Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
QUESTION 1: To what extent do this week's readings persuade you that norms do
make a difference to behavior in the area of civilian victimization? In your answer,
please be concrete and make clear whether you're referring to theoretical reasoning
or to empirical evidence. (Keep in mind that if you're skeptical about the impact of
norms you should offer some alternative explanation(s) for empirical patterns
observed in these readings.)
This weeks readings showed me that while norms influence the decision making
process of states that choose to victimize civilians, they dont significantly deter or
encourage whether or not the state chooses to victimize the civilians. Rather, they
affect the way this victimization is planned for and expressed, but dont change
whether or not it will occur. Instead, Legro and Kahl specifically highlight the role of
organizational culture and the integration of norms into the organizational culture
as the real determinants of whether or not norms such as civilian victimization will
be broken. To answer this question, Ill mainly look at the empirical evidence
In the case of Germany, even though the historical backdrop of Germany being
severely punished for their submarine warfare in WWI, as well as the strong overall
robustness of the submarine warfare norm, Germany still violated the norm. Legro
attributes this to the tendency for the organizational culture of Germanys military
aggression. Legro explains that not only does this culture explain the violation of the
submarine norm, but also why Germany would choose to comply with the chemical
On the side of Britain, Legro argues that there are multiple aspects of both national
chose to adhere to the submarine warfare norm but broke the strategic bombing
norm. First of all, Britain was one of the strongest proponents of the anti-submarine
warfare norm, and therefore not only had a national reputation, but also the
considerations of third parties when deciding whether or not to violate the norm in
of their high-seas navy, which not the military not only prided itself in, but was also
very vulnerable to submarines. Due to this, Britain had a strong incentive to push for
the submarine norm as well as not violate it and risk retaliation from Germany onto
its above-water navy. However, Britain historically had success with strategic
bombings into order to demoralize their enemies, and there was therefore a strong
In Kahl, the article examines U.S. military conduct during the Iraq war, and explains
why the U.S. actually complies with the noncombatant immunity norm much more
than international critics believe it to. However, Kahl attributes the success of this
norm not due to the salience of the norm itself, but due to the decision by the U.S.
military to integrate the values of the norm into its organizational culture. If it were
the robustness of the norm alone that dictated its success, then civilian deaths
would have been lower overall. However, when examining the data from IBC and
Brookings, the U.S. military actions only accounted for ~10% of civilian deaths in
Iraq up to 2006. In reality, the organizational structure of the U.S. military greatly
measures such as approved target lists, specialized weaponry, and an extensive list
Additionally, the Law of War, or the concept of just war greatly influenced the U.S.
concrete than a norm. Through this, the U.S. had to follow the four tenets of just war,
Kahl also analyzes the culture of the U.S. military, which was known as the
force in order to defeat opponents, which has lead to mistakes when the U.S.
transitioned into COIN operations which involve a lot more civilians. This shift in the
preservation has lead not to intentional civilian targeting, but more collateral
damage than necessary. However, Kahl illustrates multiple ways that the U.S. has
norm has actually increased over time. Additionally, the U.S. campaign in Iraq has
the fewest civilian deaths of any U.S. campaign in the last century, and fewer deaths
Chechnya.
2) What were the most promising explanations you came across in this week's
readings for variation in norm compliance? Explain.
Most compelling to me is the idea that organizational structure/culture most
and laid out in the Legro article, through the table comparing norm robustness,
organization tendencies, and outcomes. In many cases, the robustness of the norm
would have indicated adherence, or the weakness of a norm would have indicated
WEEK 11 ASSIGNMENT DANIKA LI 4
violation. However, Legro illustrates that its largely due to the organizational
culture of a countrys military, and not norm robustness, or national regime type
Additionally, Morrow brings in the analysis on the role of treaties instead of norms
not norms. What I really like about Morrows analysis is that the article goes
side. It highlights concretely the effect of joint ratification on both democracies and
heavily to either end of the spectrum. In Morrows article, the role of being a
this seems to be in conflict with Legros explanation, which discounts regime type in
the case of Germany complying with CW and the U.S. violating submarine warfare. I
think ultimately, a robust explanation can integrate the two, where military
organizational culture can be somewhat influenced by the regime type, but military
culture ultimately supersedes national culture or regime type due to the things