The Meaning(s) of Norms in a Post-Hegemonic World: Bringing Ambiguity and Polysemy into Global Governance Research

The transition to a post-hegemonic world order is associated with increased norm polysemy, i.e. a pluralization of norm interpretations by international actors. While this trend is a cause for concern for most observers, who fear that unclear norm meanings undermine compliance, we advance a more qualified view. Proceeding from the assumption that norm polysemy is deeply rooted in structural ambiguities of international society, we suggest that polysemy has ethical implications that have not been fully explored in existing norm research. These implications cannot be seen in isolation from the governance arrangements that translate norms into concrete practices. Against this background, the paper (1) explores the potential as well as the limits of global governance under the condition of norm ambiguity; and (2) assesses the ethical implications of norm ambiguity for the institutional design of governance arrangements. We argue that effective global governance is not only possible under the condition of norm ambiguity. Governance arrangements that accommodate norm ambiguity instead of trying to codify it away are also normatively desirable because they make the ‘agonistic’ enactment of difference possible. An agonistic approach accepts the inescapably adversarial nature of politics but seeks to channel it in institutional forms that prevent it from being expressed in antagonistic, violent ways. We illustrate these claims by engaging with norm dynamics in the area of cybersecurity, a sphere notoriously elusive to multilateral governance. More specifically, we focus on the (failed) attempt in the UN context to establish a legal framework governing cybersecurity. We identify the role of norm polysemy in the negotiations, both inside the First Committee as well as inside the Groups of Governmental Experts (GGEs), and chart institutional responses, including the productive accommodation of norm ambiguity, for overcoming the current impasse in the multilateral governance of cybersecurity.