In 1998 the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were developed following years of crises faced by the millions of people experiencing forced displacement, especially those internally displaced. These Principles were widely considered to be precedent setting, both historically and normatively. However, the examination of the construction of the international norms that underpin the Principles indicates that there are important epistemological weaknesses in widely used constructivist frameworks that understand normative shifts in international relations. They are critiqued as being impedingly linear, temporally compressed and analytically obstructive in its agent-centric view of norm cascading. This research aims to address some of these gaps with an enhanced life-cycle model using cluster genealogies and the processes of replication and particularization. The reformulated framework is tested for robustness and feasibility using two preliminary cases – UNSC Resolution 1325 and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is then used to conduct an in-depth original analysis of the development of the 1998 UN Guiding Principles. The findings in the case of the Guiding Principles show, for example, that though the acceptance of the IDP definition was a big leap, the replication and particularization of human rights limits the humanitarian scope of the Guiding Principles, and also brings into question existing humanitarian protection of IDPs under the Geneva Conventions. Meanwhile, rooting them in ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has not shifted the community of states’ intersubjective take on sovereignty, but it has added to the existing normative tension – individual vs. state – that underpins the very understanding of sovereignty.

This thesis deals with the debate on non-lethal chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention regime. I examine the evolution of the debate between 2002 and 2017 and use a modified theory of the cycle of normative change to analyse it. Apart from identifying main actors and actions taken by them, I identify the rule structure, rule tensions and arguments that are central to the issue of riot control agents and incapacitating chemical agents, later re-branded as central nervous system acting chemicals. In addition, I highlight the importance of (re-)framing and issue decoupling as successful strategies for norm- entrepreneurs to employ when gathering support.

In 1998 the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were developed following years of crises faced by the millions of people experiencing forced displacement, especially those internally displaced. These Principles were widely considered to be precedent setting, both historically and normatively. However, the examination of the construction of the international norms that underpin the Principles indicates that there are important epistemological weaknesses in widely used constructivist frameworks that understand normative shifts in international relations. They are critiqued as being impedingly linear, temporally compressed and analytically obstructive in its agent-centric view of norm cascading. This research aims to address some of these gaps with an enhanced life-cycle model using cluster genealogies and the processes of replication and particularization. The reformulated framework is tested for robustness and feasibility using two preliminary cases – UNSC Resolution 1325 and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is then used to conduct an in-depth original analysis of the development of the 1998 UN Guiding Principles. The findings in the case of the Guiding Principles show, for example, that though the acceptance of the IDP definition was a big leap, the replication and particularization of human rights limits the humanitarian scope of the Guiding Principles, and also brings into question existing humanitarian protection of IDPs under the Geneva Conventions. Meanwhile, rooting them in ‘sovereignty as responsibility’ has not shifted the community of states’ intersubjective take on sovereignty, but it has added to the existing normative tension – individual vs. state – that underpins the very understanding of sovereignty.

Chemical weapons count among the weapons of mass destruction. In addition to chemical weapons, also nuclear and biological weapons belong here. Historically, chemical weapons rank among the oldest ones. Their initial steps were made in the distant past, even if they were not called so then. However, the initial utilization of chemical agents against human force is more connected with fire. It was used for protection against attacks of animals as well as people. Later on it was used to protect or capture towns and fortifications. The most extensive use of chemical weapons in war occurred during World War I. A large number of chemical substances was tested, the most important being phosgene. In 1917, German army used vesicant yperite near the town of Ypres. The development of chemical warfare agents continued also after the year 1918. During World War II, chemical weapons were practically not used. If it happened, then on the secondary fronts only. The main reason was the fear of possible retaliation. From 1939 to 1945, huge amounts of chemical warfare agents were made. Towards the end of the war this stockpile amounted to approximately 400 000 tonnes. After World War II, a new stage of chemical armament has begun. The greatest attention was concentrated on nerve agents, sarin, soman and agent VX. Chemical warfare agents have been further used also after the year 1945. In the not so distant past, Iraq used nerve-paralyzing agents and yperite during the Iran-Iraq War (1980 {--} 1988). Last but not least, the use of chemical warfare agents for terrorist purposes is to be mentioned. In January 1993, the global fight against chemical weapons culminated in signing of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. Under this Convention, chemical weapons were to be liquidated until the year 2007. States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention which did not comply with this deadline have asked for prolongation of the final deadlines for chemical weapons liquidation until 29 April 2012. The question remains if even this prolongation will fulfil the goal of the Convention {--} to ensure a world without chemical weapons. Until the time when the stockpiles of chemical weapons are completely liquidated their possible misuse cannot be excluded. The states which have not joined the Convention as yet and own limited stockpiles of chemical weapons can use them.