Content uploaded by Antje Wiener
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antje Wiener on Nov 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
252
Introduction
By focusing on the impact of the
social in world politics construc-
tivists have generated theoretical
debates with a potential for inter-
disciplinarity that leads beyond the
boundaries of international rela-
tions theory (IR).1Especially the role
and function of social facts (Ruggie
1998b) and the influence of social prac-
tices (Wendt 1987; Koslowski and Krato-
chwil 1994) have facilitated an enhanced
understanding of the social construction
of world politics. Theorising the impact
of the social has motivated a broad range
of research projects and theoretical
debate in IR following the observation of
once leading United States constructivists
that ‘Neorealism and Neoliberalism are
“undersocialized” in the sense that they
pay insufficient attention to the ways
in which the actors in world politics
are socially constructed. This common
thread has enabled a three-cornered
debate with Neorealists and Neoliberals
to emerge’ (Wendt 1999:4). Subsequently,
constructivism was established as a
counter movement to neorealism and
neoliberalism which often are sum-
marised as rationalist approaches to IR.2
Following debates about ontology among
constructivists and rationalists,3con-
structivist theoretical innovations were
generated by a range of positions that
emanated from an interest in theorising
social ontologies.
This article explores the different
conceptual paths generated by the inter-
est in the social in world politics. To that
end, it focuses on constructivist work on
norms bringing to bear the considerable
integrative and interdisciplinary poten-
tial which norms have generated as a
research object. Thus, not only con-
structivists but also legal scholars and
sociologists consider norms as highly rel-
evant in their respective disciplines. The
article scrutinises studies which identify
the powerful impact of norms and which
have significantly contributed to theory-
building based on the constructivist
axiom of the politically relevant social.
It is argued that, despite considerable
progress in assessing the impact of the
social on key categories in world politics
such as e.g. actors, institutions, organisa-
tions, interaction, and political arenas,
the integrative potential of norms, in
particular with a view to the oft empha-
sised bridge-building between opposing
standpoints, remains to be scrutinised
regarding the impact of the ‘construc-
tivist turn’ (Checkel 1998) in IR. The
article proceeds to apply the bridge
metaphor by situating core construc-
tivist contributions as “stations” on a
semi-circle above a baseline, i.e. the ana-
lytically constructed bridge above the
epistemological abyss (see Figure 3).4As
>
Antje Wiener
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
JIRD (2003) 6(3), 252-275
Copyright 2003 by Faculty of Social Sciences, Centre of International Relations
253
the following elaborates in more detail,
the bridge does extend the terrain for
discussion among opposing theoretical
positions. However, at the same time,
the process of bridge-building offers
insights into emerging conflictive issues
among constructivists. This article seeks
to shed light on these issues. It argues
that they are highlighted particularly
well by research on norms which has
focused on two insights, including first
the theoretical challenges of assessing
the concept of intersubjectivity and the
interrelation between structure and
agency (Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986;
Wendt 1987); and second, the recogni-
tion that international politics is not
exclusively negotiated in international
settings but in transnational and nation-
al contexts as well (Zürn 1997; Risse et al.
1999; Müller 2001).
So far, the role of norms has been dis-
cussed along two questions. The first
question of “why comply?” expresses an
interest in explaining why states comply
with global norms in the absence of insti-
tutionalised sanctions in the anarchic
international state system (Kratochwil
1984; Chayes and Handler Chayes 1995;
Koh 1997; Zürn 1997; Checkel 2001).
Accordingly, the analytical emphasis has
been set on the regulative function, i.e.
the ‘effect’ of norms in world politics
(Jepperson et al. 1996:52) in order to
explain opposing and changing sets of
institutionalised causal ideas and norms
that guide action (Katzenstein 1993:267;
Sikkink 1993:161). The second question,
‘what makes the world hang together?’
focuses on normatively and culturally
established reference points in the organ-
isation of ‘new transnational political
orders’ (Ruggie 1998b; March and Olsen
1998, respectively). It is about the con-
struction and implementation of the
meaning of norms which are ascribed a
stabilising yet not necessarily a stable role.
According to this perspective, ‘rules and
norms are viewed as means to maintain
social order’ (Kratochwil 1989:1). They
maintain the order of society.5Both lead-
ing questions have evolved into two dis-
tinguishable theoretical approaches. Even
though the second approach does not
work with explicit reference to the lead-
ing question highlighted above, the range
of contributions focusing on the societal
order in world politics does advance a
conception of norms that is clearly distin-
guishable from the first approach. In what
follows, the two approaches are therefore
referred to according to the umbrella
terms of compliance approach and
societal approach, respectively.6Both
should be considered as offering comple-
mentary and not necessarily competing
views on how to study the role of norms.7
The compliance approach is more closely
affiliated with the analytical strand of
“modern constructivism” which addresses
behavioural change as a reaction to norms
(Katzenstein et al. 1998). In turn, the sub-
stantively broader societal approach
brings together various analytical strands
of research that are interested not only in
the impact but also in the emergence of
norms which are explored as constituted
by the interrelation between context and
sociocultural practices. This understand-
ing has contributed to theory-building
and furthering the constructivist debate
in particular by facilitating a perspective
on theoretical debates beyond the bound-
aries of IR (see e.g. Guzzini 2000; Fierke
and Jørgensen 2001).
The following scrutinises construc-
tivist research on norms with reference
to the two challenges that are taken as a
yardstick for successfully theorising the
social, including (1) the theoretical ap-
preciation of intersubjectivity and (2)
the horizontal and vertical extension of
relevant political arenas in world poli-
tics. Both challenges overlap in the cen-
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
tral question of how to conceptualise
interaction as the process which consti-
tutes meaning (Tilly 1998). The imple-
mentation of norms in different political
arenas depends on the successful media-
tion of this meaning. In the 1980s con-
structivist work focused on precisely
this problem. For example, the early
work of Wendt (1987; cf. critically
Guzzini and Leander 2001) built on the
Giddensian concept of structuration
which had been developed within the
framework of reflexive sociology and
which stresses the duality of structures.
Thus, according to Giddens (1979:69),
the ‘structural properties of social sys-
tems are both the medium and the out-
come of the practices that constitute
those systems.’ This originally key in-
sight for any robust assessment of the
social construction of reality as a process
has been increasingly abandoned howev-
er. That shift in theoretical emphasis
culminated in the 1990s when the mod-
ern strand of constructivism developed a
neo-Durkheimian approach to the role
of social facts, thus turning away from
the early constructivists’ insights from
reflexive sociology. This functional be-
haviourist’s take on constructivism has
inserted a considerable conceptual barri-
er to furthering the analytical apprecia-
tion of intersubjectivity. The step
towards analysing the mutual constitu-
tion of structure and agency, which was
of considerable importance to the begin-
ning of constructivist writing in IR, thus
vanished from the forefront of this con-
structivist strand. As Flynn and Farrell
(1999:510-11) comment correctly:
Instead of fully exploiting the power of the
insights they borrow from social theory
about the recursive nature of the relation-
ship between agent and structure, construc-
tivists have ended up seeking to demon-
strate only that norms as elements of struc-
ture (alongside material conditions) can
determine the interests and identity of
agents, rather than seeking to locate the
power of norms in the process whereby they
are created in the first place.
As a result, the crucial question about
the emergence and decay of norms remains
a theoretical challenge that stands to be
addressed by IR scholars to this day
(Kratochwil 1984:690; Kowert and Legro
1996; Stewart 2001). The consequence is a
conceptually dire straits in IR, posing an
important theoretical challenge in the area
of norm research, in particular, in the areas
of foreign and security policy.8
The article’s argument will be devel-
oped in three steps. The first step offers
a concise summary of the core argu-
ments of the constructivist turn and its
consequences (second section). The
second step critically elaborates the sub-
stantive input generated by this turn.
This assessment is organised according
to variation in research interest and the-
oretical approach. The different re-
search perspectives are located as sta-
tions on a bridge according to their
ontological preferences on the one hand,
and their respective conceptual distinc-
tion from both rationalist and reflec-
tivist standpoints, on the other (third
section). The final step highlights the
disputed perceptions of the input of the
duality of structures on the quality of
norms as constructed and structuring. It
seeks to demonstrate that, while the
innovative analytical input of persuasion
and arguing has generated a considerable
influence on scrutinising a substantially
behaviourist compliance approach, the
arguing approach still remains restricted
to structuralist shortcomings. It is there-
fore proposed to address these with ref-
erence to reflexive sociology within the
framework of the societal approach
(fourth section). In sum, by scrutinis-
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
254
Antje
Wiener
255
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
ing the constructivist turn according to
its substantive and conceptual contribu-
tion in the area of norm research, the
article finds that while constructivist
theorising has facilitated debates which
were crucial for methodological innova-
tions and extended empirical research
programmes in IR, the project of bridg-
ing the gap between so-called rationalist
and reflectivist standpoints, respectively
(Keohane 1988), has advanced the debate
to a higher level (fifth section).
Constructivist Sites of
Construction
The constructivistturn towards
bridging the gap between conflic-
tive research assumptions drew on
extensive debates among rational-
ists and constructivists about the
paradox of co-operation under an-
archy. This discussion was closely
linked with compliance research and
unfolded to a large extent within the
conceptual framework set by this
debate.9This discussion gained particu-
lar leverage by focusing on the issues of
legitimacy and norm implementation in
international politics (Franck 1990;
March and Olsen 1998; Zürn and Wolf
1999; Ratner 2000; Joerges 2002; Tully
2002). It was further developed by stud-
ies in the field of international law
and/or interdisciplinary research on
evolving legal and social practices, rou-
tinisation and institution-building with-
in the environment of international
organisations such as, e.g. the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) and the
European Union (EU).10 The insight into
an increasing “power of norms” (Risse et
al. 1999) and the role of norms in the
process of consolidating the evolving
structures of political order beyond the
state (March and Olsen 1998; Weiler
1999; Olsen 2002) pushed the central
challenges of norms research to the fore,
e.g. the assessment of intersubjectivity
and the mutual constitution of structure
and agency, on one hand, and the diversifi-
cation and multiplication of political are-
nas in world politics, on the other. In sum,
the ensuing often transdisciplinary access
to research on the ‘nature, functioning
and origin of norms’ (Ruggie 1998a:13)
facilitated a considerable and important
push for constructivist research in partic-
ular and IR theory-building in general.
The following draws on the discussion
about norms in order to first critically
explicate the distinctness of different
constructivist approaches and, second, to
scrutinise the theoretical underpinnings
and outcomes regarding the future role of
norms in world politics.
The ConstructivistTurn
In addition to a shared interest in the
role and function of the social in world
politics (Risse and Wiener 1999), the
constructivist turn has generated a par-
ticular style of communication that facil-
itated a more encompassing discussion
among researchers of different schools
or theoretical leaning, compared with
the exclusive and rather hostile debating
style that has been prominent during
previous decades. After decades of
debates about binary oppositions, this
shift in debating style allowed for the
gradual emergence of friendly conceptu-
al debates despite different epistemolog-
ical standpoints.11 For a discipline which
had been characterised by a sequence of
debates — particularly in the North
American academic context12 — about
core theoretical concepts among repre-
sentatives of accepted mainstream views
on the one hand, and the critical input of
“young Turks” on the other, and which
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
had been characterised by a binary logic
and a style of communication that was all
but indirect,13 this shift marked a signifi-
cant change. A new focus on ontology
opened the terrain for exchanging views
about research objects and methodolo-
gies. Nonetheless, the value-added of
this emergent conversation remains to
be assessed more in detail, e.g. which are
the shared conceptual insights? In addi-
tion, it is important to raise the question
as to whether or not a discipline that is
increasingly coined by clustering in the
middle ground and hence increasingly
losing touch with critical young Turks on
the margins can still summons the criti-
cal potential that is necessary to scruti-
nise theoretical assumptions and grasp
changes in world politics? Has the con-
structivist turn contributed to identify
new analytical insights which offer im-
portant contributions to theory-build-
ing in IR? And, last not least, what is the
value added of a culture of bridge-build-
ing for IR as a discipline?
Upon first glance, a roughly sum-
marised chronological reconstruction of
the constructivist debate brings two
insights to the fore. First, metaphorical-
ly speaking, the empirical implementa-
tion of constructivist approaches re-
mains a methodological construction
site of enormous proportions with plen-
ty of architects and little agreement on
shared conceptual common ground.14
Research questions and theoretical
views abound amongst a plethora of ana-
lytical innovations (see e.g. Fierke and
Jørgensen 2001). It is therefore helpful
to ask an additional second question, i.e.
which — if any — constructivist re-
search strand might be considered as
the constructivist approach? In other
words, is the methodological diversity
which evolved from the turn theoreti-
cally compatible; should it be? While
Adler (1997:320) notes that ‘the debates
within constructivism itself as to what
constructivism is really about ... have
tended to obscure constructivism’s sci-
entific basis,’ this article argues it was
possible to identify research questions
with relevance even beyond the bound-
aries of IR precisely because of the pre-
ceding debates about the substance of
constructivist research. Indeed, it is
emphasised that the innovative dimen-
sion of this substance was considerably
supported by the style of the debate
which was characterised by methodolog-
ical openness and direct communication
about contested issues. In the following,
the debates over such contested issues
are reconstructed as conversations
which established constructivist “sta-
tions on a bridge” (see Figures 1, 2, 3).
The focus is on ontology, leading the
bridge across the epistemological abyss
between the two rationalist and reflec-
tivist poles on the base line. As the
reconstruction of the emerging middle-
ground in IR theorising seeks to demon-
strate, however, the bridge-building
process does lead to considerable fric-
tion in the middle, leaving the question
of whether or not a successful rap-
prochement is possible to be answered.
The theoretical debate about the role,
function and origin of norms in IR will
demonstrate the point.
The Middle Ground
Metatheoretically speaking, construc-
tivist approaches mark a point above the
base line of a triangle which connects the
incommensurable theoretical ‘rationalist’
and ‘reflectivist’ standpoints — using
Keohane’s (1988) terminology — which
mark the other two corner points of the
triangle (see Figure 1).
In other words, the constructivism
point of the triangle bundles approaches
which are explicitly distinguished from
the two corner positions on the base line
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
256
Antje
Wiener
257
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
of the triangle. At the same time, a more
detailed analysis of the actual develop-
ment of the constructivist turn demon-
strates that constructivists are — at least
in principle — interested and capable of
communication with either pole position.
This distinction established a relation-
ship between all constructivist positions,
on one hand, and, in addition with each of
the two base line pole positions, on the
other. The constructivism point can thus
be characterised as a theoretical position
which expresses a shared “claim to the
middle ground.” However, it is important
to note that the rationale underlying this
movement towards that middle ground at
times differed considerably among con-
structivists. For example while some con-
structivists claimed to be ‘seizing the
middle ground’ (Adler 1997), others pre-
ferred “establishing the middle-ground”
(Christiansen et al. 1999). The strategic
movement of the former was distinguish-
able from the process of arguing about dif-
ferent theoretical positions as a process
during which the participants in the debate
remained open to persuasion by the better
argument of the others. A shared basic
assumption of both movements was, how-
ever, to focus on ontological issues, thus
leaving contested epistemological posi-
tions aside (Risse and Wiener 1999; Klotz
2001). Accordingly, constructivist approa-
ches did not share one particular epistemo-
logical position which would, for example,
emerge above the base line of the third
debate (Figure 1). Instead the construc-
tivist debate formed a semi-circle linking a
range of distinct stations that are distin-
guishable according to ontological prefer-
ences and epistemological distinction from
the pole positions (see Figure 2 on the
bridge scheme, Figure 3 on the application
of that scheme).
Constructivists’ theoretical interest
has always, in principle, been guided by
shared research issues and methods. The
key common assumption of construc-
tivists has been to bring in the social to an
undersocialised discipline. Taking this
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
Figure 1: Core Theoretical Positions
Source: Christiansen et al. (1999: 532).
Constructiv i sm
“Reflectivism”
“Rationalism”
perspective seriously and bringing it to bear
in empirical research poses the challenge of
developing a robust analytical approach to
the “intersubjective dimension of human
action” in politics as a key element in
(world) politics.15 While the majority of con-
structivists would find themselves in agree-
ment about stressing an interest in dis-
cussing issues of ontology (what things are
made of) over epistemological debates (how
do we know) as a logical consequence of the
notion of socially constituted facts (Wendt
1998:103), the operationalisation of the
social in applied research differs widely and
significantly among constructivists (Ruggie
1998a:856).16 In other words, the common
concern with the notion of ‘constituted
social facts’ and a shared interest in the
‘constitutive role of ideational factors’
(Ruggie 1998b:858; Risse 2000:5, respec-
tively) has not prevented the participants
in the debate to pursue different avenues
in theory and research. To offer an
all-encompassing insight into the com-
plexity of different constructivist re-
search strands would be inappropriate
given the space limitations of a single arti-
cle. I therefore focus on a presentation of
those emerging middle ground positions
which allow for a critical appreciation of
key steps towards theory-building. Even
though they may not have been recognis-
able e.g. as consistent and acknowledged
research programmes, it is argued that
they are of critical theoretical importance
none the less. As a shared theoretical issue
among constructivists of all strands, the
intersubjectivity premise offers an excel-
lent criterion according to which it is pos-
sible to scrutinise the constructivist me-
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
258
Antje
Wiener
Explanations to Figure 2: All constructivistapproaches are distinguished from each of the
two pole positions; establishing variation among the constructivist stations. The semi-cir-
cle thus evolves according to the four following criteria: (1) preference for ontology over
epistemology; (2) ontological preferences such as e.g. ideas, norms, language; (3) distinction
from the pole positions; and (4) variation of methodological preferences.
Source: Christiansen et al. (1999: 536).
Figure 2: Establishing the Middle Ground
no communi cati on
Norms
Reflectivist Pole
Rationalist Pole
Language
Ideas
259
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
thodology. It represents an ‘ontological
middle ground between individualism and
structuralism by claiming that there are
properties of structures and agents that
cannot be reduced to or collapsed into
each other’ (Risse 2000:5). As the follow-
ing discussion elaborates in more detail,
while often raised, the claim of the mutu-
al constitution of structure and agency
has been substantiated and applied with
considerable variation as to the analytical
rigor applied in this regard by the various
constructivist strands.17
Stations on the Bridge
The constructivist turn presents
aframework which has enabled the
discussion about theoretical and
empirical assessment of social facts
and their role in world politics.The
concept of framing allows for an assess-
ment of the constructivist turn and can be
characterised as a framework within
which bits and pieces of previous debates
can be reassembled innovatively so that
they become theoretically meaningful to
representatives of different theoretical
strands. Aframe helps ‘to locate, perceive,
identify, and label events’18 such as the
emergence of constructivist research po-
sitions. This approach follows the logic of
collective action frames which receive
their attraction to a variety of addressees
less from any innovative elements but
from the novelty in which the particular
elements have been brought together. As
Snow and Benford (1992:138) summarise,
‘what gives a collective action frame its
novelty is not so much its innovative
ideational elements as the manner in
which activists articulate or tie them
together.’ Subsequently, a continuous de-
bate about substance allowed for a rap-
prochement among positions which had
previously been situated in opposing epis-
temological camps in IR. An important
contribution of the constructivist turn
therefore consisted of creating an institu-
tional and cultural environment that facil-
itated the context in which a relatively
tolerant and open-minded debating cul-
ture could gain ground, unfold and main-
tain the flow of discussion among differ-
ent theoretical positions. A note of cau-
tion is, however, in order since at this
stage of the argument the article concen-
trates exclusively on a reconstruction of
central constructivist positions on the
bridge, thus leaving the more encompass-
ing research questions aside for the
moment. It is argued that it is helpful,
precisely with a view to assessing the
potential for developing leading research
questions, to begin by identifying posi-
tions that constitute a communicative
bridge between the two non-communi-
cating rationalist and reflectivist poles
which had been hardened during the peri-
od known as the third debate in IR. The
stations will be named and situated on the
bridge according to their respective readi-
ness to communicate about ontological
issues, on one hand, as well as according
to their respective distance from the epis-
temological corner positions, on the
other.19 The stations on the bridge repre-
sent the respective ontological foci of the
various constructivist approaches while
situating them according to their analyti-
cal preferences at the same time. Thus, it
is possible to demonstrate that, while all
constructivist stations on the bridge share
an interest in assessing the role of social
facts in world politics, the specific evalua-
tion of these facts and the relationship
among different types of social facts vary
significantly.
While it has often been suggested to
distinguish between modern and other
constructivist approaches (Katzenstein et
al. 1998; Hopf 1998; cf. critically Fierke
2001), this article proposes a perspective
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
that considers variation in constructivist
positions based on identifying particular
research objects rather than by begin-
ning with the (self-) ascribed affiliation
with particular research programmes.
Research interest is taken as the distinc-
tive issue. One result of this approach is
that both neoliberal institutionalists (e.g.
Goldstein and Keohane 1993) and post-
modern approaches (e.g. Biersteker and
Weber 1996; Diez 1999a) find their way
onto the bridge. All stations on the
bridge are characterised by a shared
research interest in studying the influ-
ence and role of soft institutions such as
ideas, norms and rules, on one hand,
and/or sociocultural factors such as iden-
tity, discourse, and language, on the
other, in world politics. The stations on
the bridge are not intended to represent
constructivist positions in a more or less
encompassing way. Instead, they repre-
sent discussions which have emanated
from an interest in individual and social
ideas, norms, language and social prac-
tices (see Figure 3).
The stations on the bridge will be
defined, explained and positioned within
a process of an ongoing constructivist
debate. Since this positioning proceeds
according to the research object rather
than affiliation with a particular construc-
tivist strand, some authors appear on mul-
tiple stations. Further, it is interesting to
note that most stations tend to support
either a more structure-oriented or a
more agency-oriented argument. This
observation will be discussed in more
detail in the following section which scru-
tinises the assumptions of the dual qual-
ity of norms station.
Individual Ideas
The first cautious step away from the
rationalist pole was taken by neoliberal
approaches. Thus, Goldstein and Keo-
hane (1993:3) defined ideas as ‘beliefs
held by individuals’ which contributed to
explain ‘political outcomes.’ This ap-
proach works with the assumption that
individual ideas or ‘principled or causal
beliefs’ work as ‘road maps,’ hence
encompassing an important element in
foreign policy analysis (1993:3). While
this approach still works with the posi-
tivist assumption of exogenous interest
formation on the basis of material
resources, its novel reference to ideal
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
260
Antje
Wiener
Figure 3: Stations on the Bridge
no communi cati on
Dual Quality of Norms
Reflectivist Pole
Rationalist Pole
Language
Social Ideas
Constitutiv e
Practices
Indiv idua l
Ideas
261
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
factors is distinct from the research
practice of the rationalist pole. This step
is particularly pointed out by Goldstein
and Keohane (1993:6, original emphasis)
who characterise the contributions to an
edited volume as ‘a challenge to both
rationalist and reflectivist approaches’
specifying:
Although we concede that the rationalist
approach is often a valuable starting point
for analysis, we challenge its explanatory
power by suggesting the existence of empiri-
cal anomalies that can be resolved only
when ideas are taken into account. We
demonstrate this need to go beyond pure
rationalist analysis by using its own premise
to generate our null hypothesis: that varia-
tion in policy across countries, or over time,
is entirely accounted for by changes in fac-
tors other than ideas. Like reflectivists,
we explore the impact of ideas, or beliefs, on
policy. But this volume also poses an explicit
challenge to the antiempiricist bias of much
work in the reflectivist tradition, for we
believe that the role played by ideas can and
should be examined empirically with the
tools of social science.
This step can therefore be taken as a
movement that created a platform for the
“neo-neo debate” (Waever 1997) prior to
the constructivist turn. It is interesting
to note, however, that — as contributors
to the same edited volume — Sikkink
(1993:161) and Katzenstein (1993:267)
simultaneously raised other aspects of
ideas, such as institutionalised and guid-
ing causal ideas and norms. Thus,
Katzenstein (1993:268) stresses the so-
cial dimension of norms when he notes
that ‘norms reflect unspoken premises.
Their importance lies not in being true
or false but in being shared.’ However,
the concept of intersubjectivity, espe-
cially its implications for changes of
supranational and transnational norms
remain under-explored by programmes
which were mainly interested in the
assessment of formal institutional
change (e.g. Katzenstein 1993:268; Sik-
kink 1993:166). It can therefore be sum-
marised that individual ideas and the
influence of the social do represent an
important and innovative research inter-
est of this station. Yet, ideas remain the-
orised as being appropriated individually
rather than being understood as socially
constructed reference points with a
social impact. The following section on
the social ideas station will elaborate
on this social dimension of ideas in more
detail.
Social Ideas
The analytical rapprochement to the
role of ideas, norms and rules which have
been forged within a social environment
can be taken as a much more definitive step
towards the constructivist turn (Krato-
chwil and Ruggie 1986; Kratochwil 1989;
Onuf 1989; Finnemore 1996; and, for a
summary, Checkel 1998). Ideas are under-
stood as socially embedded (Flynn and
Farrell 1999:510). They represent shared
reference points which send the same mes-
sage to different actors causing the same
behaviour among these actors. March and
Olsen (1989:26) have characterised this
shared reaction to norms the logic of
appropriateness. That is, ideas are not
exclusively situated in or generated by the
brains of individual actors, in addition,
they entail a social structuring element.
Thus, it becomes possible, for example, for
empirical research to analyse how different
actors behave in different contexts.20 This
analytical access of ideas within a social
environment has cast a new emphasis on
the constitutive and regulative dimensions
of social facts (ideas, rules and norms).
Different from the individual perception
of ideas on the previous station on the
bridge, this station socialises ideas while
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
not losing the relation between actors and
social structures. As Risse (2000:5-6) notes
‘this means for the study of ideas that one
can continue to study “beliefs” in terms of
what is inside people’s minds and simulta-
neously insist that these beliefs are repre-
sentations and enactments of social and
intersubjective culture.’
The analytical focus is hence set on
norms and social knowledge as constitu-
tive for actors’ identities. Yet, while the
principle of mutual constitution has had
an impact on the perception of identities,
interests and ideas at this station, the
methodological and empirical focus is less
on the emergence than on the constitu-
tive and regulative impact of norms
(Finnemore 1996).21 This emphasis on the
structural aspect of norms leaves the con-
structed dimension of norms to be
assessed more precisely. ‘Socially shared
ideas — be it norms (collective expecta-
tions about proper behavior of a given
identity) or social knowledge about cause-
and-effect relationships — not only regu-
late behavior but also constitute the iden-
tity of actors’ (Risse 2000:5). Empirically,
the conceptualisation of the relationship
between norms and identities as causal
implies that social facts cause empirically
testable changes of actors’ identities and
accordingly behaviour. In turn, the causal
impact of behaviour on the construction
and change of identities has been assigned
a role of minor empirical relevance by this
research. Thus, the basic assumption
about stable norms has contributed to the
consolidation of an impressive research
programme on actors’ behaviour in world
politics, in particular focusing on the
problem of norm implementation in the
area of human rights, equal rights policy,
education and the diffusion of adminis-
trative culture. Yet, the change of ideas
has received less attention by this station.
In sum, the constitutive role of social
practices for the emergence of soft insti-
tutions is stressed by the social ideas sta-
tion which is incidentally the home of the
majority of compliance researchers. It
remains, however, theoretically of minor
relevance compared with the interest in
the constitution of identities and ideas
based on different logics of action (conse-
quentialism, appropriateness and arguing)
which has been demonstrated by debates
among rationalist and constructivist
scholars thereby producing considerable
leverage.22 For example, the German ZIB-
debate brought the innovative logic of
arguing to the fore.23 This focus on arguing
and bargaining did however have a consid-
erable impact on consolidating a shift of
analytical perspective on the social from
the Giddensian reflexive concept of inter-
action towards a focus on the functional
connection between system and life-
world. Above all, the logic of arguing
opens an analytical perspective on the
issue of agreement on the role of particu-
lar norms in international negotiating sit-
uations (Risse and Ulbert 2001). This
extension of the compliance approach has
thus identified the problem of the often
occurring mismatch of facticity and valid-
ity of norms (Habermas 1992). It has
demonstrated that the contested validity
of norms in negotiating situations and the
implementation of norms in social con-
texts require mediating processes of
socialisation (Risse and Ropp 1999;
Schimmelfennig 2001), learning (Checkel
2001) and/or shaming by advocacy groups
(Finnemore and Sikkink 1998:898; Keck
and Sikkink 1998; Liese 2001; Locher
2002).
Constitutive Practices
In comparison, a much more distinct-
ly pronounced distance to the rationalist
pole has been established by construc-
tivist perspectives that engage with a
transdisciplinary access to reflexive soci-
ology on social interaction.24 The core
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
262
Antje
Wiener
263
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
theoretical basis of this perspective is
provided by Giddens’ (1979) structura-
tionist approach. While this approach is
hardly news for critical approaches to IR
(see e.g. Cox 1981; 1983; Whitworth 1989),
it offered less common ground with the
“positivist” camp during the paradigmatic
battle of the third debate. In turn,
Wendt’s suggestion to refer to ‘second
order theories’ (Wendt 1991)25 such as the
access on the interdependence of struc-
ture and agency based on the concept of
structuration offered an alternative issue
for discussion which made it possible to
avoid unfruitful conflict between the two
‘positivist’ and ‘post-positivist’ camps at
that time. Wendt (1987:337) accused the
predominant IR theories such as struc-
tural realism (Waltz 1979) of working with
the state as a primitive ontological entity.
His suggestion to reverse this ontologisa-
tion by way of referring to second order
theories has been taken up and developed
further especially by reflexive approaches
which work with the assumption of core
IR concepts as generally “contested” con-
cepts.26 Subsequently, core IR concepts
such as state sovereignty have been chal-
lenged by the combination of de- and
reconstructive analyses. This methodolo-
gy defines sovereignty, for example, as “a
set of constitutive practices” which allows
for an assessment of the interactive con-
stitution of core concepts within their
particular context of emergence (Bier-
steker and Weber 1996). Thus, Biersteker
and Weber argued that ‘the modern state
system is not based on some timeless
principle of sovereignty, but on the pro-
duction of a normative recognition in a
unique way and in a particular place (the
state)’ (1996:3). Research on the construc-
tion of the social relates the ontologies of
identity and social practices (Biersteker
and Weber 1996:278) and therefore offers
a more systematic analytical assessment
of varying processes of state-building and
identity formation in international sys-
tems. According to the premise of inter-
subjectivity the constitutive practices
station places the ontology of interac-
tion above the ontologies of agency
and/or structure. This stress on interac-
tion highlights the possibility of change
for social facts which are largely consid-
ered as structural categories by the com-
pliance approach. It follows that ‘actors
reproduce and alter systems through their
actions. Any given international system
does not exist because of immutable
structures; rather, its structures are de-
pendent for their reproduction on the
practices of actors’ (Koslowski and Kra-
tochwil 1995:128).
Language
The language station shares the
focus on speech acts with the social ideas
station.27 Its focus is, however, entirely
different. While Risse and others are in
principle interested in persuasion by way of
arguing, the work of Kratochwil, Fierke
and others does not exclusively refer to lan-
guage as a descriptive but as a social action
as well (Kratochwil 1989; Fierke 1998; Diez
1999a; Zehfuss 2001). For example,
Kratochwil notes (1989:5-6, original em-
phasis):
that our conventional understanding of
social action and of the norms governing
them is defective because of a fundamental
misunderstanding of the function of lan-
guage in social interaction, and because of a
positivist epistemology that treats norms as
“causes.” Communication is therefore re-
duced to issues of describing “facts” proper-
ly, i.e. to the “match” of concepts and
objects, and to the ascertainment of nomo-
logical regularities. Important aspects of
social action such as advising, demand-
ing, apologizing, promising etc., cannot be
adequately understood thereby. Although
the philosophy of ordinary language has
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
abandoned the “mirror” image of language
since the later Wittgenstein, the research
programs developed within the confines of
logical positivism are, nevertheless, still
indebted to the old conception.
While this station does acknowledge
the guiding role of norms and rules, its
focus on the constitutive impact of inter-
action is almost diametrically opposed to
that of the social ideas station. While
the latter works with the assumption that
ideas are constitutive of identities, the
language station argues with e.g.
Wittgenstein and Foucault that speech
acts or discourses are constitutive of rules
and norms in particular contexts.28 The
securitisation literature presents a good
example for the constitutive role of
speech acts. It assumes that security
problems are constructed on the basis of
speech acts (Huysmans 1998). This re-
search strand explores the specific char-
acter and dynamics of security as con-
structed by and constructive of language.
It argues that:
security is a particular type of politics
applicable to a wide range of issues. And it
offers a constructivist operational method
for distinguishing the process of securitiza-
tion from that of politicization — for
understanding who can securitize what
and under what conditions (Buzan et al.
1998:vii).
This approach argues that successful
speech acts are based on the interaction
between the speaker and the specific con-
text conditions. These are defined as:
a combination of language and society, of
both intrinsic features of speech and the
group that authorizes and recognizes that
speech. Among internal conditions of a
speech act, the most important is to follow
the security form, the grammar of securi-
ty, and construct a plot that includes exis-
tential threat, point of no return, and a
possible way out — the general grammar
of security as such plus the particular
dialects of the different sectors, such as
talk identity in the societal sector, recogni-
tion and sovereignty in the political sec-
tor, sustainability in the environmental
sector, and so on (Buzan et al. 1998:32-3).
This concept of language as social
action and therefore constitutive of the
emergence of soft institutions such as
rules and norms (Kratochwil 1989) con-
tributes to draw a much clearer picture of
the sharp contradiction between the
opposing perceptions of the regulative
and constitutive role of ideas as social
facts according to the social ideas sta-
tion, on one hand, and the perception of
the constructive role of norms on the
constitutive practices and language
stations, on the other. It casts a fresh
view on the structure-agency debate in
IR. The following section recalls that
view and proceeds to elaborate on the
substance of — and ensuing controversial
debates generated by — the dual quali-
ty of norms station which works with
the Giddensian assumption of a dual
quality of structure while keeping the
Habermasian tension between the factici-
ty and validity of norms.
The Dual Quality of Norms
The compliance literature in
international relations theory and
international law conceptualises
norms largely as rules; ithence does
not clearly distinguish between the
impact of legal and social norms
(Finnemore 2000). In the end, this
research is less interested in understand-
ing the impact of norm flexibility than
identifying the influence of norm stability
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
264
Antje
Wiener
265
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
on political processes. Accordingly, social
norms are defined as ‘single standards
of behavior’ (Finnemore and Sikkink
1998:891). Only as stable social facts they
entail prescriptions which influence
behaviour.29 Analytically norms are thus
considered as rules. Subsequently, empiri-
cal questions are mainly directed towards
the assessment of rule consistent behav-
iour as an expression of norm-following
(Börzel and Risse 2001:3). At the same
time, these rules are conceptualised as
constitutive of actor identities. Rule-fol-
lowing is conducive towards reducing
transaction costs (Chayes and Handler
Chayes 1995). In addition, rule-following
behaviour creates advantages such as the
qualification for membership in new
transnational communities such as the
community of civilised states or the
European community (Adler 1997; Risse
2000; Müller 2001; Schimmelfennig and
Sedelmeier 2002). This functional per-
spective on rule-following is based on
socio-cultural as well as strategic motiva-
tions.
The Ontologisation of
Norms
As the last station on the bridge the
dual quality of norms station pre-
sented in this final section entails theoret-
ical assumptions that have received com-
paratively less attention than the issues of
individual ideas, social ideas, constitutive
practices and language which have been
identified as the leading issues dealt with
at the previous stations on the bridge.
The dual quality of norms station
builds on the constructivist premise of
the mutual constitution of structure and
agency. In doing so, it demonstrates —
not surprisingly perhaps — that the con-
troversy that was part and parcel of previ-
ous IR debates has not been solved yet.
After all, the theoretical assessment of
the dual quality of norms as constructed,
on one hand, and as regulative and consti-
tutive, on the other, continues to repre-
sent a conceptual challenge for IR schol-
ars. The elaboration on the last station on
the bridge in this section addresses this
challenge and elaborates on the theoreti-
cal implications for IR.
Based on the reconstruction of the
constructivist debate in the previous
section, it is possible to summarise that
the core constructivist insight — i.e. that
the guiding perception of norms and prin-
ciples is only possible once actors are re-
lated to them (Kratochwil and Ruggie
1986:764-5) — has generated entirely dif-
ferent theoretical and methodological
findings. Thus, a considerable majority of
studies still reduces the process of mutual
constitution to assessing the relation
between the emergence of stable norms
on one hand and actors’ behaviour and
identities on the other. According to this
perspective, norms are considered as an
intervening variable that influences be-
haviour. They are hence ontologised as
stable factors in world politics. Instead of
following Wendt’s proposal to unpack
primitive ontological entities, this stabili-
ty assumption generates the counter
effect of producing and maintaining pre-
cisely such primitive ontological entities.
Metaphorically speaking, this conceptu-
alisation of norms then adds another bil-
liard ball to the realist concept of the
state. This analytical bracketing leads to
an analytical lack of appreciating the
emergence of norms as a contextualised
process which is potentially conflictive.
Subsequently, variation in different mean-
ings of norms remains bracketed as well.
In other words, the full exploration of
Ruggie’s (1998b) triad of origin, role and
function of norms is limited to the latter
two aspects of role and function. In addi-
tion, the argumentative dimension of
norm research demonstrates that apart
from the problematic and complex issue
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
of theorising and applying the concept of
intersubjectivity, the issue of contextual
variation e.g. multiple sociocultural con-
texts of norms emergence and implemen-
tation presents a conceptual challenge for
work on norm resonance. Here, the ques-
tion about the validity of norms across the
boundaries of political arenas and the
related question about the role and assess-
ment of life-worlds30 in the process of
norm legitimation, as well as the contesta-
tion of norms, pose a particular theoreti-
cal challenge.
Norm Resonance and
Transnational Order
The bracketing of norm emergence
as a process has contributed to a lack of
analytical insights into the constructed
quality of norms, the potential change of
the meaning of norms and subsequently
any conflicts resulting from different
norm interpretations in varying socio-
cultural environments. Empirically this
oversight considers the issue of long-
term norm resonance in compliance
processes. In this area, the necessity for
further research is particularly pressing
as discussions about the constitutio-
nalisation in transnational politics
(Bogdandy 2001a; 2001b; Cass 2001;
Wiener and Shaw 2003; Weiler and Wind
2003) as well as the legalisation of inter-
national politics (Goldstein et al. 2000;
cf. Finnemore and Toope 2001) demon-
strate. The assumption of norm stability
is problematic for research on norm res-
onance since norm change requires an
understanding about the mutual consti-
tution of practice and norms. In addi-
tion, it is necessary to mediate between
international and/or transnational con-
texts on one hand and domestic contexts
on the other. While current research on
norm validity focuses on argumentation
and bargaining during international
negotiation processes (Risse and Ulbert
2001; Müller 2001), the analysis of the
arguing process is not pursued any fur-
ther, e.g. into contested domestic con-
texts. It follows that norms which entail
little prescriptive standards such as so-
called thin norms will cause a broad
range of possible norm interpretations.
This enhanced range of norm interpreta-
tion may be conducive to creating a large
range of identification with the norm. In
turn, it may also imply conflicts between
norm expectation and norm substance.31
Norm research therefore needs to
address the validity assumption of norms
as well. In a given political context the
potential for norm legitimacy rises in
proportion to the norm addressees’ pos-
sibility to contest the meaning of the
norms (Habermas 1992; Tully 1995; 2002;
Joerges 2002). In other words, for a
robust assessment of politics beyond the
state the stability assumption of norms
as social facts which entail standardised
rules of behaviour cuts too short
(Finnemore and Sikkink 1998; Checkel
2001). After all, norms entail stable and
flexible qualities. That is, they are con-
structed through social interaction on
the one hand, and have a constitutive
impact on behaviour, on the other. This
dual quality of norms is documented by
interdisciplinary work bringing together
political science, law, sociology and cul-
tural studies which address the interrela-
tion between social practices, discourse,
norm emergence and change.
Three Perspectives on the
Social
Three questions are central for the
analysis of inter- or transnational political
processes. They entail, first, the question
about conflictive potential between dif-
ferent nationally constructed norms; sec-
ond, the question about the adaptation of
norms as part of transnational interac-
tion; and third, the question of domestic
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
266
Antje
Wiener
267
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
norm resonance. The following discusses
these three questions in their turn with
reference to the stations on the bridge
and the basic assumptions entailed in
each as they have been elaborated earlier.
To that end, a distinction between two
basically different approaches, namely
the compliance approach and the societal
approach to norms is helpful. Both
approaches have been put into perspec-
tive by a third approach which adds the
logic of arguing to norm research. The
compliance approach works largely with
the assumptions of the social ideas sta-
tion which is interested in the behaviour-
al impact of norms and rules as influential
social facts in international politics. The
arguing approach extends the social
ideas station towards the perspective of
legitimating norm choice through persua-
sion on the basis of argumentation, delib-
eration and participation. To that end, it
draws on political theory, legal theory and
political philosophy. Finally, the societal
approach works with elements of the
constitutive practices and the lan-
guage station, respectively. In addition it
takes up challenges which have been high-
lighted by the arguing approach such as the
interrelation between processes of legiti-
mation on different levels, the question
about the existence and construction of
life worlds above constitutional communi-
ties as well as safe-guarding the principle of
contestedness of rules and norms. It offers
the theoretical basis for working with the
dual quality of norms as constructed and
flexible on one hand, and as structuring
and stable on the other. This dual quality of
norms assumption thus offers a way out of
bracketing the process of norm emergence
and contestation by keeping the facticity-
validity tension which is a challenge for
research on norms.
With reference to the dual quality of
norms the difference between these three
approaches is summarised as follows.
First, the compliance approach is based
on the assumption of stability of norms.
That is, as social facts norms structure
behaviour. Actors follow the logic of
appropriateness. Second, the arguing
approach works with an extended con-
cept of compliance. That is, while norms
are perceived as stable, they acquire valid-
ity through the process of arguing. Norm
facticity follows the logic of arguing while
norm implementation follows the logic of
appropriateness. Third, the societal ap-
proach begins with the assumption of the
dual quality of norms. That is, the stabili-
ty of norms depends on the contestation
of norm validity as well as the meaning of
norms. While the validity of norms is
always in principle perceived as contest-
ed, norms are conceptualised as both
guiding as well as constituted through
social practices. Norm validity and mean-
ing are only accessible on the basis of the
principle of contestedness. The dual qual-
ity of norms hence works less with the
three core logics of action, i.e. consequen-
tialism, appropriateness and arguing, than
with reference to the principles of mutual
recognition and contestedness (Tully
1995; 2002; Wiener 2003b).
Conclusion
Based on the example of different
conceptualisations of norms this
article has discussed the extension
of constructivist research perspec-
tives in IR and their respective
assessment of the social and its
impact on politics beyond the state.
The mutual constitution of behaviour and
norm emergence which had achieved par-
ticular analytical clout with regime analy-
sis provided an important incentive for
the revision of rationalist research
approaches in IR. The discussion and sit-
uation of value-added of constructivist
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
research and theoretical debates in IR fol-
lows from this revision. In addition, it has
been demonstrated that, while there is an
overlap among different constructivist
strands about a shared interest in the
impact of the social in world politics, the
reconstruction of the substantive input
generated by the constructivist turn has
shed light on two largely exclusive
approaches. On one hand, (social) norms
are considered as constitutive and regula-
tive of behaviour. On the other hand, they
are conceptualised as evolving through
social interaction and interrelated with a
particular context.
The reconstruction of the construc-
tivist turn and its consequences has
demonstrated that, since the path-break-
ing emphasis on the incompatibility of
norms with a positivist research logic by
Kratochwil and Ruggie (1986) and a con-
structive development of this observation
by Wendt’s (1992) work on the emergence
of state identities, the reflexive under-
standing of the central role of interaction
(Giddens 1979; Wendt 1987) has increas-
ingly been bracketed by some construc-
tivist work. In the process, different con-
structivist strands have been forged. In
the end, this development brings back the
question about the research interest and
thus the research logic on which any
analysis is based (Cox 1983; Habermas
1985; Hollis and Smith 1990). While the
third debate in IR worked with the
assumption that the differences among
the various debaters were due to mutually
exclusive epistemological preferences,
the constructivist debate has — despite
all its theoretical shortcomings — con-
tributed to challenging this assumption.
The question remaining to be addressed
following this debate is, however, whether
or not it is acceptable to resort to analyti-
cal bracketing that conceptualises norms
as stable social facts, and whether indeed
this analytical move is conducive to fur-
ther development of research on norms
and their role in world politics. Certainly,
this bracketing remains an issue of con-
tention among constructivists. As the
dual quality of norms stationdemon-
strates, this place on the semi-circle rep-
resents the terrain where the two distinct
transdisciplinary efforts of developing an
assessment of the social based on socio-
logical theories meet. They include a
functional neo-Durkheimian perspective
on the structural impact of norms, on one
hand, and the reflexive Giddensian
assumption about the dual quality of
structure, on the other. As a result, two
principally opposed positions are up for
discussion. The first works with norms as
structural variables with a constitutive
impact on identity, the second works with
the mutual constitution of norms and
social practices. Both positions face each
other above the abyss of epistemological
ignorance that was to be crossed by the
bridge.
First version received: June 2003.
Final version accepted: August 2003.
Notes:
Antje Wiener is Professor of International
Relations and Jean Monnet Chair at the School of
Politics and International Studies, Queen’s Uni-
versity, Belfast.
Address: Antje Wiener, School of Politics and
International Studies, Queen’s University, 21 Uni-
versity Square, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland
[E-mail: a.wiener@qub.ac.uk].
1 This article’s core argument has been discussed in a
number of multi-national settings starting out as a
roundtable contribution on the subject of Con-
structivism and Its Critics with Michael Barnett and
Mark Pollack, Department of Political Science,
University of Wisconsin at Madison; the paper has sub-
sequently been presented at the colloquium European
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
268
Antje
Wiener
269
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
Integration/European Studies, Institute of Political
Science, University of Hannover, Germany; the
Colloquium Institutions and Social Change, Department
of Governance, University of Erfurt; the European
Integration/International Relations Colloquium, Institute
of European Studies, Queen’s University of Belfast, the
Department of Political Science and International
Studies Spring Seminar Series, University of
Birmingham; and the International Studies Asso-
ciation, Chicago 2001. I would like to thank all partici-
pants for their discussion of the paper. Special thanks
for detailed comments go to Emmanuel Adler, Karin
Fierke, Birgit Locher, Uwe Puetter, Guido Schwellnus,
Stefano Guzzini, James Davis, Thomas Risse, Jim Tully,
Klaus Dieter Wolf and three anonymous referees. The
responsibility for this version is the author’s.
2 For more detail of the debate over this triangle, also
see Waever (1997).
3 See Wendt’s observation that ‘perhaps the most
common interpretation of the dispute between
rationalists and constructivists is that it is about
ontology, about what kind of “stuff” the internation-
al system is made of’ (Wendt 1999:35).
4 For the semi-circle as the theoretical bridge, see
first Christiansen et al. (1999).
5 Also see Onuf’s (1989) early contribution to con-
structivism in IR.
6 For more detail on this distinction see (Wiener
2003a).
7 This argument has been further developed else-
where with reference to Habermas’ argument about
the facticity and validity of norms (Wiener 2003a).
While this article is not the place to elaborate on
this argument, it will be briefly summarised in the
fourth section.
8 Here cases in which the meaning of norms remains
unspecified hence offering little guidance and con-
siderable room for contestation, such as the case of
minority rights norms in the process of European
enlargement (Schwellnus 2001), are likely to present
invisible security risks.
9 It was strongly influenced by the discussion about
bargaining and arguing which was led in the 1990s in
German IR (Müller 1994; Risse 2000; Müller 2001).
10 See e.g. Curtin and Dekker (1999), Bogdandy
(2001a; 2001b), Cass (2001), Alston (2002), Peters-
mann (2002), and Weiler (2002).
11 See, for example, the debate led within the
German IR journal of international relations
Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) in
1994-1995 which was dubbed the “ZIB-Debate” and
which is well summarised by Risse (2000); also see
Christiansen et al. (1999), Diez (1999b), Moravcsik
(1999a; 1999b), Risse and Wiener (1999), Smith
(1999), Checkel and Moravcsik (2001), and Checkel
(2002); for a summary, see also Pollack (2000),
Guzzini and Leander (2001), and Adler (2002).
12 The reference here is to both the United States
and Canada.
13 For good summaries of the previous two debates
(1) between realists and idealists and (2) between tra-
ditionalists and behaviourists, respectively, see e.g.
Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (1996). On the third
debate, in particular see the summaries offered by
Whitworth (1989), Lapid (1989), and Waever (1996;
1997).
14 On the difference among constructivist positions
see e.g. Katzenstein et al. (1998:680) who note that
‘constructivist research is not cut from one cloth.’
Adler (1997:320) also comments that ‘there is very
little clarity and even less consensus as to it’s [con-
structivism’s] nature and substance.’
15 Also see Jepperson et al. (1996), Katzenstein et al.
(1998:679), and Wendt (1999).
16 For a different approach which keeps stressing
the question of epistemology, see Fierke and
Jørgensen (2001).
17 See on this observation, for example, the critical
appreciation of the structure-agency problem
offered by Bösche et al. (2003).
18 See Goffman (1974:21). Cf. Snow and Benford
(1992:137).
19 Note that the figure particularly simplifies the
pole positions for analytical reasons. On the Third
Debate, see among others Wendt (1999:38) who
finds that ‘the two sides are barely on speaking terms
today,’ as well as Waever’s (1997:22) finding about a
‘situation of war’ between the participants in this
debate.
20 On this type of empirical research, see in particular
work produced by scholars of the so-called Stanford
School around John Meyer including, among others,
Martha Finnemore, David Jacobson, George Thomas,
Ya semin Soysal, and Francisco Ramirez. For the
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
“world polity approach” of the Stanford School, see in
particular Thomas et al. (1987) as well as a brief sum-
mary by Boli and Thomas (1999) and an excellent
German summary by Wobbe (2000).
21 See, however, the constitutive practices sta-
tion for such a focus.
22 For the German debate among constructivists
and rationalists, see e.g. the rationalist contributions
by Zangl and Zürn (1995) as well as Keck (1997) and
the constructivist contributions by Müller (1994)
and Risse-Kappen (1995).
23 For summaries of the ZIB debate, see Müller
(1994), Risse-Kappen (1995), Schimmelfennig (1997),
and Risse (2000).
24 On the impact of reflexive sociology in IR, see in
particular Guzzini (2000).
25 See Wendt’s (1991:383) explanation of how to
apply ‘second order’ theories as follows: ‘The objec-
tive of this [second order] type of theorizing is also
to increase our understanding of world politics, but
it does so indirectly by focusing on the ontological
and epistemological issues of what constitute impor-
tant or legitimate questions and answers for IR
scholarship, rather than on the structure and
dynamics of the international system per se.’
26 Kratochwil (1989:4) defines contested quality of
IR concepts thus, ‘it is our present reality which is,
through the drifts of fundamental changes, out of
tune with our models and understandings. In this
context, material factors such as the changes in the
technology of destruction have to be noted, as have
changes in our ideas concerning issues of legitimacy,
sovereignty, governmental powers etc. Recovering
the original is, therefore, not an idle undertaking.
But understanding the “original” is only a first,
although indispensable, step. The second step
entails going beyond the conventional conceptual
divisions and their constitutive assumptions, and
casting a fresh and unobstructed look of how — in
the case of my research — norms and rules “work,”
i.e., what role they play in molding decisions.’
27 Thus, Risse’s (2000:7-9) summary of the ZIB
debate refers explicitly to Habermas’ reference to
Austin’s and Searle’s speech act theory as well as on
Kratochwil’s and Onuf’s crucial contributions to the
conception of language and its role in IR.
28 For the application of Wittgenstein’s speech act
theory in the security analysis, see e.g. Fierke (1998);
for the application of Foucault’s discourse theory,
see among others Doty (1997), Diez (1999a, 1999b),
and Milliken (1999).
29 Thus, Checkel (2001:583) maintains that ‘for a
norm to exist, it thus must embody clear prescrip-
tions, which provide guidance to agents as they
develop preferences and interests on an issue.’
30 On the analytical role and appreciation of life-
worlds in world politics, see Müller (2001).
31 On such a conflict about the validity of norms,
see, e.g. the example of Union citizenship in the
European Union (Wiener 2001).
References
ADLER, Emmanuel (1997): Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics. European Journal of
International Relations 3(3), 319-63.
ADLER, Emmanuel (2002) Constructivism in International Relations. In Walter CARLSNAES, Thomas RISSE
and Beth A. SIMMONS (eds) Handbook of International Relations, 95-117. London: Sage.
ALSTON, Philip (2002) Resisting the Merger and Acquisition of Human Rights by Trade Law: A Reply to
Petersmann. European Journal of International Law 13(4). Available at http://www.ejil.org/journal
/Vol13/No4/art2.html (5 March 2003).
BIERSTEKER, Thomas and Cynthia WEBER, eds (1996) State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
BOGDANDY, Armin von (2001a) Verfassungsrechtliche Dimensionen der Welthandelsorganisation. 1. Teil:
Entkopplung von Recht und Politik. Kritische Justiz 34(3), 264-81.
BOGDANDY, Armin von (2001b) Verfassungsrechtliche Dimensionen der Welthandelsorganisation. 2. Teil:
Neue Wege globaler Demokratie? Kritische Justiz 34(4), 425-41.
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
270
Antje
Wiener
271
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
BOLI, John and George M. THOMAS, eds (1999) Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental
Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
BÖRZEL, Tanja A. and Thomas RISSE (2001) “Die Wirkung internationaler Institutionen: Von der
Normanerkennung zur Normeinhaltung”. Bonn: reprints of the Max-Planck-Project Group Rights of
Community Goods, 2001/15.
BÖSCHE, Monika, Gunther HELLMANN and Wolfgang WAGNER (2003) “Accounting for Change in German
Foreign Policy. An Interactionist Model of Analysis”. Hofgeismar: paper presented at the workshop
Research Logic and Methods in International Relations and EU Research, 2-4 April.
BUZAN, Barry, Ole WAEVER and Jaap DE WILDE (1998) Security: A New Framework of Analysis. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
CASS, Deborah Z. (2001) The ‘Constitutionalization’ of International Trade Law: Judicial Norm-Generation
as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade. European Journal of International
Law 12(1), 39-75.
CHAYES, Abram and Antonia HANDLER CHAYES (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International
Regulatory Regimes. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.
CHECKEL, Jeffrey T. (1998) The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics 50(2),
324-48.
CHECKEL, Jeffrey T. (2001) Why Comply? Social Norms Learning and European Identity Change.
International Organization 55(3), 553-88.
CHECKEL, Jeffrey (2002) “Persuasion in International Institutions”. Oslo: ARENA, ARENA Working
Papers, 02/14. Available at http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp02_14.htm (20 August 2003).
CHECKEL, Jeffrey T. and Andrew MORAVCSIK (2001) A Constructivist Research Program in EU Studies?
European Union Politics 2(2), 219-49.
CHRISTIANSEN, Thomas, Knud Erik JØRGENSEN and Antje WIENER (1999) The Social Construction of
Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 6(4), 528-44.
CHRISTIANSEN, Thomas, Knud Erik JØRGENSEN and Antje WIENER (2001) The Social Construction of Europe.
London: Sage.
COX, Robert W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10(2), 126-55.
COX, Robert W. (1983) Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium:
Journal of International Studies 12(2), 162-77.
CURTIN, Deirdre and Ige DEKKER (1999) The EU as a ‘Layered’ International Organisation: Institutional
Unity in Disguise. In Deirdre CURTIN and Ige DEKKER (eds) The EU as a ‘Layered’ International
Organisation: Institutional Unity in Disguise, 83-136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DIEZ, Thomas (1999a) Die EU Lesen. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.
DIEZ, Thomas (1999b) Riding the AM-Track through Europe, Or, The Pitfalls of a Rationalist Journey
through European Integration. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 28(2) 355-69.
DOTY, Roxanne Lynn (1997) Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in
International Relations Theory. European Journal of International Relations 3(3), 365-92.
DOUGHERTY, James E. and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr. (1996) Contending Theories of International Relations. New
Yo rk: Longman.
FIERKE, Karin M. (1998) Changing Games, Changing Strategies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
FIERKE, Karin M. (2001) Critical Methodology and Constructivism. In Karin M. FIERKE and Knud Erik
JØRGENSEN (eds) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, 115-35. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
FIERKE, Karin. M. and Knud Erik JØRGENSEN, eds (2001) Constructing International Relations: The Next
Generation. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
FINNEMORE, Martha (1996) Norms, Culture and World Politics: Insights from Sociolog9s Institutionalism.
International Organization 50(2), 325-47.
FINNEMORE, Martha (2000) Are Legal Norms Distinctive? Journal of International Law & Politics 32(3), 699-
705.
FINNEMORE, Martha and Kathryn SIKKINK (1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.
International Organization 52(4), 887-917.
FINNEMORE, Martha and Stephen J. TOOPE (2001) Alternatives to ‘Legalization’: Richer Views of Law and
Politics. International Organization 55(3), 743-58.
FLYNN, Gregory and Henry FARRELL (1999) Piecing Together the Democratic Peace: The CSCE and the
‘Construction’ of Security in Post-Cold War Europe. International Organization 53(3), 505-35.
FRANCK, Thomas (1990) The Power of Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GIDDENS, Anthony (1979) Agency, Structure. In Anthony GIDDENS (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory,
49- 95. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
GOFFMAN, Erving (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper.
GOLDSTEIN, Judith and Robert O. KEOHANE (1993) Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In
Judith GOLDSTEIN and Robert O. KEOHANE (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy, 3-30. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
GOLDSTEIN, Judith, Miles KAHLER, Robert O. KEOHANE, and Anne-Marie SLAUGHTER (2000) Introduction:
Legalization and World Politics. International Organization 54(3), 385-99.
GUZZINI, Stefano (2000) AReconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of
International Relations 6(2), 147-82.
GUZZINI, Stefano and Anna LEANDER, eds (2001) Alexander Wendt’s Social Theory for International
Relations. Special Issue of Journal of International Relations and Development 4(4), 314-423.
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1985) Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
HABERMAS, Jürgen (1992) Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
HOPF, Ted (1998) The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security
23(1), 171-200.
HOLLIS, Martin and Steve SMITH (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
HUYSMANS, Jef (1998) Security! What do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier. European Journal of
International Relations 4(2), 226-55.
JEPPERSON, Ronald L., Alexander WENDT, Peter J. KATZENSTEIN (1996) Norms, Identity, and Culture in
National Security. In Peter J. KATZENSTEIN (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in
World Politics, 33-75. New York: Columbia University Press.
JOERGES, Christian (2002) “The Law in the Process of Constitutionalizing Europe”. Oslo: paper prepared for
the annual ARENAConference.
KATZENSTEIN, Peter (1993) Coping with Terrorism: Norms and Internal Security in Germany and Japan. In
Judith GOLDSTEIN and Robert O. KEOHANE (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy, 265-95. Ithaca; NY: Cornell
University Press.
KATZENSTEIN, Peter, Robert O. KEOHANE and Stephen D. KRASNER (1998) International Organization and
the Study of World Politics. International Organization 52(4), 645-85.
KECK, Margaret E. and Kathryn SIKKINK (1998) Activities Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
KECK, Otto (1997) Zur sozialen Konstruktion des Rational-Choice-Ansatzes. Zeitschrift für internationale
Beziehungen 4(1), 139-52.
KEOHANE, Robert O. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32(4),
379-96.
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
272
Antje
Wiener
273
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
KLOTZ, Audie (2001) Can We Speak a Common Constructivist Language? In Karin M. FIERKE and Knud
Erik JØRGENSEN (eds) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, 223-35. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
KOH, Harold Hongju (1997) Why do Nations Obey International Law? Review Essay. The Yale Law Journal
106, 2599- 659.
KOSLOWSKI, Rey and Friedrich KRATOCHWIL (1994) Understanding Change in International Politics: The
Soviet Empire’s Demise and the International System. International Organization 48(2), 215-47.
KOSLOWSKI, Rey and Friedrich KRATOCHWIL (1995) Understanding Change in International Politics: The
Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System. In Richard Ned LEBOW and Thomas RISSE-
KAPPEN (eds) International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War, 127-65. New York: Columbia
University Press.
KOWERT, Paul and Jeffrey LEGRO (1996) Norms, Identity, and Their Limits: ATheoretical Reprise. In Peter J.
KATZENSTEIN (ed.) The Culture of National Security, 451-97. New York: Columbia University Press.
KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich (1984) The Force of Prescriptions. International Organization 38(4), 685-708.
KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich V. (1989) Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning
in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich and John G. RUGGIE (1986) International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art
of the State. International Organization 40(4), 753-75.
LAPID, Yosef (1989) The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-positivist Era.
International Studies Quarterly 33(3), 235-54.
LIESE, Andrea (2001) Staaten am Pranger. Zur Wirkung internationaler Regime auf die innerstaatliche
Menschenrechtspolitik. University of Bremen: Department of Political Science, unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation.
LOCHER, Birgit (2002) Trafficking in Women in the European Union: A Norm-based Constructivist Approach.
University of Bremen: Department of Political Science, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
MARCH, James G. and Johan P. OLSEN (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics. New
York: Free Press.
MARCH, James G. and Johan P. OLSEN (1998) The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.
International Organization 52(4), 943-69.
MILLIKEN, Jennifer (1999) The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and
Methods. European Journal of International Relations 5(2), 225-54.
MORAVCSIK, Andrew (1999a) ‘Is Something Rotten in the State of Denmark?’ Constructivism and European
Integration. Journal of European Public Policy 6(4), 669-81.
MORAVCSIK, Andrew (1999b) The Future of European Integration Studies: Social Science or Social Theory.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 28(2), 371-91.
MÜLLER, Harald (1994) Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaris-
tischen Handlungstheorien. Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen 2(2), 371-91.
MÜLLER, Harald (2001) International Relations as Communicative Action. In Karin M. FIERKE and Knud
Erik JØRGENSEN (eds) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, 160-78. Armonk, NY: M.
E. Sharpe.
OLSEN, Johan P. (2002) Reforming European Institutions of Governance. Journal of Common Market Studies
40(4), 581-602.
ONUF, Nicholas Greenwood (1989) World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International
Relations. New York: Columbia University Press.
PETERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich (2002) Time for a United Nations ‘Global Compact’ for Integrating Human Rights
into the Law of Worldwide Organisations: Lessons from European Integration. European Journal of
International Law 13(3). Available at http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol13/No13/art11.html (20 August 2003).
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
POLLACK, Mark (2000) “International Relations Theory and European Integration”. Florence: EUI Working
Papers, RSC No. 2000/55.
RATNER, Steven R. (2000) Does International Law Matter in Preventing Ethnic Conflict? Journal of
International Law and Politics 32(3), 591-698.
RISSE, Thomas (2000) ‘Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization
54(1), 1-39.
RISSE, Thomas and Stephen C. ROPP (1999) International Human Rights Norms and Domestic Change:
Conclusions. In Thomas RISSE, Stephen ROPP and Kathryn SIKKINK (eds) The Power of Human Rights:
International Norms and Domestic Change, 234-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RISSE, Thomas, Stephen ROPP and Kathryn SIKKINK,eds (1999) The Power of Human Rights: International
Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RISSE, Thomas and Antje WIENER (1999) Something Rotten and the Social Construction of Social
Constructivism: A Comment on Comments. Journal of European Public Policy 6(5), 775-82.
RISSE, Thomas and Cornelia ULBERT (2001) “Arguing and Persuasion in Multilateral Negotiations:
Theoretical Approach and Research Design”. Canterbury: University of Kent, paper prepared for pre-
sentation at the ECPR/ISA Joint Workshops.
RISSE-KAPPEN, Thomas (1995) Reden ist nicht billig. Zur Debatte um Kommunikation und Rationalität.
Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen 2(1), 171-84.
RUGGIE, John Gerard (1998a) Constructing the World Polity. London: Routledge.
RUGGIE, John Gerard (1998b) What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social
Constructivist Challenge. International Organization 52(4), 855-85.
SCHIMMELFENNIG, Frank (1997) Rhetorisches Handeln in der internationalen Politik. Zeitschrift für interna-
tionale Beziehungen 4(2), 219-54.
SCHIMMELFENNIG, Frank (2001) The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern
Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55(1), 47-80.
SCHIMMELFENNIG, Frank and Ulrich SEDELMEIER, eds (2002) European Union Enlargement: Theoretical and
Comparative Approaches. Special Issue of Journal of European Public Policy 9(4), 499-665.
SCHWELLNUS, Guido (2001) Much Ado About Nothing?: Minority Protection and the EU Charter
of Fundamental Rights. Constitutionalism Web-Papers (ConWEB), No. 5/2001. Available at
http://www.les1.man.ac.uk/conweb/papers/conweb5-2001.pdf (20 August 2003).
SIKKINK, Kathryn (1993) The Power of Principled Ideas: Human Rights Policies in the United States and
Western Europe. In Judith GOLDSTEIN and Robert O. KEOHANE (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy, 139 -70.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
SMITH, Steve (1999) Social Constructivism and European Studies: A Reflectivist Critique. Journal of European
Public Policy 6(4), 682-91.
SNOW, David A. and Robert D. BENFORD (1992) Master Frames and Cycles of Protest. In Aldon D. MORRIS
and Carol MULLER MCCLURG (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, 133-55. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
STEWART, Patrick (2001) The Evolution of International Norms: Choice, Learning, Power, and Identity. In
Wil liam R. THOMPSON (ed.) Evolutionary Interpretations of World Politics, 133-74. London: Routledge.
TILLY, Charles, ed. (1995) Citizenship, Identity and Social History. Amsterdam: Cambridge University Press.
TILLY, Charles (1998) Social Movements and (all Sorts of) Other Political Interactions — Local, National,
and International — Including Identities. Theory and Society 27, 453-80.
THOMAS, George M., John MEYER, Francisco O. RAMIREZ and John BOLI (1987) Institutional Structure:
Constituting State, Society, and the Individual. Beverly Hills: Sage.
TULLY, James (1995) Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press.
274
Antje
Wiener
275
Constructivism:
The Limits of
Bridging Gaps
Journal of International Relations and Development 6(September 2003)3
TULLY, James (2002) The Unfreedom of the Moderns in Comparison to their Ideals of Constitutionalism
and Democracy. The Modern Law Review 65(2), 204-28.
WAEVER, Ole (1996) The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate. In Steve SMITH, Ken BOOTH and
Marysia ZALEWSKI (eds) International Theory: Positivism & Beyond, 149-185. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
W
AEVER, Ole (1997) Figures of International Thought: Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms. In Iver B.
NEUMANN and Ole WAEVER (eds) The Future of International Relations, 1-37. London: Routledge.
WALTZ, Kenneth N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
WEILER, Joseph H. H. (1999) The Constitution of Europe: ‘Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?’ and Other
Essays on European Integration. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
WEILER, Joseph H. H., ed. (2002) The EU, The WTO and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of
International Trade. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WEILER, Joseph H. H. and Marlene WIND, eds (2003) European Constitutionalism Beyond the State.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WENDT, Alexander E. (1987) The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International
Organization 41(3), 335-70.
WENDT, Alexander (1991) Bridging the Theory/Meta-theory Gap in International Relations. Review of
International Studies 17(4), 383-92.
WENDT, Alexander (1992) Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.
International Organization 46(2), 391-426.
WENDT, Alexander (1998) On Constitution and Causation in International Relations. In Tim DUNNE, Mick
COX and Kenneth BOOTH (eds) The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations 19 19 -1 9 9 9 , 101-118.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WENDT, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WHITWORTH, Sandra (1989) Gender and the Inter-Paradigm Debate. Millennium: Journal of International
Studies 18(2), 265-72.
WIENER, Antje (2001) Zur Verfassungspolitik jenseits des Staates: Die Vermittlung von Bedeutung am
Beispiel der Unionsbürgerschaft. Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen 8(1), 73-104.
WIENER, Antje (2003a) “The Dual Quality of Norms: Stability and Flexibility”. Aix-en-Province: paper pre-
pared for presentation at the conference International Norms for the 21st Century, 11-14 September.
WIENER, Antje (2003b) “Towards a Transnational Nomos: The Role of Institutions in the Process of
Constitutionalization”. New York: NYU Law School, Jean Monnet Working Paper Series.
WIENER, Antje and Jo SHAW, eds (2003) Evolving Norms of Constitutionalism. Special Issue of European
Law Journal 9(3), 1-124.
WOBBE, Theresa (2000) Weltgesellschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript.
ZANGL, Bernhard and Michael ZÜRN (1995) Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhandlungen:
Moderate Anmerkungen zur post-realistischen Debatte. Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen 3(2) 341-
66.
ZEHFUSS, Maja (2001) Constructivism in International Relations: Wendt, Onuf, and Kratochwil. In Karin M.
FIERKE and Knud Erik JØRGENSEN (eds) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, 54-75.
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
ZÜRN, Michael (1997) ‘Positives Regieren’ jenseits des Nationalstaates: Zur Implementation internationaler
Umweltregime. Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen 4(1), 41-68.
ZÜRN, Michael and Dieter WOLF (1999) European Law and International Regimes: The Features of Law
Beyond the Nation State. European Law Journal 5(3), 272- 92.
