The rationale is to address inconsistencies and ambiguities in the terminology and measures of norm strength in international relations. The paper aims to provide a systematic way to assess and compare norms, which has been lacking in previous research.
The purpose is to introduce a conceptual framework for defining and assessing norm strength, using two indicators: the level of international concordance with a principled idea and the degree of international institutionalization of that idea.
The argument is that norm strength can be systematically assessed and that this assessment can advance understanding of norm development, contestation, and erosion. The paper proposes a method to distinguish between norms and principled ideas and evaluates the strength of transitional justice norms.
The empirical issue examined is the strength of two transitional justice norms: the norm of legal accountability and the norm of truth-seeking. The paper analyzes the variations over time in these norms’ strength and demonstrates that legal accountability is a strong norm, while truth-seeking remains a weak norm.
The framework builds on the definition of international norms as collective expectations for proper behavior. It proposes two indicators for norm strength: international concordance and international institutionalization. The framework aims to provide clear definitions and measures to assess norm strength systematically.
