| Abstract: | This article challenges key aspects of theories on norms evolution, transnational advocacy, and social movements. It demonstrates
that the “emergence” phase of the “norms life cycle” model (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) is more internally contested than
currently interpreted. It develops two alternatives to the “boomerang” model of transnational advocacy (Keck and Sikkink 1998).
It highlights and explains differences—rather than similarities—in the framing strategies of actors involved in globalized
protests. It explores the influence of several key “microsociological factors” (Giugni 2002) on the evolution of those stragegies.
Empirically the article focuses on the World Trade Organization's Third Ministerial meeting at Seattle in 1999. It analyzes
why and how social movement actors framed different interpretations of the human rights at stake in the context of international
trade. Framing innovations may have had short-term strategic value at Seattle, but did not lead to a unified understanding
of human rights, either among activists themselves or among the government and corporate actors they sought to influence through
protest. |
