Explore the vast range of titles available.

In studying the global spread and implementation of liberal norms, scholars have moved from linear notions of norm diffusion and promotion to an emphasis on norm contestation. Contestation by the supposed beneficiaries and addressees has taken centre stage in both research on the norms that underpin global governance and in studies on democracy promotion and liberal peacebuilding. While the impetus of this scholarship is normative – to overcome the taken-for-granted nature of liberal norms – the concept of contestation itself is mainly used with an analytical interest. Yet, as we show in this article, contestation also comes with – oftentimes implicit – normative connotations. Focusing on the seminal work of Milja Kurki, Oliver Richmond, Antje Wiener, and Amitav Acharya, we reconstruct these normative connotations. It turns out that the normative take on contestation is fairly conventional in all four approaches. Contestation is largely seen as a means to enable dialogue, as illustrated by Acharya’s metaphor of the Banyan tree. Fundamental conflicts over liberal norms (‘battle scenes’) are either not considered or seen as normatively undesirable. As a way forward, we propose a typology that enables scholars to empirically analyse contestation in its different expressions and suggest two strategies to normatively assess practices of contestation.

Abstract This Introduction and Special Forum highlight the importance of localization for the study of world politics, both as a theoretical concept in international relations research on norms and as a set of practices and policies. The article tackles four questions: (1) Why has localization become a focus of scholarly and policy attention? (2) What are the historical precursors of localization? (3) What is being “localized” and who/what is “local”? And (4) how can localization be studied (i.e., using which methods and approaches)? After unpacking common functionalist, normative, and strategic arguments in favor of localization and situating the concept historically, we develop a novel relational conception of localization as both a process and an outcome. Our central objective is to bridge the diverse meanings and uses of the term that exist across theory and practice. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives and empirical examples from forced migration, humanitarianism, the protection of civilians, transitional justice, and Women, Peace and Security, we consider key dilemmas and challenges facing both the academic study and practice of localization and identify several methods and approaches that can be used to analyze this important topic in world politics.

How can IR theory capture both the possibilities of agency for historically underrepresented groups and the limitations that different social struggles present for them? This paper proposes a framework based on relational approaches, decolonial perspectives, and the concept of “tension” between possibilities and risks of agency to analyze the dynamics of norm emergence and circulation. It builds on, but moves beyond, constructivist analyses of the norm life cycle and adopts a relational and decolonial lens in order to probe normative agency and its consequences within the context of international negotiations. Focusing on constructivist theories of socialization with multiple feedback effects, the paper calls for a fourth agentic turn in the study of norms and their genealogy and offers an analytical and empirical roadmap to chart a more complex scenario of co-constitution for norms. The paper refers to the case of climate justice to illustrate, empirically, the importance of employing the concept of tension to unveil agentic moments in norm circulation, while also highlighting, theoretically, the risks and limitations that are present in meanings that continue to reinforce colonial legacies.

Abstract The dynamics of international norms and institutional models are often described as either top-down diffusion and localization or as bottom-up resistance and alternative norm-making. However, both frameworks have their limitations in explaining the complex patterns of normative and institutional change, highlighting the need for a new perspective. This article argues for a more circular understanding of these dynamics. Localizations often spread laterally into other local contexts, and upward into international ones, shaping normative and institutional change. The article illustrates these dynamics based on two cases of impunity-related norms and institutions in Latin America. This perspective not only complements existing frameworks on the dynamics of norms and institutions but also points to a research agenda that aims to answer the question of when and how initial localizations can have impacts beyond their original context.

The field of IPE has traditionally being conceptualized as an Anglo Saxon construct, in this paper we argue that it is critically important to reflect on the way IPE has developed outside the mainstream, in the periphery, focusing on the case studies of Africa - in particular South Africa; Asia - in particular China; and South America, in order to start a conversation that engages with the contributions of peripheral IPE. By bringing to light the way IPE has been approached in these regions of the world we identify problems, ideas, and concerns different from those in the North and which also call attention to the necessity of a conscious reading of these works and to opening a dialogue and comparison among them. The paper explores the contributions made by IPE in Africa, Asia and South America in order to discuss the possibility of widening IPE's 'global conversation ' including peripheral approaches.

Using the Indonesian annexation of East Timor in 1975 and Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia between 1978 and 1989 as case studies, this article examines how ASEAN understood the principles of non-intervention and non-interference as juxtaposed against the right to self-determination in the 1970s. As ASEAN's first \"crises\" in its formative years, they illustrate how the bloc's initial norm-making processes evolved as individual member states attempted to make their case for or against intervention. The article contends that ASEAN's principles of non-intervention and non-interference are non-static and adaptive. It also suggests that while ASEAN's normative framework may have been sufficiently accommodative of its members' different standards and approaches towards protecting sovereignty, the right to self-determination and independence in the past, it is questionable whether the adherence to non-interference would be sufficient for the grouping to address the present crisis in Myanmar and future challenges.

The International Relations (IR) discipline is ascendant because of the theoretical and methodological divisions and controversies within. As it is mostly placed in the Non-Western IR category, Turkish IR is an interesting case in that it reveals the temporal changes of theoretical debates in IR and their local resonance from the purview of a geography that is jammed between the West and the rest. For this reason, this paper examines the literature on the Turkish School of IR (if there is any) and draws some conclusions regarding its current state. This research first utilizes the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) surveys conducted by the International Relations Council of Turkey (IRCT) between 2007 and 2018. More extensively, the top 20 journals categorized under Google Scholar 's \"Diplomacy and International Relations\" list are coded based on their titles containing \"Turkey. \" Articles from the 1922-2021 period are then analyzed considering their authors, abstracts, and keywords. From this analysis, the study finds that studies focusing on Turkey have improved over the years, although there is a need for more theoretical and methodological advancements. As a \"peripheral\" country in IR, Turkey is still a subject of study by the \"center\" countries.