Publication

This paper examines whether different forms of international norm contestation in international relations research can have a strengthening or weakening effect on such norms. To do this, the authors first distinguish two types of norm contestation, based on a discourse theory of law and normativity. They then analyze contestation discourses surrounding the responsibility to protect and the 1982 whaling ban. They contend that, while the responsibility to protect highlights the typical strengthening effects of applicatory discourses on norms, contestation around the whaling ban shifted from applicatory to justificatory discourses, increasingly weakening the validity of the norm.