Description
Universality – the notion of one set of rules or principles applying to all – has assumed an uncomfortable new prominence in world politics. The globalisation and transnationalisation of international society, coupled with global power shifts, reveal a normative diversity that challenges the very idea of a universal order of humankind. Starting from the assumption that universality and normative diversity are co-constitutive rather than incompatible, the paper explores how diverse actors cope with and contest universalised norms in a world shaped by diversity. We propose a three-dimensional theoretical framework of contestation that brings together critical-constructivist norm research, English School theory, and international practice theory to analyse how the notion of a universal global order becomes fragile when local meanings interact with universalised norms. Zooming in on the micro-scale of three different global governance institutions that are heavily confronted with co-constituting diversity and universality – the Arctic Council, the International Criminal Court, and the UN Security Council – we show how actors cope with normative diversity, deploying practices of both reactive and proactive contestation through which universalised rules, ideas or principles are objected to, critically questioned, and/or adapted.
