Till death do us part – Guantánamo, drones, and unintended consequences of norm robustness on the international stage

Can robust human rights norms bare negative consequences? While recent scholarship has greatly advanced research on norm contestation and robustness, most studies end once a norm has been deemed as resilient - assuming that robustness in the context of human rights is inherently good. Though this is true in most cases, little is known about potential side effects and unintended consequences of a norm withstanding contestation, especially when considering that defiant actors might not just accept their defeat, but rather seek new avenues for evading the guiding principles. Hence, this paper looks at how blame management and alternative human rights violations can emerge as unintended consequences of another norm’s strengthened robustness. Utilizing a content analysis, the paper addresses this gap by analyzing the expansion of Obama’s drone warfare, following international backlash and domestic adjudication against the use of arbitrary detention and torture in US counterterrorist operations. In addition to primary documents, this paper relies on extensive interview-based research to first assess the contested norms’ robustness (prohibition of arbitrary detention and the right to be free from torture), to then explore US blame management strategies as the manifestation of unintended consequences. According to which, this article presents three primary findings: 1.) Although third-party interventions reinforced the robustness of the norms against arbitrary detention and torture by increasing the costs of further contestation of these norms by the US government, this robustness had both negative anticipated and negative unanticipated consequences in that it incentivized the expansion of the Obama Administration’s drone warfare, resulting in significant violations to the right to life of terrorist suspects and civilians alike. 2.) Furthermore, the Obama Administration utilized creative policy strategies of blame management to evade accountability on the domestic and international stage, showing that the blame evasion theory - typically located in the field of Public Policy - is likewise important in International Relations. Lastly, 3.) through the extension of existing theoretical models of blame management to the international stage, this paper presents theoretical developments via additional scope conditions inherent, but not exclusive, to international politics.