Martha Finnemore

1. Introduction

Martha Finnemore is a contemporary American scholar of international relations whose work helped establish constructivism as a central paradigm in the study of world politics. Writing from the 1990s onward, she challenged approaches that treat state interests, identities, and patterns of conflict as fixed products of material power or exogenous preferences. Instead, she argued that these features are socially constructed through shared norms, institutional practices, and evolving ideas about what it means to be a “proper” state.

Her most influential contributions concern international norms, sovereignty, and the legitimate use of force. Through historically grounded case studies, she showed how global rules about development, science, intervention, and security are not merely rhetorical decorations but causal structures that shape state behavior and redefine what counts as rational or legitimate. This constructivist lens has had significant repercussions beyond political science, feeding into debates in political philosophy, international law, and ethics about authority, obligation, and moral progress.

Finnemore’s research also recast international organizations as powerful bureaucratic actors with their own cultures and forms of authority, rather than neutral arenas or passive agents of states. Her work has thus become a key reference point for understanding how expert knowledge, organizational routines, and moral claims interact in global governance.

Within the broader history of international thought, she is often grouped with other constructivists but remains distinctive for combining theoretical innovation with systematic empirical analysis, and for insisting that the study of norms can be both rigorously explanatory and normatively illuminating.

2. Life and Historical Context

Martha Finnemore was born in 1959 in Alabama, United States, and received her PhD in Political Science from Stanford University in 1989. She joined the faculty at George Washington University in 1993, where she has been based for most of her career. Biographical information about her early life is relatively limited in scholarly sources; existing accounts emphasize her professional trajectory rather than personal background.

Her intellectual development unfolded against the backdrop of major changes in international politics and in the discipline of international relations (IR). The end of the Cold War, the proliferation of international institutions, and a surge in humanitarian interventions in the 1990s unsettled Cold War–era assumptions that military power and national interest—conceived largely in material terms—dominated world politics. Many scholars saw a need for approaches that could account for changing ideas about sovereignty, human rights, and legitimate intervention.

In disciplinary terms, Finnemore emerged during a period marked by intense debate between realist, liberal, and rational-choice approaches, on one side, and a growing set of reflectivist or constructivist critiques, on the other. Sociological institutionalism was gaining prominence in the study of domestic organizations, and she drew on this literature to reinterpret international politics.

Her work thus reflects both the post–Cold War moment, with its apparent expansion of multilateralism and human rights discourse, and a broader methodological shift in social science toward incorporating culture, norms, and institutions as explanatory factors. Subsequent developments—including the “war on terror,” debates over the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and the rise of cyber conflict—have provided new empirical contexts in which her theoretical claims have been tested, adapted, and critiqued.

3. Intellectual Development

Finnemore’s intellectual trajectory is often described in distinct but overlapping phases that correspond to shifts in both her theoretical focus and empirical domains.

Early Training and Turn to Sociology

During her graduate work at Stanford in the 1980s, IR scholarship was dominated by neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism, both emphasizing material power and rational choice. Finding these frameworks insufficient for explaining emerging patterns of cooperation and institutionalization, she turned to sociological institutionalism, which stressed how organizations are shaped by cultural scripts and norms. This move laid the foundation for importing sociological concepts—such as norm socialization and world society—into IR.

Formulating Constructivist Norm Theory

In the mid‑1990s, especially with her 1996 article “Norms, Culture, and World Politics,” Finnemore crystallized a distinct constructivist perspective. She advanced the idea that norms are not just constraints but constitutive elements of state identity and interest-formation. This work positioned her at the forefront of the “constructivist turn” in IR, alongside scholars such as Alexander Wendt and Kathryn Sikkink, while retaining a strong empirical orientation.

Empirical Elaboration and Thematic Expansion

Her subsequent work, notably National Interests in International Society (1999), developed detailed case studies showing how states adopt and internalize international norms in areas like science policy and security. In the 2000s, she extended this framework to two major themes: international organizations (with Michael Barnett in Rules for the World) and humanitarian intervention (The Purpose of Intervention). Later projects broadened her focus to cyber security, counterterrorism, and the changing character of war, applying the same constructivist toolkit to emerging issues while refining her views on norm creation, diffusion, and contestation.

4. Major Works and Themes

Finnemore’s major works cluster around several recurring themes: the construction of national interests, the evolution of intervention norms, and the authority of international organizations.

Overview of Major Works

Cross‑Cutting Themes

Across these works, several themes recur:

• Norms as Constitutive and Causal: Norms define legitimate actors and actions while also shaping concrete policy choices.
• State Socialization: States learn what it means to be “modern” or “responsible” by interacting within international society.
• Historical Change: She traces how understandings of sovereignty, development, and war evolve over time rather than remaining constant.
• Bureaucratic Power: International organizations exercise authority through expertise, classification, and procedural rules.

These works collectively develop a coherent but evolving constructivist research program that links empirical inquiry with broader questions about legitimacy and moral order in international life.

5. Core Ideas: Norms, Interests, and Sovereignty

Finnemore’s core theoretical contribution concerns the ways international norms constitute state interests and reshape sovereignty.

International Norms as Constitutive Structures

She distinguishes between regulative norms (which instruct actors how to behave within given roles) and constitutive norms (which define those roles and make certain kinds of action possible). In her formulation, norms do not merely limit what states can do; they help determine who states are and what they can intelligibly want.

"

“Norms do not just regulate behavior; they define new forms of behavior, new actors, and new interests.”

— Martha Finnemore, “Norms, Culture, and World Politics”

Social Construction of Interests

Against theories that treat interests as exogenous, Finnemore argues that state preferences are socially produced through processes of norm socialization, learning, and imitation. States come to value, for example, scientific development or poverty alleviation because these are recognized internationally as hallmarks of responsible statehood. Proponents see this as explaining puzzle cases where states adopt costly policies lacking clear material payoff.

Sovereignty as Historically Variable

Finnemore treats sovereignty as a changeable institution, not a fixed legal essence. Its meaning depends on prevailing norms about rights and responsibilities. In her work on intervention, sovereignty shifts from an absolute shield against interference toward a more conditional status linked to protection of populations. This idea underpins discussions of concepts like Responsibility to Protect (R2P), where sovereignty is increasingly framed as responsibility rather than mere control.

Debates and Alternatives

Critics from rationalist and realist perspectives contend that material power and strategic interests remain primary and that norms typically reflect underlying power distributions. Others within constructivism argue for greater attention to contestation and resistance around norms. Finnemore’s position is generally seen as emphasizing the structuring power of widely shared norms, while recognizing that their content and impact vary across historical and political contexts.

6. Methodology and Philosophy of Social Science

Finnemore’s methodological approach is notable for combining constructivist theory with empirically rigorous, historically grounded research. Her work contributes to debates about how norms can figure in causal explanations in social science.

Constructivist Causal Explanation

She treats norms as causal variables that shape interests and behavior, but insists that their effects must be traced through interpretive mechanisms—such as socialization, legitimation, and persuasion—rather than through purely material incentives. This positions her between strictly positivist models and purely interpretive approaches: she uses qualitative case studies and process tracing while maintaining an interest in generalizable explanations.

Use of Case Studies and Historical Analysis

Finnemore relies heavily on comparative historical cases (e.g., science policy, development aid, peacekeeping) to show how changing normative environments reconfigure state behavior. Critics have questioned whether such case studies permit broad generalization; supporters argue that her method illuminates complex pathways through which norms influence policy.

Ontology of the Social

Her constructivism presupposes an ontology in which social facts—such as “statehood” or “legitimate intervention”—are created and sustained by shared understandings. This aligns with broader philosophical discussions of social kinds and institutional facts, while emphasizing that these are historically contingent and subject to change.

Fact–Value Relations

Finnemore’s work also engages indirectly with debates about the separation of facts and values. By incorporating normative structures into causal accounts, she challenges sharp distinctions between explanatory and normative theorizing, yet she does not present her analyses as moral prescriptions. Some philosophers view this as evidence that normativity can be explanatory without collapsing into advocacy; others worry about potential slippage between description and evaluation.

Overall, her methodology exemplifies an attempt to make norm-sensitive explanations compatible with standards of empirical rigor in political science.

7. Contributions to Ethics of War and Intervention

Finnemore’s work on the use of force has significantly influenced scholarly discussions of the ethics of war and humanitarian intervention, particularly by emphasizing how standards of legitimacy change over time.

Changing Purposes of Intervention

In The Purpose of Intervention, she argues that states’ justifications for using force have shifted from dynastic and territorial goals in earlier centuries, to collective security and ideological containment in the mid‑20th century, and toward humanitarian protection and peacekeeping in the post–Cold War era. She traces how evolving international norms about who deserves protection and what violence is acceptable have redefined the range of legitimate military actions.

"

“What counts as a legitimate use of force has changed over time, and these changes reflect evolving international beliefs about who deserves protection and what violence is morally acceptable.”

— Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention and R2P

Finnemore’s article with Kathryn Sikkink on constructing norms of humanitarian intervention examines how advocacy networks, international organizations, and states themselves promoted new standards that prioritize human rights. Their analysis has been used to interpret the emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), where sovereignty is increasingly tied to protection of populations.

Interaction with Just War Theory

While not a traditional just war theorist, Finnemore’s historical account of changing justifications has interacted with philosophical debates on jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Some ethicists draw on her work to argue that moral standards in war are themselves products of social and institutional evolution; others question whether shifts in practice necessarily track genuine moral progress.

Critical and Skeptical Responses

Critics worry that emphasizing humanitarian norms may obscure power politics and the selective application of intervention standards. Some argue that her analyses understate the role of strategic interest and coercion in shaping “humanitarian” action. Others from postcolonial or critical security perspectives contend that the very framing of humanitarian intervention can reproduce hierarchical global orders even as it appears normatively progressive.

8. International Organizations and Institutional Authority

Finnemore’s collaborative work with Michael Barnett, especially in Rules for the World, offers a constructivist theory of international organizations (IOs) as bureaucratic actors wielding distinctive forms of authority.

IOs as Bureaucracies

Contrary to views that treat IOs as neutral tools of states, Finnemore and Barnett conceptualize them as bureaucracies with their own cultures, professional norms, and organizational interests. Drawing on sociological theory, they argue that IOs develop standard operating procedures and expert classifications that shape how problems are defined and what solutions appear legitimate.

Sources of IO Authority

They identify several bases of IO authority, including:

• Delegated authority from states through formal rules.
• Expert authority, rooted in specialized knowledge.
• Moral authority, grounded in claims to advance shared values or global public goods.

"

“International organizations derive authority not simply from their rules but from the social legitimacy of the expertise, moral purpose, and procedures they embody.”

— Michael Barnett & Martha Finnemore, Rules for the World

Beneficial and Pathological Effects

Finnemore’s analysis is ambivalent about IOs: they can enable cooperation, promote human rights, and spread beneficial norms, but they can also suffer from “bureaucratic pathologies”—rigidity, mission creep, or harmful unintended consequences. These arise when organizational rules become ends in themselves, or when IOs prioritize their own institutional interests over those of affected populations.

Debates and Alternatives

Supporters of this view see it as illuminating how IOs exercise structural power beyond simple state control. Rational institutionalists sometimes respond that IO behavior can still be understood as reflecting principals’ interests, with bureaucratic autonomy overstated. Critical theorists and postcolonial scholars, drawing on Finnemore and Barnett, often push further to highlight how IO classifications can entrench inequalities or marginalize alternative knowledges. The shared point of reference is Finnemore’s insistence that IOs are rule‑makers and meaning‑producers, not merely arenas for interstate bargaining.

9. Influence on Political Philosophy and Global Justice

Finnemore’s constructivist account of norms and interests has been taken up in political philosophy, international ethics, and theories of global justice in several ways.

Social Construction and Moral Theory

Philosophers interested in the ontology of social norms and institutions have engaged her work as an empirical counterpart to theories of social facts. Her distinction between constitutive and regulative norms parallels and reinforces philosophical accounts of how institutions create roles, rights, and obligations. Some theorists of global justice cite her historical studies to argue that moral progress in international life—e.g., in human rights or intervention norms—is best understood as a gradual reshaping of shared practices rather than as the direct application of abstract principles.

Sovereignty, Legitimacy, and Authority

Normative theorists concerned with sovereignty and legitimate authority draw on her analyses of changing intervention and development norms. Her claim that sovereignty is historically malleable has informed arguments that sovereignty can be reconceived to include responsibilities to protect human rights, or that it may be limited by emerging forms of global authority. Critics, however, worry that such reconceptualizations may legitimate new forms of hierarchy or interventionism.

Global Governance and Technocracy

Her work on IOs has influenced philosophical debates about technocratic governance and democratic deficit in global institutions. By emphasizing IOs’ reliance on expertise and procedural legitimacy, she provides a framework for evaluating whether such authority is normatively acceptable and how it might be made more accountable.

Fact‑Sensitive Normative Theory

More broadly, Finnemore’s insistence that normative structures are part of the explanatory fabric of international politics has encouraged closer interaction between empirical IR and normative political theory. Some philosophers regard her research as an exemplar of fact-sensitive normative theorizing, where moral arguments are developed in light of how institutions and norms actually function; others caution that normative conclusions must still be grounded independently of prevailing practices.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

Finnemore is widely regarded as one of the key architects of constructivism in international relations, and her work has had a lasting impact on how scholars conceptualize norms, interests, and institutions in world politics.

Disciplinary Impact

Her writings helped legitimize the study of norms and ideas as central to IR, challenging earlier views that treated them as secondary to material power. Constructivism, once marginal, is now a mainstream paradigm, and Finnemore’s work is a standard reference in graduate training and research across subfields such as security studies, international law, and international organization.

Empirical and Methodological Legacy

Finnemore’s empirically rich analyses have become templates for qualitative, historically oriented research on norm dynamics. Scholars have extended her framework to issues including climate change, global health, cyber norms, and counterterrorism. At the same time, debates sparked by her work—over causality, agency, and the relationship between norms and power—continue to shape methodological discussions in IR and the philosophy of social science.

Broader Intellectual Significance

Beyond political science, her theories have influenced legal scholarship, international ethics, and global governance studies, especially in discussions of humanitarian intervention, R2P, and the legitimacy of international organizations. Some critics argue that her account underestimates structural inequalities or the persistence of geopolitics; others see her work as a crucial step toward integrating moral and social complexity into the analysis of global politics.

Historically, Finnemore’s scholarship is closely associated with the post–Cold War rethinking of international order. Whether viewed as documenting moral progress, institutional evolution, or new forms of power, her analyses have become integral to how scholars interpret the changing normative architecture of world politics from the late 20th century into the 21st.