| Despite the growing international movement to abolish capital punishment, not every country has joined in, indicating that the impact of the human rights norm---the norm of capital punishment abolition---varies cross-nationally. My research asks: Why do some countries comply with the international norm against the death penalty while others do not? What accounts for the variance in norm compliance? Identifying the political and sociological factors that account for the impact of the international norm, this research attempts to specify the causal mechanism that produces norm compliance. Methodologically, this research offers a comparative and historical case study of those countries that reached different stages of norm compliance: "abolitionists" cases (Ukraine and South Africa), a "moratorium" case (South Korea) and a "retentionist" case (United States). Because capital punishment has been widely supported by the majority of the public everywhere, the international norm against capital punishment often faces domestic resistance and rejection. I conclude with three major points: First, in the process of norm compliance, the nature and feature of domestic political institutions provide conditions under which political agents act on policy reform even if confronted with domestic opposition. Second, a political moment or opportunity driven by the presence of radical political change plays a key role in norm compliance. Last, my research confirms that both logic of appropriateness and logic of consequences play a substantial role in state's norm adoption. It is self-evident that both approaches matter in explaining the complex political phenomenon of norm compliance, which certainly has more than a single cause. The more important task, then, is to explain when and under what condition one approach prevails upon the other. |
