Let us now turn to the question of norm emergence.
Contrariwise, to refuse inquiry into the question of whether norms of the international community have been contravened by the act of state under review would seem to deny the existence or purport of such norms, a view that seems inconsistent with the role of international law in ordering the relations between nations.
When we considered the ways in which social structures affect us, we looked at the question of social norms and we thought about the ways in which, though we had cut a fairly wide path through one intellectual tradition, that there was a world full of other intellectual traditions which we had barely touched.
This interpretation of an evolutionary dynamic, which requires long timescales, raises the question of whether norms themselves evolve slowly.
The question of social norms does not really arise with great apes, as they do not have the cognitive capacities to entertain mutually shared expectations.
The question of which norm should be used to characterize the fluctuating disturbance energy in studies on thermoacoustic instabilities remains a topic of continued debate.
By exposing misconduct to the public eye, scandals generate moralising discourses and bring the question of organisational norm enforcement to the forefront of the political debate.
Let's finally turn to the question of the normative status of the proposed norms.
As the debate between cognitivists and non-cognitivists is of some, but not central, importance for our topic, we shall therefore assume that non-cognitivism can be combined with normativism about meaning/content.[6] More central will be the question: What kind of norm, what kind of normativity, are we dealing with here?
There might not be a "right" way to grieve, but some of the work Bonanno describes raises the question of whether certain norms are healthier than others.
