缅甸人民在2003年至2012年的民主化期间遭受了三大人权灾难：2007年的藏红花革命、2008年纳尔吉斯飓风的余波，以及2012年若开邦骚乱，后者将演变为持续的罗辛亚危机。在这些事件中，缅甸政府被明确列为侵犯人权者，三个强大的东南亚成员国——印度尼西亚、泰国和马来西亚——对侵犯人权行为的反应截然不同。在每一种情况下，他们对危机的反应都明显受到规范冲突的影响，这可能被理解为国际和国内规范之间的紧张关系。他们的反应是因为需要解决国内和国际上对遵守人权保护和不干涉内政的规范的相互矛盾的期望。
在《冲突中的规范：东南亚对缅甸侵犯人权行为的回应》一书中，Anchale Rüland解释了当一个治理机构面临与自身治理政策一致或相反的情况时，国家采取的行动。她定义了五种不同类型的应对规范冲突的策略，并考察了导致每种策略的有利因素。众所周知，随着一个国家的价值观随着时间的推移而变化，国内规范也在不断演变，但吕兰认为，新旧规范也可能共存；对于那些寻求对国家行为有坚实理解的人来说，了解潜在的政治背景至关重要。冲突中的规范挑战了对决定国家行为的后果逻辑的传统理解，推动了建构主义理论，并在国际关系话语中建立了一个具有挑衅性的新对话。
Norms in Conflict: Southeast Asia’s Response to Human Rights Violations in Myanmar
The people of Myanmar were struck by three major human rights disasters during the country’s period of democratization from 2003 to 2012: the 2007 Saffron Revolution, the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, and the 2012 Rakhine riots, which would evolve into the ongoing Rohingya crisis. These events saw Myanmar’s government categorically labeled as an offender of human rights, and three powerful Southeast Asian member states―Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia―responded to the violations in very different ways. In each case, their responses to the crises were explicitly shaped by norm conflict, which may be understood as a tension between international and domestic norms. Their reactions were compelled by a need to address conflicting domestic and international expectations for norm compliance regarding human rights protection and non-interference in internal affairs.
In Norms in Conflict:Southeast Asia’s Response to Human Rights Violations in Myanmar, Anchalee Rüland makes sense of state action that occurs when a governing body is faced with a circumstance that is at once in line with and contrary to its own governing policies. She defines five different types of response strategies to situations of norm conflict and examines the enabling factors that lead to each strategy. Domestic norms are known to evolve as a country’s values change over time yet Rüland argues that the old and new norms may also coexist; knowledge of the underlying political context is crucial for those seeking a solid understanding of state behavior. Norms in Conflict challenges the conventional understanding of the logic of consequences in determining state behavior, advancing constructivist theory and establishing a provocative new conversation in international relations discourse.
OR
