Date of Publication

2018

Document Type

Dissertation/Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts in International Studies Major in European Studies

College

College of Liberal Arts

Department/Unit

International Studies

Thesis Advisor

Charmaine Misalucha-Willoughby

Defense Panel Chair

John Phillip Binondo

Defense Panel Member

Alejandro Christian Soler
Francis Rico Domingo

Abstract/Summary

The European Union is widely known as one of the foremost polities that staunchly promotes democracy and human rights around the world. Lodged under its global agenda of promoting human rights is its exportation of the abolition of capital punishment. Internally, it has effectively abolished the death penalty and currently no EU member-state implements capital punishment. Externally, it promotes this using its European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights by funding projects in, and issuing demarches against countries that retain the death penalty. The campaign has so far seen success in abolishing it in developing states such as the Philippines. However, its experience in promoting abolitionism towards superexecutioner states, or those states that execute convicts in large numbers is dismal. Despite the EU’s massive efforts, it seems that these superexecutioners merely shrug off the EU’s calls for abolitions. Using Finnemore and Sikkink’s Norm Life Cycle Lens to aptly plot the process by which the EU promotes abolitionism, it will be shown why the EU has failed to promote this norm toward superexecutioners, despite evidence of it being successful toward other states that implemented capital punishment such as the Philippines. This study will rely on a case study approach, specifically analyzing the cases of two notable superexecutioners that also provide a sample for both developing and developed superexecutioner states: China and the US. Comparison of these cases will be done using Mill’s Most Different Systems Method to show how and why the EU has failed. Using the Norm Life Cycle to analyze the EU’s promotion process in both cases and comparing them using Mill’s MDSM, a very clear comparative process will show where the EU had lapses, whether these are lapses too great to be rectified, and whether the blame is solely the EU’s or not.

Abstract Format

html

Language

English

Upload Full Text

wf_yes

Embargo Period

4-8-2021

Download

Share

COinS