University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2014 The aG me Changer: How the P5 Caused a Paradigm Shift in orN m Diffusion Post-9/11 Catherine Moore University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine Moore, The Game Changer: How the P5 Caused a Paradigm Shift ni Norm Diffusion Post-9/11, 55 Virginia Journal of International Law 187 (2014). Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac/975 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 55 Va. J. Int'l L. 187 2014-2015 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Fri Jan 20 08:26:11 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information I COMMENTARY The Game Changer: How the P5 Caused a Paradigm Shift in Norm Diffusion Post-9/11 CATHERINE MOORE* This Commentagy recognizes a policy shift across nations of favoring national security over human rights and argues that smaller states were influenced by the ky international decision makers, the Permanent Five Members (P5)of the United Nations Security Council, via norm diffusion. In doing so, it offers an alternative theory for how and why human rights norms have consistenty been violated in the pursuit of security. Oppressive regimes have used the term "counterterrorism" or "nationalsecurity" to justif rights violations because they see larger powers allowing these violations. This Commentary contends that the P5 are responsible for beginning this phenomenon and in doing so created a paradigmshift in the tpes of norms that are diffusedglobaly, resulting in "negative norm diffusion." In troductio n .......................................................................................................189 I. A Theoretical Framework for Negative Norm Diffusion: Viewing Counterterrorism and Human Rights Through the Lens of Norm D iffu sion ............................................................................................................ 19 3 * Coordinator for International Law Programs, Center for International and Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law; LL.M, University of Virginia; LL.M. in International and European Law, Universit6 de Paris Nanterre Ouest La Defense; LL.B with Maitrise in English and French Law, University of Essex; B.A in Romance Languages (French and Italian), University of Georgia. The author began producing this Commentary while a University of Virginia L.L.M. student and has completed it as a University of Baltimore staff member. In addition to discussing a similar topic at the Virginia Journal of IntenationalLaw-J.B. Moore Society of International Law Symposium, the author presented this Commentary at the American Society of International Law Mid-Year Meeting and Research Forum on November 2, 2013, under the title "The World Spins Madly On - How the P5 Caused a Shift in Norm Diffusion." The author would like to thank Katerina iUnos (moderator), Suzanne Katzenstein (co-panelist), Sahib Singh (co-panelist), Andrew Guzman, Kirsten Bookmiller, and the rest of the attendees of the "International Law and Cooperation" panel at the Forum for their valuable feedback and critique. Emiliana Versteeg provided continuous support of this Commentary and the writing process. Thanks also to Deena Hurwitz, Bonnie Latreille, Matthew Gill, Alec Knight, Jennifer Marett, Sebastian Valencia, and Ana Maria Ibarra for feedback during the initial drafting phase. Any further errors are the author's own. 188 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 55:1 A. Relationship Between Counterterrorism Measures and H um an Rights ............................................................................................... 193 B. Norm Diffusion in International Relations Theory ........................... 197 1. Ways in W hich N orm s Diffuse ......................................................... 197 2. Types of N orm s D iffused ................................................................. 200 3. Forum s for N orm D iffusion ............................................................. 201 C. Role of the P5 and Security Council in Norm Diffusion ................. 202 1. The P5 and Security Council Are Norm Diffusers ....................... 202 2. Types of Norms Diffused by the P5 and the Council .................. 203 D. Negative Norm Diffusion - The Paradigm Shift ............................ 204 1. Theory of N egative N orm D iffusion .............................................. 204 2. Negative Norm Diffusion, Counterterrorism Measures, and H um an Rights .......................................................................................... 207 II. Empirical Research Framework: Finding Evidence of Negative Norm D iffusion ............................................................................................................ 209 III. Findings: Negative Norm Diffusion, Counterterrorism, & Human Rights .................................................................................................................. 211 A. The P5 as Individual Norm Entrepreneurs ........................................ 211 1. Freedom of Speech ............................................................................ 211 a. U nited States ........................................................................................ 211 b. U nited K ingdom ................................................................................ 213 c. France ....................................................................................................214 d. Russia .................................................................................................... 216 e. China ..................................................................................................... 217 2. A rbitrary D etention ............................................................................ 218 a. U nited States ........................................................................................ 218 b. United K ingdom ................................................................................. 221 c.France ....................................................................................................223 d. Russia .................................................................................................... 224 e. China ..................................................................................................... 224 3. Torture .................................................................................................. 226 a. U nited States ........................................................................................ 226 b. U nited Kingdom ................................................................................. 228 c. France .................................................................................................... 230 d. Russia .................................................................................................... 231 e. China .........................................232 B. The Broad Reach of the UN Security Council: Coercion Turns to Emulation and "Sm art" Learning .............................................................. 233 1. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 - A Coercive Move by the Security Council ....................................................................................... 234 a. Aims of the Resolution to Counter Terrorism ............................... 234 b. Lack of H um an Rights Protection ................................................... 236 2014] P5 PARADIGM SHIFT IN NORM DIFFUSION POST-9/11 189 2. 2011 Global Survey on the Implementation of UNSCR 1373 - Evidence of Emulation and Learning .................................................. 237 C. The Influence of the P5 on Other States' Counterterrorism Measures - A Story of Coercion, Emulation, and "Smart" Learning .........................................................................................................................23 8 1. Bosnia-Herzegovina - Arbitrary Detention ................................. 240 2. Macedonia - Complicity in Torture ............................................... 240 3. Somalia - Secret Detention Sites .................................................... 242 4. Sweden - Forced Repatriation to Torture ..................................... 243 5. Turkey - Restricting Speech and Expression ............................... 244 6. Zimbabwe - Using Anti-Terrorism Legislation to Silence Political O p p o sitio n ................................................................................................ 246 7. Yemen - Coercion to Arbitrary Detention ................................... 248 D. The Far-Reaching Influence of the P5 on Post-1373 States and Non- M ember States ............................................................................................