Description
Contributing to the study of domestic and international strategies used by states and non-state actors to resist norm diffusion and erode internalization, this paper explores the phenomenon of “norm immunization” – i.e. the creation of legal barriers by a state with the purpose of fending off a transnationally diffusing norm by blocking its local advocacy. Under what conditions is norm immunization likely to occur and succeed? The paper identifies a critical condition for norm immunization in the area of human rights; namely, the discursive construction of certain rights as existential threats to the state’s collective identity. The main argument is that the ontological securitization of certain human rights alters the incentive structure faced by domestic political actors, increasing the political cost of moderation and thus unleashing a “race to the bottom” in policy preferences which results in political support for laws that immunize the state against contested human rights. Backed up by primary legal and parliamentary sources as well as interviews, the theory presented proves useful to understand the seven immunization attempts against SOGI rights identified in 2005-2015, as well as to explain why some of these attempts succeeded (Lithuania, Nigeria, Russia and Uganda) and why the others failed (Hungary, Moldova and Ukraine).
