Norm Convergence

How then is it possible to analyse patterns/evolution of principled content and indeed normative convergence from the global level down, from the local to state to regional level, and laterally, from basin to basin? As noted in chapter two, the causal pathway to convergence, and therefore, compliance with regional regimes is a part function of social sanctioning (coercion) due to inherent power asymmetries at play in transboundary governance; and instrumental calculations (strategic social construction). This causal pathway is based on the assumption that explanations based on norms and identities cannot be separated from a discussion on material and structural factors when it comes to the question of where norms come from and why they are sustained. Indeed, power and interests may not explain everything, but they often account for why certain norms emerge and are sustained to influence policy as opposed to others. However, there is also something to be said for a non-instrumental causal pathway. According to Checkel, this occurs “Where state compliance results from social learning and deliberation that lead to preference change. In this view, the choice mechanism is non-instrumental and the environment…is one of social interaction between agents, where mutual learning and the discovery of new preferences replace unilateral calculation” (Checkel, 2001: 560). Following these causal pathways, this study plots norm convergence through three main tracks: global norm convergence from the top-down through diffusion and localisation; regional norm convergence via lateral tracks on state to state and state to basin to region; and bottom-up norm convergence from the local to national levels.

3.5.1. GLOBAL NORM DIFFUSION FROM THE TOP-DOWN

Conca’s analysis of top-down norm dissemination (claim 1) rests on the premise that a set of principles formulated at the global level would be adopted at the basin level in basin-specific treaties that provide greater depth, breadth and specificity of these global principles (Conca, 2006: 103-104; Conca et al., 2006). In contrast, top-down norm diffusion in this study refers to processes whereby global norms and norm sets are directly and indirectly integrated into regional and basin-wide legal and institutional frameworks.

Significant to tracking the development of these norms, is an analysis of whose interests are met and whose are redefined when global norms are socialised. This involves an understanding of which power relations are at play.

Additionally, these normative trajectories may not be linear and evidence of their influence must therefore be sought in other areas aside from basin-specific treaties. Moreover, evidence of their influence is not only reflected in the verbatim acceptance of these norms, and as such, global norms may be transformed into something different when localised. Indeed, as Williams (2009: 394) points out, global norms are not automatically accepted as is, in different regional contexts and subsequently, the commitment to them will vary depending on the local context.

Amitav Acharya has described the process of norm localisation as a congruence- building process that occurs as a result of the “contestation between emerging transnational norms and pre-existing regional normative and social orders” (Acharya, 2004: 241). Norm localisation also argues that successful norm diffusion depends on the degree to which external norms provide opportunities for localisation or the degree to which they resonate with historically constructed domestic norms (Acharya, 2004: 241; Checkel, 1999: 6; Williams, 2009: 394). Here, Acharya prioritises the agency role of local agents or “insider proponents” (Acharya, 2007: 642). Although external pressures are still significant “in the construction of regional orders…local responses to power may be more important” (ibid: 642). These insider proponents will build congruence between transnational norms and local beliefs and practices through framing (the process where norm entrepreneurs use language that names, interprets and dramatises e.g. securitised water) and grafting26 (a tactic norm entrepreneurs use to institutionalise a new norm by associating it with a pre-

existing norm in the same issue area, which makes a similar prohibition or injunction. Acharya argues that the process of norm localisation “…may start with a reinterpretation and re-representation of the outside norm, including framing and grafting, but may extend into more complex processes of reconstitution to make an outside norm congruent with a pre-existing local normative order.” (Acharya, 2004: 244)

Williams aptly suggests that African international society should, in this sense, be thought of as “a partly autonomous society because it is embedded within a wider, global society of states that influences how African states think about sovereignty, statehood and security” (Williams, 2009: 396). Understanding this degree of autonomy is crucial because regional identities are constructed more from within than without (Acharya, 2007: 630).

3.5.2. REGIONAL NORM CONVERGENCE

In addition to processes of norm convergence from the global level down, norms are also constructed at the regional level and emerge through state-to-state or state-to- basin-to-regional tracks. This type of convergence is based on multilateral co-operative agendas and the movement towards a community of interest around particular issue clusters. Conca’s view of norm convergence at the regional level (claim 2 bottom-up norm aggregation or cumulative norm convergence) describes the way in which one basin’s normative framework influences another, reflected in an increase of new international basins subscribing to normative elements present in other international basins. This study however, makes no such claim arguing instead, that the uniqueness of each basin renders this evidence less helpful. Rather, the investigation looks at how two different basins construct a regional normative framework, either through state-to-state tracks or state-to- basin-to-region tracks.

3.5.3. BOTTOM-UP (LOCAL TO NATIONAL) NORM CONVERGENCE

While Conca’s analysis does not delve into this track, this study argues that local sub-national norms are crucial to the way in which global and regional and basin-wide norms are accepted, localised or resisted. For example, the ‘embedded wisdom’ based on the sacred and equitable (and sustainable) use of water, inherent in local cultural practices, has had real implications for conservation policies at a national level.

3.5.4. NORM DYNAMISM/CONTESTATION

Similar to Conca’s conclusion of norm dynamism i.e. a more complex and dynamic pattern of principled evolution (Conca, 2006; Conca et al., 2006: 281), norm dynamism in this study refers to the outcome or combination of various normative tracks. While Conca’s results focus on “norm fights” or the contestation between various norms and norm sets, the argument made here, is rather one of co-existence and complementarity. This implies that normative frameworks change, and are changed, by various contexts which result in outcomes unique to particular river basins and regions.

3.6.

CONCLUSION

This chapter attempted to elaborate on several key theoretical components, particularly the HPC. As will be described in greater detail in the next chapter, using the HPC as a conceptual lens illustrates that regimes are cumulative and as such, lateral norm convergence is possible and has occurred in southern Africa and the NELSB. The HPC therefore enables one to understand the state-level water security environment and subsequently, emphasises the interconnectedness between national, basin-level and regional levels of scale. However, it is limited in that it does not adequately addresses sub- national configurations. This has repercussions for analyses that seek to address local level normative influence on national, basin and regional levels of scale. These weaknesses will be addressed in detail in proceeding chapters according to their specific application to each case study.