Do you want to stay informed about this journal? Click the buttons to subscribe to our alerts.
Recurring contestation of the application of the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) in conflict situations has given rise to assessments that portray R2P as not a norm at all, but rather a norm-to-be or one in decay. This article aims to show that norms do not lose their validity because they are contested. All norms rely on applicatory discourses to establish their appropriateness for given situations. Contestation regarding their application can even strengthen norms when it provokes learning processes. Norm validity is at risk if contestation radicalises, that is, turns into norm justification. As yet there are only few signs of radicalisation of the contestation of R2P .
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 2227 | 425 | 31 |
Full Text Views | 512 | 108 | 28 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 731 | 197 | 28 |
Recurring contestation of the application of the Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) in conflict situations has given rise to assessments that portray R2P as not a norm at all, but rather a norm-to-be or one in decay. This article aims to show that norms do not lose their validity because they are contested. All norms rely on applicatory discourses to establish their appropriateness for given situations. Contestation regarding their application can even strengthen norms when it provokes learning processes. Norm validity is at risk if contestation radicalises, that is, turns into norm justification. As yet there are only few signs of radicalisation of the contestation of R2P .
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 2227 | 425 | 31 |
Full Text Views | 512 | 108 | 28 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 731 | 197 | 28 |