Localization and Subsidiarity in Brazil’s Engagement with the Responsibility to Protect
In: Global Responsibility to ProtectSearch for other papers by Kai Michael Kenkel in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Felippe De Rosa in
Current site
Google Scholar
This article makes empirical use of the concepts of norm localization and norm subsidiarity, as developed by Acharya and revamped by Prantl and Nakano, to analyze Brazil’s engagement with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and its development of the ‘responsibility while protecting’ (RwP) note in 2011. Many rising powers face a clear clash between their own normative priors and putatively universal norms such as R2P; the RwP note is one of the clearest examples in recent times of an attempt to navigate this contestation. The RwP note itself is not innovative, and its final intention is unclear; it contains elements of both norm localization and of the desire to establish the subsidiarity of Brazilian and regional traditions of non-intervention. As such it recasts the R2P in language acceptable to a Brazilian (and global Southern) public while simultaneously seeking to inject regional interpretations into the larger, global debate. The article makes use of Acharya’s model to outline drivers and resistances in the localization process, identifying the extent to which successful localization has occurred and contributing to more clearly differentiating the notions of localization and subsidiarity. RwP contains elements of both, which the paper clearly identifies in Brazil’s initial forays into the intervention debate. As such the piece contributes to advancing both the current state of norm diffusion theory and analysts’ and policymakers’ understanding of emerging powers’ engagement with R2P and intervention norms.
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
-
2
Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009).
-
3
Amitav Acharya, ‘Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders: Sovereignty, Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World’, International Studies Quarterly, 55: 95–123 (2011).
-
4
Jochen Prantl and Ryoko Nakano, ‘Global Norm Diffusion in East Asia: How China and Japan Implement the Responsibility to Protect’, International Relations, 25: 204–233 (2011).
-
6
Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, pp. 895–896.
-
7
Martha Finnemore, ‘International organizations as teachers of norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and science policy’, International Organization, 47/4: 565–597 (1993); Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’; Brian Greenhill, ‘The Company You Keep: International Socialization and the Diffusion of Human Rights Norms’, International Studies Quarterly, 54/1: 127–145 (2010); Thomas Risse-Kappen, Bringing transnational relations back in Non-state actors, domestic structures and international institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
-
9
Amitav Acharya, ‘How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism’ , International Organization, 58/2: 239–275 (2004); Prantl and Nakano, Global Norm Diffusion in East Asia; Etel Solingen’Of Dominoes and Firewalls: The Domestic, Regional, and Global Politics of International Diffusion’, International Studies Quarterly, 56/4: 631–644 (2012).
-
12
Prantl and Nakano, ‘Global Norm Diffusion in East Asia’, pp. 206–207.
-
19
Acharya, ‘Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders’, pp. 99–101.
-
20
Jutta Weldes, Constructing National Interests: the United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).
-
23
Adam Chapnick, ‘The Middle Power’, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 7/2:73–82 (1999), p. 75; Andrew Fenton Cooper, ‘Niche Diplomacy: A Conceptual Overview’ in A. F. Cooper, R. A. Higgott and K. R. Nossal (eds.), Relocating Middle Powers: Australia and Canada in a Changing World Order (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1993).
-
25
Robert Cox, ‘Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order’, International Journal, 44/4: 826–827 (1989).
-
26
Eduard Jordaan, ‘The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers’, Politikon, 30/1:165–181,(2003), p. 167.
-
27
Cox, ‘Middlepowermanship, Japan, and Future World Order’, p. 827.
-
28
Stefan A. Schirm, ‘Leaders in need of followers: Emerging powers in global governance’, European Journal of International Relations , 16/2:197–221 (2010).
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 976 | 85 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 363 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 291 | 10 | 0 |
Localization and Subsidiarity in Brazil’s Engagement with the Responsibility to Protect
In: Global Responsibility to ProtectSearch for other papers by Kai Michael Kenkel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Felippe De Rosa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This article makes empirical use of the concepts of norm localization and norm subsidiarity, as developed by Acharya and revamped by Prantl and Nakano, to analyze Brazil’s engagement with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and its development of the ‘responsibility while protecting’ (RwP) note in 2011. Many rising powers face a clear clash between their own normative priors and putatively universal norms such as R2P; the RwP note is one of the clearest examples in recent times of an attempt to navigate this contestation. The RwP note itself is not innovative, and its final intention is unclear; it contains elements of both norm localization and of the desire to establish the subsidiarity of Brazilian and regional traditions of non-intervention. As such it recasts the R2P in language acceptable to a Brazilian (and global Southern) public while simultaneously seeking to inject regional interpretations into the larger, global debate. The article makes use of Acharya’s model to outline drivers and resistances in the localization process, identifying the extent to which successful localization has occurred and contributing to more clearly differentiating the notions of localization and subsidiarity. RwP contains elements of both, which the paper clearly identifies in Brazil’s initial forays into the intervention debate. As such the piece contributes to advancing both the current state of norm diffusion theory and analysts’ and policymakers’ understanding of emerging powers’ engagement with R2P and intervention norms.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 976 | 85 | 9 |
| Full Text Views | 363 | 2 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 291 | 10 | 0 |