Search

Begin New Search Topic Norms

1. Recycling Regime, Environment, and Exclusion of Electronic Scrap Workers in Delhi

Author:
Gayatri Jai Singh Rathore
Publication Date:
11-2026
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (CERI)
Abstract:
In recent years, the Indian e-waste sector has undergone a process of formalisation through the implementation of E-waste Management Rules (2016), leading to the creation of what I call recycling regime. The upper and middle classes, along with NGOs and industry actors, are frontrunners in thinking about e-waste policies. They were prompted by a twofold motive: the desire for a “world-class”, clean, and pollution-free city; and seizing business opportunities by extracting value from e-waste. Rather than replacing the State, they co-opted the State so that it would legislate to safeguard the environment, and address toxicity and health problems associated with e-waste. Recycling regime relies on formalisation processes embedded in multiple technologies – technicity, capital-intensive facilities, certifications, authorisations, and licences – that work together to exclude the “informal” sector from the e-waste governance system. Recycling technologies act as “technologies of domination” that further contribute to sidelining the “informal” labour of scrap workers or e-kabadis, who as Muslims already find themselves on the margins of society. However, the recycling regime fails to safeguard the environment in the end as e-waste trickles down back to the informal sector via authorised actors.
Topic:
Civil Society, Economics, Environment, Globalization, Health, Markets, Poverty, Governance, Law, Urbanization, Emerging States, and Norms
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

2. The Impact of Stereotyping on International Cyber Norm‑making: Navigating Misperceptions and Building Trust

Author:
Fan Yang
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
Over the past three decades, cyberspace – a digital realm shaped by both technological and social dynamics – has evolved into a domain where a wide range of human activities now take place. These activities are marked by their anonymity, which complicates attribution, and their instantaneity, which challenges timely regulation. To address these challenges, states focus on two approaches: applying existing laws and creating new ones. While there is a general consensus that cyberspace should be governed by the rule of law, including international law, the application of existing legal frameworks to cyberspace remains an evolving challenge both in terms of state practice and academic discourse. At the same time, the international community has consistently sought to develop new norms to promote good governance in cyberspace. Against this backdrop, states – especially those with advanced cyber capabilities – are engaging in a competitive game of norm-making, striving to exert influence in shaping international rules to govern cyberspace. As part of this process, states often categorise each other by trying to highlight their counterparts’ most distinct characteristics. While such labelling is common in diplomatic interactions, it is particularly problematic in the context of international cyber norm-making. Labels reflect and reinforce stereotypes, which often oversimplify the complexities of states’ behavioural patterns in cyberspace and their underlying logic. States are thus roughly grouped by opposing indicators, such as those viewing cyberspace as a global commons versus sovereign territory, those advocating for an interconnected free Internet versus a fragmented “splinternet”, or those favouring multistakeholderism versus multilateralism as the dominant approach to the governance of cyberspace. Once established, these stereotypes are difficult to dismantle and can lead to distorted perceptions that obstruct constructive dialogue. This GCSP Policy Brief aims to identify the potential security challenges posed by stereotyping in international cyber norm-making processes. It then illustrates the policy implications of this problem and offers policy recommendations.
Topic:
Security, Cybersecurity, Norms, Cyberspace, and Trust
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Human Rights and Constitutionalism in Africa: Progress has been Achieved, but More is Needed

Author:
Ottilia Anna Maunganidze
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The institutional human rights and constitutionalist framework in Africa has been constantly evolving through the Organization of African Unity’s history and transformation into the African Union. In the face of contemporary challenges in the form of coups, unconstitutional changes in government, and more, African policymakers must focus on grounding their policy within the normative framework of the Union
Topic:
Human Rights, Norms, African Union, Constitutionalism, and Organization of African Unity
Political Geography:
Africa

4. Donald Trump and the Art of Bending Reality

Author:
Gabriele Cosentino
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Cairo Review of Global Affairs
Institution:
School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
Abstract:
The gravity-defying political comeback of Donald Trump is the pinnacle of the chaotic career of an extreme risk taker with little concern for established norms. But his willingness to upend rules and bend reality to suit his vision might push U.S. and global politics to the breaking point
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Norms, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. EU-ASEAN Political Relations in the Light of Values and Norms of the International Liberal Order

Author:
Joanna Starzyk-Sulejewska
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Polish Political Science Yearbook
Institution:
Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
Abstract:
The article aims to analyse the significance of liberal norms and values in the development of political relations between the EU and ASEAN, an issue which has been only selectively analysed in academic literature. At the same time, the topic of the article fits into a broader landscape of issues associated with the development of relations between international intergovernmental organisations in contemporary international relations, only partially studied in Polish and international literature to date. Considering the essential framework of classic constructivism, as well as significant contributions added by critical constructivism, the article formulates a research hypothesis whereby the European Union and ASEAN are organisations which, while recognising the importance of liberal values and norms, take a different approach to their promotion and protection. The European Union, which attempted to act towards ASEAN as an interpreter and diffuser of the aforementioned values and norms in the 1990s, adopted a pragmatic approach over time, in response to ASEAN’s stance and actions, limiting its role in this respect and taking regional conditions and dependencies into account. In order to verify this hypothesis, three research questions were formulated, namely: What is the place of liberal norms and values in the EU and ASEAN policy documents? Is the respect and protection of liberal norms and values an important element declared in mutual relations? How do both sides approach the implementation of liberal norms and values in practice in selected cases? This article is structured around these issues and discusses the significance of liberal norms and values in EU and ASEAN policy documents, the place and role of liberal norms and values in documents underpinning EUASEAN relations and in EU documents formulated towards ASEAN and the Southeast Asian region and also provides an analysis of EU and ASEAN policy towards Myanmar.
Topic:
International Relations, European Union, Liberalism, Norms, ASEAN, and International Order
Political Geography:
Europe and Asia-Pacific

6. Holding the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable for atrocity crimes

Author:
Celeste Kmiotek, Alana Mitias, and Nushin Sarkarati
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
With little to no prospect for accountability within Iran’s domestic courts, victims and survivors of serious violations of international law are turning toward an increasing number of foreign jurisdictions—most commonly in Europe and North America, but also in Latin America, Africa, and other regions—to pursue justice for human rights violations carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, certain domestic justice systems allow prosecutions in national courts for crimes committed abroad, regardless of the victim’s or perpetrator’s nationality. Universal jurisdiction stems from the concept that certain crimes are of such gravity that they harm the international community as a whole, so national courts outside the country where the violations took place may prosecute them to protect the international order. Although the crimes subject to universal jurisdiction provisions differ by state, they generally include crimes against humanity, torture, war crimes, and genocide. Limitations on universal jurisdiction also vary between states, however, as do the processes for filing complaints and procedures for investigations, trials, and appeals. As was shown by the trial and conviction of Hamid Noury in Sweden for his involvement in the massacre of Iranian political prisoners in 1988, national prosecutions of international crimes can be a fruitful avenue to justice for victims of the Islamic Republic. To this end, the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project has compiled a guide to aid practitioners and independent investigators in navigating the legal systems of European states with the highest likelihood of prosecuting Iranian human rights violators. Focusing on five states—France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—this manual outlines the crimes and violations subject to universal jurisdiction, best practices for investigating and documenting crimes, and processes for requesting investigations and participating in prosecutions as a victim, witness, or NGO. For information that is beyond the scope of this manual, the annex includes printed resources to consult and organizations to contact for additional assistance.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Human Rights, Politics, Rule of Law, Accountability, Norms, Atrocities, Resilience, and Society
Political Geography:
Iran and Middle East

7. The Crossroads Between Actors, Norms, Practices and Institutions

Author:
Sérgio Luiz Cruz Aguilar
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
Intergovernmental organisations and institutions are generally created to discuss and find collective solutions to problems that transcend national borders and individual states’ capacities. However, certain crises push for isolated, typically restrictive, actions from governments, making the role of such institutions somewhat murky. The South American Conference on Migration (SCM), the Specialized Migration Forum of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur), and the Andean Committee of Migration Authorities of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) are three intergovernmental forums that were created with the aim of negotiating agreements, creating and implementing community legislation, and achieving regional policy with regards to migration. However, from 2015, mass migration from Venezuela, which was considered a crisis by South American governments, led to restrictive policies in some countries. In this context, this paper discusses the linkages between institutions, actors, norms and practices by examining the interactions between SCM, Mercosur and CAN and the practices of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru regarding the Venezuelan migration crisis. Through a qualitative approach, observations of practice and discourse, and the critical analysis thereof, this paper discusses debates and decisions within institutions; the emergence and non-compliance of collective norms; and the contradictory practices employed as responses to the migration crisis.
Topic:
International Organization, Institutions, and Norms
Political Geography:
South America

8. Investigating China’s economic coercion: The reach and role of Chinese corporate entities

Author:
William Piekos
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
China’s economic statecraft has expanded in line with Beijing’s vision for an international environment that is more conducive to its interests. Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are willing to use every means at their disposal to achieve this goal, bringing the full force of the party-state to bear in support of Xi’s objectives abroad and against perceived enemies of the Chinese government. Economic statecraft—the use of economic means to pursue foreign policy goals—has been a consistent feature of Xi’s dealings with CCP competitors and adversaries. Intensifying US-China strategic competition and Beijing’s increasingly overt attempts to assert its preferences only further emphasize the importance of confronting China’s use of economic coercion and influence and understanding the reach of Chinese companies. The deliberate use of economic ties to achieve geopolitical objectives is underpinned by corporate entities that facilitate trade, investment, and financial flows.1 Beijing’s preference for plausible deniability and nontransparency in theory makes corporate entities an attractive mechanism through which to signal its displeasure and to achieve strategic goals. Understanding the reach and role of such entities is, therefore, key to identifying where Beijing might be best positioned to advance its economic statecraft. To that end, this report explores avenues through which researchers can investigate these issues, considers industries that could be vulnerable to future coercion and influence, and offers policy recommendations to counter China’s economic statecraft.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Politics, Global Markets, Economy, Trade, Norms, and Coercion
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and Indo-Pacific

9. How to hold the Islamic Republic of Iran accountable in European courts

Author:
Gissou Nia, Celeste Kmiotek, Lisandra Novo, and Alyssa T. Yamamoto
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The past year has witnessed increased and sustained calls to secure accountability for the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI)’s atrocity crimes and gross human rights violations, particularly in response to the protests triggered by Mahsa Jina Amini’s death at the hands of the IRI’s morality police in September 2022. Accountability efforts have primarily focused on securing justice for victims and survivors of extrajudicial killings, mass arbitrary detention, torture, and other grave abuses committed by the IRI in response to peaceful protests. However, these efforts have also sought to hold IRI authorities to account for unpunished crimes during prior decades, including the IRI’s brutal crackdowns on protestors in November 2019 and the 1988 summary executions of thousands of Iranian political prisoners. Because the judicial system in Iran is neither independent nor impartial—and is, in fact, responsible for unjust imprisonments and complicit in serious abuses in Iranian prisons—there are no viable domestic routes for accountability. However, there are paths available through national judicial systems in other states. This report from the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project explores accountability options that European states in particular can pursue, with the help of civil society. Throughout Europe, states have adopted universal jurisdiction provisions, which allow them to prosecute acts that constitute core international crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—even if the crime was committed in a different state by and against foreign nationals. Sweden used these provisions to convict former IRI official Hamid Noury for murder and war crimes committed during the 1988 prison massacres, but so far no other IRI official has been tried under universal jurisdiction provisions for crimes committed in Iran, despite newfound opportunities to pursue these cases. For decades, IRI officials have traveled throughout Europe, often owning assets and even reportedly receiving healthcare in different countries. At the same time, many victims and survivors of the IRI’s brutality have sought refuge in Europe—making the presence of IRI officials with no accountability all the more egregious, yet providing an opportunity for these victims and survivors to support investigations with eyewitness accounts and further information. The countries included in this report—Belgium, England and Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland—are just seven jurisdictions out of 148 United Nations member states worldwide that have laws allowing for the investigation and prosecution of some or all core international crimes, even when those crimes are committed beyond their own borders. These seven jurisdictions were selected as a focus of this report due to several factors including: the strength of their universal jurisdiction frameworks and frequency of use; their robust caselaw and policies for prosecuting atrocity crimes committed extraterritorially; the size of Iranian expatriate communities in these countries, especially those fleeing persecution and violence; and the possibility of travel by IRI officials to these jurisdictions. This report details what each country’s universal jurisdiction provisions entail, how proceedings are initiated, and what victims’ rights are protected. It also gives an overview of each state’s relevant jurisprudence to date, analyzing the legal, practical, and political viability of future cases involving IRI violations, including in light of the country’s diplomatic relationship with Iran. Finally, it provides regional and country-specific recommendations to facilitate more cases against IRI perpetrators and to strengthen universal jurisdiction frameworks more broadly.
Topic:
Human Rights, International Law, Accountability, and Norms
Political Geography:
Europe, Iran, and Middle East

10. Strengthening South Korean Value Diplomacy for U.S.-South Korean Normative Alignment

Author:
Sook Jong Lee
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
The foreign policy of any state is formulated by calculating national interest and normative ideals. If national interest is based on tangible economic and security gains, normative ideals are often understood as universal and transformative values. However, this distinction is often blurred in reality, as normative choices are made in the context of long-term national interest. Furthermore, a state’s normative alignment can change due to ideologically different new governments or contentious domestic challenges. The worst-case scenario occurs when a strong state withdraws from leadership of a normative coalition of like-minded states. Like-minded states tend to disperse when they lose their leader; the decline of the Community of Democracies after the United States’s neglect is such a case. States fail to pursue consistent foreign policy because normative politics are in flux domestically and internationally. Despite this complexity, a strong power can exercise normative foreign policy more effectively than a weaker power, as it can employ both hard and soft power. The United States played such an enforcement role during the post–Cold War unipolar world. A newly emerging strong state, such as China, can challenge an existing norm or establish a new norm. What about middle powers? Lacking unilaterally exercisable power, middle powers frequently champion multilateral rules and norms that can protect their interests from great power coercion. Professor Andrew Cooper characterizes a middle power as normatively more virtuous and trustworthy in the global order and describes its preferred diplomacy as pursuing multilateral solutions to international problems, embracing compromise positions in international disputes, and adopting the notions of “good international citizenship” (Cooper et al. 1993, 116). The government of former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak pursued middle powermanship under the Global Korea slogan, emphasized value-based international contributions by expanding foreign aid, and hosted the Group of Twenty (G20) and other global meetings. Now, the Yoon Suk Yeol government has scaled up its middle-power ambitions to those of being a global pivotal state by highlighting South Korea’s international contributions and values-based diplomacy (Yoon 2022a). Like the Lee government, the Yoon government is building its proactive multilateral diplomacy while deepening its long-standing alliance with the United States. But the U.S.-China relationship has changed significantly between the Lee and Yoon governments: geopolitical competition between the United States and China has intensified during the intervening fifteen years, expanding beyond the economic and military spheres to include technology and ideology. Under U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, an ideological narrative dividing the world between democracies and autocracies has set in. The Russian war in Ukraine has caused Western European countries to merge democratic unity and collective security. In Northeast Asia, North Korea’s nuclear capabilities now threaten not only South Korea but also the faraway United States. Facing all these high-risk challenges, the Yoon government has tightened military and economic ties with the United States. The two countries’ shared democratic values and liberal norms have emerged as a crucial component of deepening bilateral ties. This normative alignment has invited criticism from Beijing, but the Yoon government has so far not rolled back its advocacy for those values—although it has carefully dubbed them as “universal values” rather than liberal or democratic values. The national confidence gained by globally successful popular Korean culture and deteriorating public opinion against China have helped fuel this value assertiveness.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Human Rights, Norms, and Freedom
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and United States of America