States can comply with international laws but violate international norms. Put differently, they can follow the letter but not the spirit of the law, causing real harm in the process. This is the basic premise of Zoltan Búzás’s intriguing book on how states resist international obligations by evading international norms, doing so under the cover of legality. “[T]he good news about law compliance,” Búzás tells us, “is not necessarily good news about norm following” (p. 6).

Evading International Norms has far-reaching implications, but it is ultimately focused around two central concerns: developing an international theory of norm evasion and delving into the treatment of the Roma people in two European cases.

The author sets out, first and foremost, to offer a concise theory of international norm evasion. First, when supporters of violating and complying with international norms are at least comparably strong, state leaders will favor responding with a mixed strategy. Norm evasion results when the costs of violating the law are high and “norm-law gaps” exist; it is these legal gaps and loopholes that provide technical legal cover for violating norms while still complying with the law. Second, when norm evasion occurs, norm supporters will challenge the appropriateness of the actions in public discourse and through legalized forums. The ensuing contest can determine how long norm evasion will persist and whether reforms will occur.

The argument rests on a basic assumption that both norms and the law are socially constructed. According to this positivist view, whether a norm exists is evident in social discourse, which defines certain practices as appropriate or inappropriate. Likewise, evolving court rulings interpret the same practices as technically legal or illegal. At the intersection of these issues, Búzás produces an interesting taxonomy of outcomes: dual violation (illegal and inappropriate), norm evasion (legal but inappropriate), law evasion (illegal but appropriate), and dual compliance (legal and appropriate).

As engaging as the book’s theory is, its empirical application to questions of race and rights also promises to advance human rights research. Remarkably, studies of race and human rights have not been as intertwined as one might imagine. Evading International Norms bridges this chasm by raising critical questions applicable to democracies struggling with race-based discrimination. Accordingly, human rights law may not always be the panacea that some activists believe it can be. In fact, Búzás suggests that public officials may resort to new tactics that appear compliant but perpetuate racism and discrimination.

The author tests his argument in two European cases, both focused on the treatment of the Roma people. The Roma have long been marginalized, but they have rarely been studied in international relations. This alone is an important contribution, underscoring systemic racism and human rights abuse by democracies.

The first case is about Roma immigrants to France in the period after Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union (2007–2017). Pressured by local constituents to expel the Roma to their countries of origin, the French government could not respond with expulsions because this would have been a clear and blatant violation of European human rights law. Instead, it devised, among other things, a “humanitarian return assistance policy,” paying Roma individuals to leave the country voluntarily. This policy was disingenuous on multiple levels, and the Roma’s choice to leave was ultimately made in a coercive context.

The second case is the Czech Republic’s school segregation of Roma children with mental disabilities (1993–2017). To escape critique, state officials formulated a rationale for separating Roma children with disabilities that focused on social disadvantage, precisely because this could be construed as an objective justification. Over time, as calls for legal compliance ensued, norm evasion was gradually replaced with reform.

Although the book is well organized and its methodology sound, it points nonetheless to theoretical avenues that might have been more fully explored. In particular, the author deploys process tracing to understand the motives and rationale of 160 officials and activists. There is a gap between this methodology, which privileges domestic politics, and a theory that underplays the local context. Although the author asserts that state policy mirrors the strength of different domestic factions, this itself begs the question of how colliding domestic interests are reconciled and what role politics, leadership, and identity play in navigating these complex contestations.

Focused so fully on drawing a distinction between practices that are legally compliant but normatively inappropriate, Búzás may miss out on a more complex approach to norms. It is especially unclear why Búzás assumes that norms as conceptions of social appropriateness are necessarily good. In other words, for Búzás, norms and laws are conceptually distinct, not different values on a continuum; norms have more in common with morality and ethics, whereas the law is all about consequences. Yet, is racism not the counternorm to nondiscrimination, both social conceptions of what is appropriate?

If one views norms as more complex constructs, important policy implications follow. Búzás emphasizes the power of norm promoters to shame violators by pointing out the inappropriate nature of their actions, given that they deviate from human rights norms. Alternatively, shaming could entail wielding a different narrative weapon: calling out normative assumptions about race and the presumed appropriateness of mistreating some people but not others. If discriminatory practices are happening in the shadow of the law, as Búzás emphasizes, shaming could also focus on exposing the countervailing hidden-from-view norms that undergird violations.

Relatedly, although the book’s focus is admittedly on developing a theory of international norm evasion, one is still left wanting more from the perspective of human rights scholarship and race theories. For example, in both case studies, discrimination takes the form of physical separation. How does norm evasion work in the case of less visible but systemic forms of violence against a marginalized group? Although Búzás introduces in the concluding chapter very brief applications to other cases (i.e., Japanese whaling, the use of mercenaries, and international financial standards), there is more work to be done in understanding norm evasion across human rights issues.

Overall, Evading International Norms contributes valuably to our understanding of international politics and law. Most directly, it answers the question of how norm violations persist after legalization. It also makes visible certain facets of international life that have remained invisible: the life experiences and conditions of the marginalized Roma, the occasionally pernicious if unintended effects of promoting international law, and the limits of human rights discourses in prohibiting racism and racial violence.

In examining two very specific European case studies, while uncovering the subtle dynamics of “awful but lawful” actions (p. 193), Búzás is at his strongest in shedding new empirical light on overlooked areas and provoking us to consider questions at the boundaries of research and policy. This includes how humane treatment of those deemed less fully human is ever possible in a world of competing claims and liminal improvements. Evading International Norms is a stimulating book, pushing us—among other things—to think more deeply about the politics of law in combating real-world racism and discrimination.