Dealing with Sources, Substance, and Effects of Deep Contestation

Abstract As we grapple with sources and dynamics of deep contestation, this chapter turns to the LIO’s capacity to warrant institutions for normal contestation. In liberal democracies normal contestation represents a procedural element warranting recognition and implementation of an order’s foundational elements. From international relations (IR) we know contestation predominantly as a practice vis-à-vis norms. Understanding the interplay between normal and deep contestation raises a conceptual challenge, which this chapter addresses by discussing the quod omnes tangit principle as a heuristic for establishing access to contestation for all affected stakeholders. The chapter proceeds in three sections, first elaborating on the distinction between normal and deep contestation, second presenting the argument for enabling normal contestation as a procedural element, and third studying deep and normal contestation empirically. Contestatory practices and their normative effect are illustrated based on fundamental rights contestations in connection with the UN Security Council’s policy of “blacklisting” in the Kadi case.