Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Responsibility to Protect and Theorising Normative Change in International Organisations: From Weber to the Sociology of Professions

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Global Responsibility to Protect

How does normative change occur in international organisations (IOs)? The literature has theorised IO behaviour as being a consequence of the interest of powerful states, or has applied concepts borrowed from organisational sociology related to bureaucratic dysfunction, such as ‘dysfunctional behaviour’, ‘pathologies’, or ‘organised hypocrisy’. This article argues that using the sociology of professions can augment constructivist theorising of IO behaviour and offer a better understanding of normative change in IOs. The evolving norm of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has a significant impact on how the UN supports and intervenes in member states, and on the core principle of sovereignty in the international system. By examining the R2P concept and process, this article shows how key donor states, think tanks, and academic institutions have, together with the UN, pushed for R2P, effectively driving normative change in the international system. Such change is seen not solely as a top–down function of state interests, but as also a bottom–up process driven by advocacy and support from key donor states, think tanks, and academic circles. Further, for grasping how norms develop, a constructivist framework influenced by the sociology of professions appears better suited than existing constructivist frameworks.

Affiliations: 1: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs/University of Warwick,


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Global Responsibility to Protect — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation