Paper and Poster Presentation at ISA Annual Convention 2012 in San Diego
Sunday, 1 April 2012 1:45 PM
Poster Session: Security, Human Rights and the War on Terror
A coalition of norm challengers? Comparing official counter-terror
argumentation in the US, the EU and Russia
Abstract: In the paper, we investigate the role of normative
argumentation pursued by governmental actors in counterterrorism. We
analyze and compare argumentative structures and frames put forward in
the US, the EU and in Russia in support of counterterrorist measures
that conflict with human rights. We are interested in giving answers to
the following questions: In what way do governmental actors use language
in order to justify measures detrimental to human rights? How do
governmental actors rhetorically and argumentatively create acceptance
for norm-violating policies? What are the broader consequences of
normative argumentation in this field? Drawing on contestation
literature, securitization theory and convergence theory, we argue that
the more similar the arguments and justification patterns in these three
jurisdictions are, the more pressure is put on the validity of
established human rights norms. The cross-country analysis aims at
identifying whether a ‘coalition of norm challengers’ has emerged in the
field of counterterrorism. The comparison of the justification
discourse, more precisely the arguments and frames, in three
jurisdictions reveals a series of similarities that might warrant the
assumption about the existence of such a coalition.
Workshop
The ‘dark’ side of normative argumentation in counterterrorism: issues – actors – consequences
18-19 November 2011
IFSH Hamburg/Germany
The post 9/11 threat environment has allowed for certain counter-terrorism measures to assert themselves to the detriment of a series of established human rights and civil liberties. While the element of exceptionality has previously led to temporary legislative relaxation, there is reason to believe that the current counter-terrorism political agenda has the potential of effectively altering the human rights normative regime worldwide. The workshop aims at bringing together established scholars in the fields of critical terrorism studies, securitisation, normative change and discourse analysis, all at the basis of the project theoretical framework, in order to promote academic exchange and networking.
Regina Heller: The "dark" side of normative argumentation, presentation at the Annual Conference of the German Standing Group on Peace and Conflict Research (AFK), 7-9 April 2011 in Villigst.
The presentation outlined the theoretical framework of the research project. On the background of the post-9/11 environment, policy developments in the field of counter-terrorism took place, whereby state actors in many instances and in different parts of the world decided to give security and counterterrorism measures priority over human rights and fundamental freedoms. In order to legitimize their policy choices, governmental actors used ‘normative argumentation’ to redefine what is ‘appropriate’ to ensure security. In the long run, this might lead to a setback dynamic hollowing out established human and civil rights norms. The theoretical framework of the project is oriented along the lines of the normative ‘life cycle’ model, in order to trace ‘bad norm’ dynamics in the field of counter-terrorism. We conceptualised the norm erosion process, particularly focusing on arguments put forward by governmental ‘norm challengers’ and their attempts to create new meaning and understanding. We then drew on convergence theory and argued that when a coalition of ’norm challengers’ has developed, using the same or similar patterns of arguments, established international normative orders protecting human rights and civil liberties might be weakened over time and a more fundamental process of norm erosion could take place.
Panel at the 2011 ISA (International Studies Association) Annual Convention in Montreal
FC58: Friday 18 March 1:45 PM ‐ 3:30 PM
Subjecting Freedom: Counterterrorism vs. Human Rights
Chair Martin Kahl, IFSH at the University of Hamburg
Disc. Richard D. Wells Jackson, Aberystwyth University
Papers:
- Construction of the Savage Islamist Other in the War on Terror Discourse
Corinna Mullin: University of London
- Why Do Governments Respond to Terrorism with Repression?
James Walsh: University of North Carolina Charlotte
James A. Piazza: The Pennsylvania State University
- The European Union and the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights in the Fight against Transnational Terrorism
Franz J. Eder: University of Innsbruck
- Risk, Human Rights and the Bureacratisation of Counter‐ Terrorism
Ken McDonagh: Dublin City University
Yee Kuang Heng: University of St Andrews
More Security for Less Liberty? Arguing for Counterterrorism Measures: A Comparative Study
Daniela I. Pisoiu: IFSH at the University of Hamburg
Panel contribution at the Yearly Colloquium 2011 Power in Conflicts-Power of Conflicts (Macht in Konflikten – Macht von Konflikten) of the German Association for Peace and Conflict Studies (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung)
7 – 9 April 2011 at the Evangelic Academy Villigst
Panel title: The Power of Meaning
Paper abstract:
Regina Heller/Martin Kahl/Daniela Pisoiu
Die „dunkle Seite“ normativen Argumentierens
In den vergangenen zehn Jahren hat sich in der Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen die Untersuchung von Überzeugungs- und Rechtfertigungsargumenten als Gegenstand der Forschung etabliert. Hierbei hat immer auch die Frage nach der Generierung und dem Wandel von Normen als Folge diskursiver Auseinandersetzungen eine wesentliche Rolle gespielt. Die meisten der Untersuchungen hierzu haben sich mit der Etablierung einer menschenrechtsfördernden normativen Ordnung und ihrer Stabilisierung auf der internationalen und nationalen Ebene beschäftigt. Im Zuge der Intensivierung der Terrorismus¬be¬kämpfung nach dem 11. September 2001 ist jedoch eine ganze Reihe von Maßnahmen ergriffen worden, die mit zuvor kaum für möglich gehaltenen Einschränkungen von Menschen- und Bürgerrechten einhergehen. Der Beitrag erläutert diese und weist auf die Notwendigkeit hin, auch Prozesse der Normerosion untersuchen. Er fragt danach, wie sogenannte „norm challengers“ international verbriefte und national etablierte Normen durch die sprachliche Konstruktion und Rekonstruktion von Sinn- und Bedeutungszusammenhängen zu unterminieren versuchen.
USA: George W. Bush’s memoirs re-open the torture debate
www.mirror.co.uk
EU: Downing Street dismisses the legality of waterboarding
www.guardian.co.uk
USA: George W. Bush discusses the use of waterboarding during his mandate
www.washingtonpost.com
USA & EU: After bombs were found in air cargo bound for the US, the Department of Homeland Security tightened restrictions on air shipments from Yemen and Somalia. The package bombs also provoked debates on air freight security in the EU. Germany is one of the initiators of a EU-wide plan to improve cargo screening and drawing up a blackist of “unsecure” airports.
www.dw-world.de
www.washingtonpost.com
http://edition.cnn.com
www.sfgate.com
www.euractiv.com
An additional debate on enforced airport security was provoked by the extraordinary case of a Chinese travelling to Canada carefully concealed as an old man.
www.cbc.ca
USA: USA submits for the first time its human rights record to the UN Human Rights Council
www.washingtonpost.com
www.reuters.com
Russian Federation: counter-terrorism efforts are considered little effective. The government now plans to enforce legislation and to introduce a colour-code system to tackle terrorist threats.
www.neurope.eu
http://in.reuters.com
EU: UK military interrogation manual raises legality questions on interrogation and detention techniques
/www.guardian.co.uk
USA: leaked documents show torture and abuse in Iraq
www.independent.co.uk
USA: draft legislation to increase government leverage over carriers and web services to optimise wiretapping
www.observer.com
www.nytimes.com
