialogue, 39:6 (2008), pp. 637–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 ‘Hoffman, ‘Norms’, p. 8.

43 Acharya, Amitav, ‘How ideas spread’, International Organization, 58:2 (2004), pp. 239–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Acharya, Amitav, ‘Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the Third World’, International Studies Quarterly, 55:1 (2011), pp. 96–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Ibid., p.102. See also Whose Ideas Matter?: Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009).

46 Achayra, Amitav, ‘The R2P and norm diffusion: Towards a framework of norm circulation’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:1 (2013), pp. 469–471Google Scholar.

47 Ibid., p. 478.

48 Ibid., p. 468.

49 Sandholtz, Wayne, ‘Dynamics of international norm change: Rules against wartime plunder’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008), pp. 101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Ibid., pp. 111–24.

51 Mahoney, James, ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society, 29:4 (2000), pp. 513–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 For the purpose of theorising, this study assumes actors’ identities do not change due to factors substantially unrelated to debates about the norm in question. But states’ identities do change over time, sometimes quite drastically, for exogenous reasons. For example, Thomas Berger has described how utter defeat in the Second World War radically altered Japan’s and Germany’s identities; T. Berger, ‘Norms, identity, and national security in Germany and Japan’, in Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security (1996). Empirical studies would have to at least allow for the possibility of actors’ identities being somewhat fluid.

53 Deitelhoff, Nicole and Zimmermann, Lisbeth, ‘Things we lost in the fire: How different types of contestation affect the validity of international norms’, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt – Working Paper, No. 18 (2013), p. 14Google Scholar.

54 Ibid., p. 5.

55 Sandholtz, Wayne and Stiles, Kendall W., ‘Explaining international norm change’, in Sandholtz and Stiles (eds), International Norms and Cycles of Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 13Google Scholar.

56 The word ‘resistance’ is usually favoured over ‘contestation’ in this article; contestation of existing norms, as Deitelhoff and Zimmermann quite reasonably argue, may indeed result in any norm becoming stronger (that is, due to the ‘learning processes’ which actors undergo). But resistance to a new norm is more suggestive of attempts to prevent it maturing rather than to refine it.

57 Bob, Clifford, The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 McKeown, Ryder, ‘Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm’, International Relations, 23:1 (2009), pp. 5–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Clifford Bob, ‘Norm Assassination: Rise of the Targeted Killing Norm and Fall of the Ban on Extra-Judicial Executions’, International Studies Association Annual Convention 2015, New Orleans, February 2015.

60 Bob, The Global Right Wing, p. 5.

61 Ibid., p. 29.

62 Ibid., p. 32.

63 Ibid., p. 34.

64 Whether there is an end depends on the issue-area and when it is analysed; for example, one cycle of contestation in the whaling issue area ended in 1982, while the subsequent cycle continues.

65 International Whaling Commission, International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (2 December 1946), preamble.

66 This is an example of actor’s identities changing (see fn. 51); the international campaign by anti-whalers interacted with a changed domestic context – largely unrelated to debates about whaling – in key Western states following what Hobsbawm, Eric called the (Western) ‘Cultural Revolution’: The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991 (London: Abacus, 1994), pp. 321–343Google Scholar.

67 Epstein, Charlotte, The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), pp. 158–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Why they failed to do so is an interesting question. Resolving it is beyond the scope of this article, but a preliminary hypothesis would be that the anti-whalers enjoyed significant power (both diplomatic and economic) advantages over the pro-whalers who were, with the exception of Japan, all relatively small states; the author thanks one reviewer for pointing this out.

69 Ibid., p. 235.

70 Jordan, Tara, ‘Revising the international convention on whaling: A proposal to end the stalemate within the international whaling commission’, Wisconsin International Law Journal, 29 (2011–12), p. 836Google Scholar.

71 Shirley V. Scott and Lucia Oriana, ‘Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) Judgment of 31 March 2014: A decisive victory— but for whom?’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 29:3 (2014), p. 552.

72 Epstein, Power of Words, ch. 11.

73 Legro, Jeffrey W., ‘The transformation of policy ideas’, American Journal of Political Science, 44:3 (2000), pp. 426–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Mahoney, , ‘Path dependence’, pp. 512–526Google Scholar.

75 Legro, , ‘The transformation’, pp. 430–431Google Scholar.

76 Sandholtz, and Stiles, , International Norms, p. 12Google Scholar.

77 Ibid., p. 13.

78 Ibid., p. 4.

79 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 36(1)–(3).

80 The ICC’s jurisdiction is only activated if local authorities do not prosecute the accused (art. 17). To frustrate jurisdiction an accused can be found ‘not guilty’ by a local court whose independence has been compromised, or after initiating proceedings the accused might be released on extended bail, etc.

81 Charter of the United Nations, ch. VII.

82 Hehir, Aidan, ‘The permanence of inconsistency: Libya, the Security Council, and the Responsibility to Protect’, International Security, 38:1 (2013), pp. 137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Tsebelis, George, ‘Decision making in political systems: veto players in presidentialism, parliamentarism, multicameralism and multipartyism’, British Journal of Political Science, 25:3 (1995), pp. 289–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84 Bellamy, Alex, ‘Mainstreaming the Responsibility to Protect in the United Nations system: Dilemmas, challenges and opportunities’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:2 (2013), p. 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa International Development Research Centre, 2001), pp. 32–8.

86 Ibid., p. 51.

87 Panel, High Level, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (New York: United Nations, 2004), p. 82Google Scholar.

88 Bellamy, Alex J., Responsibility to Protect: The Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009)Google Scholar, ch. 3.

89 Bellamy, Alex J., Global Politics and the Responsibility to Protect: From Words to Deeds (Oxon: Routledge, 2011), pp. 29–31Google Scholar.

90 S/PV.5703, 22 June 2007.

91 SG/SM/10842, 16 January 2007.

92 Luck, Edward C., ‘The R2P: The first decade’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 3:4 (2011), pp. 387–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 S/RES/1894, 11 November 2009.

94 For example, the United States and other powerful states (China, Russia, India) opposed the Ottawa Treaty. But it was signed and ratified by a strong majority of states and now, despite declining to sign, the objectors have altered their behaviour to largely conform to the new norm (especially by not selling land mines); the author thanks one reviewer for raising this and the broader point about the role of power.

95 Wunderlich, , ‘Theoretical approaches’, p. 30Google Scholar.

96 Samman, Amin, ‘Crisis theory and the historical imagination’, Review of International Political Economy, 22:3 (2015), pp. 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97 Pu, Xiaoyu, ‘Socialisation as a two-way process: Emerging powers and the diffusion of international norms’, Chinese Journal of International Politics, 5:4 (2012), pp. 341–367Google Scholar.

98 Epstein, Power of Words, ch. 2.

99 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), p. 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Epstein, , Power of Words, pp. 99–104Google Scholar.

101 Magera, Anna M., Mills Flemming, Joanna E., Kaschner, Kristin, Christensen, Line B., and Lotze, Heike K., ‘Recovery trends in marine mammal populations’, PLOS One, 8:10 (2013), pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

102 Zimmermann, Deitelhoff and, ‘Things we lost’, p. 12Google Scholar.

103 Epstein, , Power of Words, pp. 231–235Google Scholar.

104 Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report of the Secretary-General, A/63/677, 12 January 2009, p. 10.

105 Tom Heneghan, ‘Gaddafi tells Rebel City Benghazi “We Will Show No Mercy”’, Huffington Post (17 March 2011).

106 David Jackson, ‘One Reason for Obama’s Decision on Libya: Rwanda’, USA Today (24 March 2011).

107 Bellamy, Alex J., ‘Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The exception and the norm’, Ethics & International Affairs, 25:3 (2011), pp. 265–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hehir, , ‘The permanence’, p. 138Google Scholar.

108 Evans, Gareth, ‘The RtoP Balance Sheet After Libya’, The Responsibility to Protect: Challenges and Opportunities in Light of the Libyan Intervention (e-International Relations, 2011), pp. 34–41Google Scholar; Ban Ki-Moon, SG/SM/13454-SC/10201-AFR/2144, 18 March 2011; Lloyd Axworthy, ‘In Libya, We Move Toward a More Human World’, Globe and Mail (23 August 2011); Simon Adams, ‘R2P and the Libya Mission’, Los Angeles Times (28 September 2011); Ramesh Thakur, ‘Has R2P Worked in Libya?’, Canberra Times (19 September 2011); Gareth Evans, ‘End of the Argument’, Foreign Policy (28 November 2011).

109 Quinton-Brown, Patrick, ‘Mapping dissent: The Responsibility to Protect and its state critics’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:3 (2013), p. 268CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Johnson, Adrian and Mueen, Saqeb, ‘Short War, long shadow: The political and military legacies of the 2011 Libya campaign’, RUSI – Whitehall Report 1–12 (2012), p. 4Google Scholar.

111 Gareth Evans, ‘The Responsibility to Protect After Libya and Syria’, speech, Annual Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Conference, Melbourne, 20 July 2012; Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock, ‘A reflection on responsibility: What does Syria mean for R2P?’, Diplomatica (4 October 2012); Welsh, Jennifer M., ‘Norm contestation and the Responsibility to Protect’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5:1 (2013), pp. 382–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Technically, one ‘non-consensual intervention’ has occurred: the Security Council ordered ‘humanitarian access’ to deliver aid without the Syrian government’s consent (S/RES/2165 (2014), 14 July 2014). But only unarmed convoys were authorised, making it both ineffectual and not really consistent with Pillar III.

113 Quinton-Brown, , ‘Mapping dissent’, p. 266Google Scholar.

114 Letter dated 9 November 2011 from the Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (Responsibility While Protecting: Elements for the Development and Promotion of a Concept), A/66/551–S/2011/701, 11 November 2011.

115 Steunkel, Oliver and Tourinho, Marcos, ‘Regulating intervention: Brazil and the Responsibility to Protect’, Conflict, Security and Development, 14:4 (2014), pp. 395–396Google Scholar.

116 David Rieff, ‘R2P, R.I.P.’, New York Times (7 November 2011); Nuruzzaman, Mohammed, ‘The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine: Revived in Libya, buried in Syria’, Insight Turkey, 15:2 (2013), pp. 57–66Google Scholar; Robert Murray, ‘Conclusion: The Responsibility to Protect after Libya’, in Hehir and Murray (eds), Libya, p. 224.

117 NATO planes attacked a regime armoured column retreating through open desert – so, not directly threatening civilians – nine days after Resolution 1973 passed: Kareem Fahim and David D. Kirkpatrick, ‘Airstrikes Clear Way for Rebels’ First Major Advance’, New York Times (27 March 2011).

118 Wunderlich, , ‘Theoretical approaches’, p. 31Google Scholar.

119 ‘Norm Entrepreneurs, Antipreneurs, and Creative Resistors: Conceptualising Agency in Unstable Financial times’, International Studies Association Annual Convention 2015, New Orleans, February 2015, pp. 6–7.

120 Ibid., pp. 8–12.

121 Ibid., p. 7.

122 Ibid., p. 1.

123 Ibid., p. 5.

124 Ibid., p. 6.

125 The article’s author is co-editing a book whose chapters examine resistance to efforts to change norms in a range of issue-areas: Bloomfield, Alan and Scott, Shirley V., Norm Antipreneurs and The Politics of Resistance to Global Normative Change (Oxon: Routledge, forthcoming 2016)Google Scholar.