How have understandings of fundamental norms of international society changed over time? How does this relate to the decline of interstate violence since 1945? Previous explanations have focused on regime type, domestic institutions, economic interdependence, relative power, and nuclear weapons, I argue that a crucial and underexplored part of the puzzle is the change in understanding of sovereignty over the same period. In this article, I propose a novel means of examining change in these norms between 1970 and 2014 by analyzing the content of UN Security Council resolutions. This analysis is then utilized in quantitative analysis of the level of violence dispute participants resorted to in all Militarized Interstate Disputes in the period. I find that as liberal understandings of fundamental norms have increased, that the average level of violence used has decreased. This points to a crucial missing component in the existing literature: that institutions can only constrain when political actors share the right norms.

随着时间的推移，对国际社会基本规范的理解发生了怎样的变化？这与 1945 年以来州际暴力的减少有什么关系？以前的解释集中在政权类型、国内制度、经济相互依存、相对权力和核武器，我认为这个难题的一个关键和未充分探索的部分是同一时期对主权理解的变化。在本文中，我通过分析联合国安理会决议的内容，提出了一种审查 1970 年至 2014 年间这些规范变化的新方法。然后，该分析用于定量分析该时期所有军事化州际争端中诉诸暴力争端的参与者的程度。我发现随着自由主义对基本规范的理解增加，使用暴力的平均水平已经下降。这指出了现有文献中一个关键缺失的组成部分：只有当政治行为者分享正确的规范时，制度才能进行约束。