1 Lemercier Noemi
2068907
Final draft of the Master thesis for the University of Groningen December, 2012
Dr. Holzhacker
The death penalty as a human right abuse:
''Don't let those who kill turn us into Murderer'',
2 Abstract:
The phrase of the international organization Amnesty International “Don’t let those who kill turn us into murderer” catches the attention while you read an article about their struggle for the abolition of the death penalty. The researches for this paper started with the reading of an article on Japan’s recent execution. Immediately, it brings the reader to think about the issue of the death penalty, a thorny one within the field of human rights. It also captures the attention of someone for the group work that some international organizations in cooperation with local non-governmental organizations and the civil population have created to fight against human rights violations and discriminations. For the purpose of this research paper, their group work is called an international coalition.
It is interesting to look at the work of such a coalition and by looking deeper; it is more and more intriguing to analyze the functioning of their campaign. This research is asking “how can the coalition against the death penalty explain the success of a campaign gathering people around one cause?”. While analyzing the work of this international coalition, their actors and their strategy, the paper is giving a new interest and angle to the field of human rights. It proves the strength of a network and the determinant role of each among the civil society. Thus, comparing the work of the international coalition against the death penalty in Japan and China, the paper illustrates the process of a campaign and also questions the political role of the capital punishment in today’s world order.
Extrait:
3 « international coalition ».
C’est intéressant d’observer le travail d’une telle coalition et en y regardant de plus près, il est d’autant plus intriguant d’analyser le fonctionnement de leur campagne. Cette recherche pose la question suivante : « comment la coalition contre la peine de mort peut-elle expliquer les succès d’une campagne réunissant des activistes autour d’une cause? ». En analysant le travail de cette coalition, de ces acteurs et de ses stratégies, cet article offre un nouvel intérêt et ouvre une nouvelle perspective d’étude dans le domaine des droits de l’Homme. Il prouve la force d’un réseau et le rôle déterminant que possède chacun de nous dans la société civile. Ainsi, cet article illustre le procédé d’une campagne par la comparaison du travail de la coalition international, effectué au Japon et en Chine, ce qui amène à
s’interroger sur le rôle politique de la peine capitale dans notre société.
Table of Content:
•Abstract: page 2
•Introduction and Rationale: page 5 •Research Question: page 8
•Social and scientific significance of the research question: page 10 •Methodology: page 12
•Theoretical Framework: page 13 •Analysis: page 24
I) The death penalty, a concept against fundamental Human Rights
a) The death penalty, the right to live and the survival of the Lex Talionis: page 24 b) The utilitarian character of the death penalty: page 32
II) IO/NGOs and back-up relationship: page 41
a) The EU as a model: the involvement of the European community against human rights violations: page 41
b) The interplay between IO/NGOs and International Institutions: page 47
III) Case Study: page 57 a) The case of China: page 57
4 c) A comparison between China and Japan: page 82
Conclusion: page 84
Literature and sources: page 87
5 Introduction and Rationale:
This paper conducts research in the field of Human Rights. It demonstrates that human rights are very important because they represent the basis for respect and stability for all mankind. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), issued by the United Nations (UN) in 1948, marked a major step in contemporary society. Within the declaration were legal guidelines intended for society to follow so all would be respected and denied of inequalities and discrimination. Moreover, it is very important to analyze how conflicting views on human rights can be settled.
Thus, as a Master thesis topic, I chose to look at the death penalty and the various debates it produces in regards to the areas of human rights and international relations. According to Alison Dundes Rentel, human rights can be defined as following: “A human right by definition is a universal moral right, something which all men, everywhere, at all times ought to have, something of which no one may be deprived without a grave affront to justice, something which is owing to every human being simply because he is human” (Dundes R, 1998: 347). Therefore, human rights encompass three wide aspects of rights, including civil and political, economic, and social and cultural rights.
This paper combines theoretical and empirical research and applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand the functioning behind the campaign to eliminate the death penalty. Thus it highlights the interplay between the NGOs/IOs like Amnesty International or Human Rights Now and the European Institutions or the United Nations; all of which focus on issues pertaining to the death penalty. These organizations consider capital punishment to be discrimination, and even go as far as saying a violation of human rights. Therefore, this research paper attempts to better understand how the coalition framework or 'the bottom-up process' can lead toward the abolition of the death penalty and therein explain the success of a campaign. The 'the bottom-up process' implies that a policy's output does not necessarily have to come from the 'top', which is represented by the head of a government, to be effectively implemented. In fact, the ACF shows that a policy can be completed and implemented by the government but it is in large part due to the action of several actors who are not necessarily issued from the governmental authorities, such as members of IO/NGOs, the civil society and so on.
6 UDHR claims the right to life, liberty, property and freedom from arbitrary rules. Yet, the practice to condemn people to death is still active today; Even though the death sentence is a deprivation of the right of life, freedom and property of its own body. Currently, 141 states “have abolished capital punishment in law or in practice” (Lines R, 2008) out of the 192 states registered at the United Nations. The objective of the proponent of human rights, namely the international organizations such as AI, HRW and the UN or Non-governmental organizations, is to increase the number of countries signatures in favor of the abolition of the death penalty.
Still, the death penalty is a difficult and tricky topic that is subject to debate within International Relations and Human Rights. Recently Japan executed three death-sentenced men whereas they had not executed anyone from the previous two years (Mesmer P, 2012). This has been a big surprise for the international community and has made a buzz among the IOs. This sparked the community to once again pressure Japan and other Asian countries like China to move toward the abolition of the capital punishment. All these calls for the abolition must remind humanity that the fight is still active because these executions are still practiced in some Asian and African states, and also within some states in the United States of America.
In that sense, this paper is calling the reader's attention to a comparison between Japan and China and investigates the work of the international coalition within the fight for the abolition of the death penalty. The ACF theory is used to highlight the efficiency of a group work. It aims at putting to the fore the relations between the domestic and the governmental and international sectors. It helps understand the work of the international coalition against the death penalty which is fighting many countries worldwide. Among them, the biggest target being China with more than a thousand of victims a year according to Amnesty International as well as its Asiatic counterpart Japan.
The comparison between these two Asiatic countries is interesting since they have two different type of governance. As such, the strategy of the international coalition will be changed and adjusted to the target. Then, few variables of the work of the international
coalition are discussed in this paper. Indeed, the paper shows that the coalition is not using the same tactic while negotiating with Japan or China. The former being a democratic country, the coalition is relying on the rule of law and the use of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as leverage since in a democratic regime, the work with local organizations and the civil population is supposedly easier than in a Republic like China. On the other hand, it uses dialogue and international pressures with China, where the government holds a strong control over its population.
7 belonging to an individual resulting from its condition as a human being. They are considered as universal in the sense that all human beings must be able to claim the same equality of rights in the presence of the law. The UNHR is approving this by stating « THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction » (UNHD, preamble).
The Humanitarian Law applied to the death penalty defines « a minimum standard below which no civilized society can descend, either in wartime or in peacetime » (Schabas W, 1997: 195). However, despite the Geneva Convention or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there is no international agreement on the abolition of the death penalty. Taking the national sovereignty as the highest authority of a state, it is a particularly delicate situation regarding the capital punishment, especially in time of war. The only instrument that regulates the human rights in wartime is the fourth Geneva Convention adopted in 1949.
Indeed, it specified « the general rule of the fourth convention is that the penal law of the occupied territory remains in force during the occupation » (Schabas W, 1997: 202). Nevertheless, if the occupying country feels a threat to its security, it is allowed to modify the law of the occupied territory. But, the fourth Geneva Convention set principles concerning the death sentence like « the occupying power may only impose the death penalty for serious espionage, serious act of sabotage against the military installations of the occupying power on intentional offences that have caused death » (Schabas W, 1997: 202).
8 the death penalty as a human rights violation and investigates the role of the International Organizations and Governmental/Non-governmental Organizations in the process that leads toward the abolition of the capital punishment, with the support of the ACF.
Research Question:
How can the coalition against the death penalty explain the success of a campaign gathering people around one cause? What is the strategy used and who are the actors involved in such a coalition? Besides, it also pushes us to wonder if signatory countries of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights are always respecting the International law or has it become a political tool?
In order to answer these questions, the paper first analyses the U.S.A and then draws a comparison between Japan and China. As such, this paper is looking at the interplay between several IO/NGOs and international institutions like the European Union or the United Nations league under the form of a coalition with the main purpose to undermine the implementation of the death penalty worldwide. The research is shedding light on and explains the process of such a coalition work: their actors, their strategy, and the problems they can encounter and how they overcome them. Therefore, the research is based on international law treaties and explains the role of the IO/NGOs and the civil society in the process of the coalition framework, using the examples of Japan, China and the USA. Also, it is underlining the utilitarian character of the human rights in the USA involved in the international network.
The work of the EU and the UN is illustrated with Paul Sabatier's theory because this work is before all defending one core idea, which is a society without humanitarian
9 Then, in addition of their common goal, they dispose of lots of resources: they are mainly working with numerous international organizations and non-governmental
organizations used as satellites of information and action in the different countries targeted by the EU and the UN. Finally, they set a strategy to which they always stick. The tactic of the EU and the UN is based on the rule of law and the UDHR when they are facing democratic countries like the U.S and Japan. When they fight a non-democratic country, they adjust their strategy in relying on the influence of the local organizations and the civil population, but more importantly in establishing a direct dialogue with the authorities like in China.
As a result, the ACF explains the work of the EU and the UN and is related to the study of the cases of Japan and China because it enables to make a comparison between two Asiatic countries with different type of regime. And on the other hands this theory also highlights the various actors within a system. Then, the comparison will illustrate the difference of strategy used by the international coalition and the results got in two distinct situations. This study takes into account the parameters included in the ACF theory (see the figure below) that is to say that it looks at the influence of the "external stable parameters" and the "external dynamic events" in Japan and China.
To answer to these questions, firstly, the paper looks at the death penalty as a fundamental violation of human rights and lays down the normative and legal bottom-line used as an instrument of negotiation by the network. Secondly, it investigates the issue of the death penalty used as a political tool, comparing the USA and the European Union in their implementation of the rule of law regarding human rights. And finally, Asia is chosen as a case study with a comparison of Japan and China in order to have a look at all the
10 Social and scientific significance of the research question:
Several IOs or opponent to the death penalty such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Death Penalty Information Center and Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort qualify the death penalty as a violation or even not to say a denial of human rights for various reasons. Indeed, can we consider the death penalty as a legal instrument? And should its abolition be the basis of human rights? Firstly, the sentence to death is a denial of the right to life proclaimed in the UDHR (UDHR, Article 3). Secondly, it also represents a source of inequality, as this paper shows later on. Indeed, some research conducted notably by Dieter, Mitchell or Sidanius proved the death sentence depending on race, gender, age or nationality to quote just a few (Death Penalty Information Center). Moreover, it has been shown that lots of death sentences were given to innocent people.
Thus, the death sentence is also violating the article 2 of the UDHR that stipulates ''Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty '' (UDHR, article 2).
Thirdly, it is particularly interesting to look at the struggle of the international
coalition in the People's Republic of China (PRC), compared to Japan. Indeed, it enables the reader to make a comparison between the two Asiatic countries and look at the difference of strategy used by the coalition against the death penalty. As a matter of fact, the PRC is not a democracy but it has nonetheless ratified the UN charter and is then due to respect it while Japan is officially a democracy and then is entailed to respect human rights. Nevertheless, lots of cases of unjustified and cruel capital punishment occur in Asia (Amnesty International, Annual Report: China 2011). Thus both countries are violating their obligations and neglecting their duties.
11 (U.S World fact). The USA ratified the United Nations (UN) charter, including the UN
UDHR and yet continues to practice the death penalty in some states. This seems very
paradoxical and controversial. Therefore, it is intriguing to have a closer look at the American policy: are Americans hypocritical when they are critical against the use of the death
sentence? In that sense, did the death penalty become a political tool?
In addition, the research analyzes the role of the death penalty in an international context. Thus, the influence of the IOs, Non-Governmental/Governmental Organizations and local actors is essential. In order to investigate the Asiatic issue and the American one, it is indispensable to have in mind the role of the EU that actively fights for the abolition of the death penalty. One question remains intriguing though: is there in all negotiations a complete shared belief among a coalition or are there some dissensions? Within a network, actors influence each other tremendously. Thus, it is assumed by the ACF of Sabatier that actors are changing their behavior in order to be on the same line of thought.
In the case of China for instance, the international coalition has to cope with the cultural background of the society that is an obstacle to the dialogue. In fact, the Chinese society is very hierarchical and attached to old Asiatic traditions. These traditions are totally at odds with the westerns ones. However, despite their differences in the approach, both the international coalition and the growing Chinese civil society are sharing the same
fundamental beliefs that are the necessary foundations for their fight. In other words, both the Chinese civil society in addition with the NGOs and the international coalition believe in the necessity to decrease discriminations in China and, with time, to completely abolish the death penalty.
This is the real purpose of a coalition: bring some changes in policy development but also bring actors from the civil society to work with members of governmental organizations or members of international networks. Then, working as a coalition creates an interaction between people and allows some to gain more importance in their role and other to reconsider their approach to politics. To conclude, analyze the death penalty through the lens of human rights in order to highlight the strong violations that it entails is particularly intriguing. Besides, compare the behavior of the opponent and the proponent of the death penalty in terms of politic is also interesting and academically enriching.
12 rights violations are at the heart of the paper, describing the principles and results of a
network formed around one belief. Then, it turns now to the end of the theoretical part with a section devoted to the methodology and another devoted to a more precise explanation of the ACF functioning. After the description of the theoretical framework, the paper is turning into the analysis and is answering the question: how can the coalition against the death penalty explain the success of a campaign gathering people around one cause?
Methodology:
This paper is based on qualitative method that aims at investigating in depth the field of human rights and more particularly areas concerning the human rights abuses such as the death penalty. Then, the result of the research can lead to empirical research. The main sources used for this research paper are issued from International Organizations reports and academic books, because it combines both general literature on the theme of Human rights and the death penalty. Reports from International Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the World coalition Against the Death Penalty or the Death Penalty Information Center are used. The United Nation Charter as well as the UDHR are used to underpin the research.
Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights has been used too in order to understand better the involvement of the European Union in the fight against the DP. In addition, mainly academic articles and reports will be used to gather data and precise information concerning the case study of China. Thus, it analyzes both general data about human rights and the issue of the death sentence and specific information related to Human rights violations.
The paper will refer to these IOs/NGOs involved in the fights against the death penalty, working according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework system:
-Amnesty International (IO working worldwide)
-The Anti-Death penalty Asian Network (branch of AI, working in Asia) -The Death Penalty Information center (working in the U.S)
13 -World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (IO working with local partners)
-Hands Off Cain (working in Italy)
-Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort (working in France)
Theoretical Framework: The Advocacy Coalition Framework
The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is an alternative theory to the main theories used in international relation like Realism or Liberalism, specifically the latter that does accept the intervention of non-governmental actors into politics but cannot really explain them (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). It has emerged during the 1980's onwards under the
leadership of Paul Sabatier, who was later collaborating with Jenkins-Smith. The foundations of the concept of the ACF can be found in their publication entitled Policy Change and Learning edited in 1993 (Sabatier, 1998). The ACF is based on the analysis of the so-called ''policy subsystem'' qualified as a ''conceptual arena of competing interactions among several advocacy coalitions'' within which each coalition is pleading for its cause. (Sotirov and Memmer, 2011: 52) Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith define a subsystem as consisting of ''actors from a variety of public and private organizations who are actively concerned with a policy problem or issue, such as agriculture, and who regularly seek to influence public policy in that domain'' (Sabatier, 1998: 99).
According to M. Sotirov and M. Memmler, the ACF seems to stem from the scientific program of Imre Lakatos (Sotirov and Memmler, 2011) that is based on a comparison
between competitive research programs. By trying to find effective or unachieving facts in the rival theory, a third person will formulate its own alternative theory aiming at finding a
compromise between the two coalitions. This third person (seen as a policy breaker) and the competing coalitions interact in a broader network that influences their behavior.
Paul Sabatier explains in An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein that his theory is articulated around three basic principles (Sabatier, 1998). Firstly, the process of a policy change needs a decade or more to be implemented because short-term decision-making underestimates the background research made to “alter the perception and conceptual apparatus of policy-maker” (Sabatier, 1998:131). Secondly, he says that “the most useful way to think about a policy change” is to focus on the interaction of different actors within a subsystem. It gives a general overview of the
14 can be conceptualized in the same manner as belief system”, that is to say a set of principles and values to apply in priority as well as some assumptions about how to implement them.
The figure below represents an overview of the framework functioning. The scheme will be used gain in the case-study in order to facilitate the comprehension of the link between the theoretical and the empirical part.
15 since China had to adjust its system to the international one. Thus, more resources were
available for the activists and it created leverage upon Chinese authorities; A change that did not occur in Japan.
Additionally, Sabatier puts to the fore the “policy-oriented learning” which is basically an effort to better understand the world surrounding us in order to avoid the obstacles of a policy output and “further the policy objective” (Sabatier, 1998: 132). This is the case with the Chinese organizations that pretend to be financial organizations in order to avoid problems and stay active. Then, the actors of a coalition are thoughtful, they seek to look around and understand the variables that affect the problems faced for the implementation of the policy change they fight for. It is important knowing that the actors of such a framework do not have to be experts or members of government. Everyone can join a coalition as long as it shares its belief.
As shows the figure above, a policy subsystem is composed of two main coalitions that can themselves embed one or more sub-coalitions, but it is important to remember that within one principal coalition, all actors are unified and fight for the same cause. They are united by their beliefs. Then, a coalition itself is a group work, e.g.: a work of negotiation and understanding. Indeed, the more actors there are in a coalition, the more chances of
dissensions are present and a consensus is necessary. This is the reason why Sabatier
decomposes the belief system in three level: the “deep core” that is stable and not susceptible to change; the “near core” that is the fundamental position of actors concerning the tactic to achieve the deep core, difficult to change as well; and the “secondary aspect” that represents the instrument of research and information necessary to the implementation of a policy change. This last category of belief is susceptible to change depending of a coalition and the context of the implementation of a program (Sabatier, 1998: 145).
Then, a third actor is usually necessary to decide between the two main coalitions. This actor is called a “policy breaker”; he has all the information and tends to bring a
16 The external events like changes in socio-economic conditions or in public opinion or again a change of government/ institutional factors are very important in the process of negotiation for the networks. Indeed, they can modify the political behavior of the actors involved in the policy subsystem and affect the building of long-term negotiations and structures depending on ''the openness of the political system''(Sotirov and Memmler, 2011: 53). As such, in order to lead a successful operation that would end up on negotiations, a coalition needs to dispose of stable internal factors (basic distribution of resources or basic constitutional structure for instance) in order to establish a consensus. Following the interaction of the three actors aforementioned, a governmental program comes out and is turned into a policy output at the operational level (Sabatier, 1998).
As such, the ACF is a theory that involves actors, with a strategy to overcome potentials obstacles and find a consensus. The actors of a network can vary; in this case the main actors are the representatives of the IO/NGOs and members of the civil society going from the basic educated citizen to some more specialized people like some lawyers or journalists. None of them must be an expert to be part of the network but merely need to be involved in the struggle and share the same core beliefs (Sabatier, 1998). The basis of the coalition framework discussed in this paper embeds two main elements: the actors and the strategy they will follow until the end of their campaign. This process is revolving around a very important aspect that is the so-called 'policy belief' that all actors have to agree on. This is why there is also within a coalition a certain degree of consensus and concession among actors in order to stay structured, as the paper will show in the case of China.
The interest of the research is also to highlight the flexibility of such a framework in its strategy. In fact, a coalition has to dispose of resources, a strong policy belief and a clear strategy. All of these elements together strengthen the tactic applied by the network. Indeed, the paper shows that the international coalition formed against the death penalty is not using the same strategy whether it faces a democratic country like Japan or the USA or a non-democratic country like China (with one trying to influence directly the internal factors and the other targeting the external factors). However, it can be noticed that the network is always utilizing the UDHR and the ECHR to strengthen their tactic, making use of these two main treaties as their bases of argumentation when facing a democratic country.
17 and sustainable framework for the policy changes (Sotirov, 2011). However, Alexandra Gilbert has done a study to enhance Women's rights and Human Rights in Afghanistan, using the ACF as her theory. She said that '' Each legislative process described below was affected by actors from a variety of public and private organizations who are actively concerned with a policy problem or issue (…) and who regularly seek to influence public policy in that
domain '' (Gilbert, 2010 :15). Thus these processes involved individuals issued from the government, journalists, non-governmental organizations employees, scholars, religious or other special interest group. All of them sharing the same beliefs and willing to be part of a coordinated action. Just as the coalition formed against the death penalty does.
As such, three coalitions appeared in her study: The Conservative Islamic Framework, rather narrow-minded; the Islamic Framework, rather progressive on its interpretation of Islam and the Western Value's system. As Alexandra gilbert mentioned '' this process is built around the principle of consensus-building across coalitions '' (Gilbert, 2010: 24). As a result, she gives four recommendations for the advocacy coalitions in order to enhance their
achievement in Afghanistan. Indeed, no real consensus has been reached so far. The Moderate Islamic Framework did not manage to convince members of the traditional Islamic
Framework. This latter became stronger due to the anger of the Afghan population toward the overwhelming presence of the International Community.
This results in a type of grievance against military troops but also against NGOs on stage. Therefore, the chances of dialogue are very weak, especially considering the very unstable internal factors in Afghanistan. Even though, Alexandra Gilbert concludes that there is still a room for hope if moderates Afghans become more unified and engage in a dialogue with the more conservative ones. Apart from the results, she defends the ACF as a great way to settle conflict because it is, so far, the only framework that allows all individual to take part in a negotiation of policy making, on the basis of shared beliefs and policy oriented learning.
In this line of thought, this paper focuses on the policy change toward the abolition of the death penalty and answers the question of the functioning and interest that bring the system of transnational network. Hence, it highlights the role and the influence of the International Organizations and Non-governmental Organization to create an interaction between individual's private or public actors. It demonstrates the changes of tactic adopted by a network depending on who/what regime it has to face. The choice of the use of the
18 The purpose of this choice is to emphasize the bottom-up process of a policy-making and its chances of success. Additionally it also stresses on the influence of such international/ local and non-governmental organizations to bring to the fore thorny topic and make a move.
Now that the guideline of the ACF is written down and then the theory clearer, the paper goes on making a link between theoretical and analytical parts. It gives a brief
explanation of the books and research's tools that have been used. Then, it mentions the few variables concerning the coalition's work that are to be discussed in the paper. The main sources are analyzed according to the ACF. Accordingly, the following section is devoted to relate the theoretical aspect of this paper to the empirical research. First, it reminds the theory's headlines in order to then be able to go further in analyzing some author's viewpoint on the efficiency of a coalition network. Afterwards, it turns into a more in depth analysis.
Paul Sabatier created the Advocacy Coalition Framework in association with Jenkins-Smith in 1993 (Sabatier, 1998). It happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 in which the NGOs had played a ''prominent role'' (Claude, 2000: 300). The two scholars
aforementioned further analyzed their role and their potential. The main guideline of the ACF is that within a coalition, all members are sharing the same belief and adjust their behavior in order to get the most successful issue that they all wish and fight for. A coalition is formed by a bench of different actors regardless their social, political or economic status, creating a private-public exchange. They can be politicians, member of some organizations, lawyers, academics and coming from the civil society. The gathering element is their common belief and their determination.
Thus, after getting everything set, the key to succeed is a well-structured coalition. They have got to establish a common strategy and stick to it. The work of a coalition is particular, they have to stay as a unit, and then sometimes find a consensus among the
coalition itself in order to be more efficient. Admittedly, the purpose of a coalition is to bring some changes in the policy development in the international community. Work in the field of human rights represents a specific difficulty because it involves on the one hand the
International law and International Humanitarian law. This is one aspect that the international coalition is fighting for. On the other hand, human rights field involves overall human beings, often represented as the civil society or prisoners in this context. A conflict in the field of human rights can arise very quickly and worse can degenerate even more rapidly. This is one of the reasons why the international coalition has to be structured and unified to target the conflict efficiently.
19 The strength of the coalition framework is to work as a unity and be able to adopt a new strategy for every discrimination it seeks to erase, in accordance with its target. It proves that a good network is able to bring some noticeable changes, even if the expectations are not totally reached. A determined and organized coalition can lead to some changes either in policy if already possible or at least in giving to its counterpart a different view concerning the criteria of decisions making.
Margaret Keck and Katherine Sikkink have also worked on the ACF in their book untitled 'Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics' in 1998. The two scholars are devoted to the analysis of the role and impact of networks formed by the interrelation of IO, NGOs, government's members and civil society's members, upon the international relations and politics. Hence, in stressing on the role of the NGOs and the network, they placed the human rights issues on the political agenda. Indeed, Keck and Sikkink emphasize on the interplay between NGOs and governments. First they described the formation and emphasized on the heterogeneity of a coalition. Then they look at the relations that such a network can have with governmental authorities and how does the interplay work. Considering that a coalition (according to the founder of the idea) is based on a common belief and the structured organization of the network, with the aim to have an impact on the policy development-setting in international relations.
In addition to this work, the book of William Korey 'NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ''A curious Grapevine''' is also helping to understand the bottom-line of the ACF. As such, Korey studied the role and the effectiveness of the NGOs in putting new issues on top of international discussions (Korey, 1998). Claude who reviewed his book said about the NGOs that ''they fight with their pen, not sword, believing in the efficacy of the written word to change government policy'' (Claude, 2000: 299). This comes to back-up the main idea of the ACF of Sabatier: that is to say that the struggle of a coalition is based on a common ideal to provoke a change. In conclusion of this quick description of the theory, it can be assumed that ''In eroding the sovereign powers of individual
governments, activists and organizations have transformed global politics strikingly in a relatively brief span of time'' (Claude, 2000: 299). The following part of this section now turns to the analysis of the literature related to the research question, which allows the paper to link theoretical and empirical parts.
20 abolition of Death Penalty in International Law'' written by W. Schabas and ''International Human Right in Context'' written by H. J Steiner and P. Alston, in order to place the research in its right context. These two books are rather descriptive and explanative. They give some definitions for the international laws and treaties utilized in the field of human rights in time of war and in time of peace. Thus they establish a foundation on which the paper relies.
The example of these books is a particular one, since it describes law and treaties that are enforced under the authorities of the European Union or The United Nation, like the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The authors keep their distance with the facts and therefore manage to adopt a neutral position. Unlike academic articles or IO/NGOs report, they do not express their own viewpoint in their books. It is then very official and as much objective as it could be.
Then, mostly academic articles are used in addition with reports form IO/NGOs. Those are much more subjective and give another point of view concerning what is happening in the world regarding human rights and more specifically in this case, the issue of the death
penalty. Some IO/NGOs reports are more Internationally turned such as Amnesty
International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) or the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) ones. That is to say that they defend human rights worldwide without having a preference for any country. If there is a violation or discrimination of the fundamental human rights they fight for, they will seek to denounce them anywhere, as proven by their activism from the USA to Asia.
As the paper shows, the IO/NGOs and the civil society are inter-related in triggering the death penalty and forming an international coalition. The organization AI is often very
involved in the fight, even on stage by supporting or backing-up the local NGOs or organizing mass protestations or petitions like they did in China. But for instance the Organization 'the Death Penalty Information Center' is an American organization and is clearly oriented toward the U.S policy and influenced by the current American politics. Then it is a more biased organization in the sense that it regards and analyzes facts through the lens of the American viewpoint and not the international one.
21 sentence is still legal in the republic of Japan but had not been implemented for more than two years until recently.
This is why these sudden executions have been interpreted as a severe retrograde step and provoked so much talking. The tactic adopted by AI has at least one corner stone, a ''deep belief'' that is present in all their discourses and report (Sabatier, 1998). The organization always end its publication related to the issue of the death penalty by the sentence ''Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception, as a violation of the right to life as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.'' (www.amnesty.org).
This sentence proves the entire engagement of the organization in the fight for the
abolition of the capital punishment worldwide, without any exceptions. By the same token, AI considers the UDHR as the base to justify the struggle against discriminations. Thus, the organization follows the rule of law and is committed to see it respected worldwide. In the case of Japan, the international coalition has to face a democratic government. Then, the international network is relying on the international law and treaties that Japan has signed and ratified but also, since it is a democracy, on the power of the NGOs and the civil society.
The Japanese NGOs Human Rights Now (HRN) is working in collaboration with AI in order to bring some changes in the Japanese criminal code and hunt down the violations of human rights they witness there. For instance, when Ms. Navanethem Pillay, the UN commissioner for human rights came to visit Japan from the 12th to the 15th of May 2010, HRN had welcomed her and was present during her stay. It said in a report that ''Human Rights Now (HRN), a Japan-based human rights NGO, welcomes her visit and expects that her dialogue with the Japanese government and Japanese civil society will lead to a positive change in Japan's human rights policies" (www.hrn.or.jp). This underlines the importance of the role of the civil society in the international coalition tactic to tackle violations in a democratic country.
22 Another example of struggle for less discrimination and violation in the field of human rights is the struggle engaged against the USA. Again, AI is very present over-there, in association with the IO Human Rights Watch (HRW). They try to put light on the several discriminations the capital sentence can hide in the USA. In this case, they also face a democracy. Therefore, their tactic is also based on the use of international law and the research for mass support. While studying the case of the USA, academic books are coming along with IO/NGOs report. The case of the USA is mainly analyzed through the work of the authors Mitchell and Sidanius and Klerk in this paper. All three of them are showing and describing the diverse discriminations occurring in the US. They are all engaged against them and do not support the practice of the death penalty in a country like the USA.
These authors are informing the international community of the common discrimination occurring in the U.S, mainly based on race. The thesis of Mitchell and Sidanius is contrasting with the one of Klerk. However, their work provides a new analysis viewpoint, giving some tools to the international coalition to trigger the lapse of the American government. Their claim is supported by the reports of HRW which denounce loudly the selective use of the capital punishment by the U.S authorities.
Once again, it is obvious to see the strategy of the coalition when facing a democratic country. It relies on the international law and treaties to have a strong legal back-up. Moreover, they take full advantage to have the possibility to get support from the civil
society, mainly via the mass media and the organization of public manifestation. To conclude on the cases of Japan and the USA, the international coalition has adopted a pretty similar strategy having a legal background and seeking the popular support with the help of local organizations and public declarations of well-known human rights defenders as AI and HRW.
Besides, the reading about Japan brought the research further toward the analysis of Asiatic countries where the death penalty is, more than never, still in practice like China. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) and AI are the main representative of IOs present in the international network facing Chinese violations of human rights.
Notwithstanding the very important support of the Anti-Death Penalty Asian Network (ADPAN) which represents 24 countries and act on behalf of many NGOs, lawyers and members of the civil society.
23 coalition is aware of its reduced chances to obtain a large support stemming from the
population. Therefore, they adopted a different strategy than when they faced a democratic state. Nonetheless, they still rely on international treaties, mainly the UDHR, and they play with the increasingly growing power of China within the international community.
Admittedly, the IOs WCADP, AI and ADPAN are publishing reports in which they denounce out loud all kind of discrimination and human rights violations that are occurring in China. Therefore, they deal with the Chinese government directly, using the strong assistance of the EU involved in the defense of human rights worldwide. They altogether blame China for corruption, discrimination of race, poverty or social status, lies about real figures related to the death by lethal injection and so on (AI report, Asia: Stop executions and unfair trial, 2011).
Unfortunately, the Chinese government is not as collaborative as the coalition was expecting. The dialogue is a rough task, with China threatening the coalition of stopping any negotiation when they face a disagreement. Hence, the coalition had to adapt its strategy and call for the support of the civil society in order to strengthen their struggle. Indeed, even though mass gathering and public opinion are still some difficult issues, thanks to China's new position in today world's order, the power of the civil society is growing in China.
Consequently, the role of the civil society in helping the international coalition is getting bigger and bigger with the campaign of mostly the WCADP and AI and the ADPAN. This is clear despite the fact that Declerck and Hood are not very positive on the change of the Chinese society toward the adoption of more western cultural values or traditions. Indeed, they argue that Chinese society is a very traditional one and cannot adopt western standard so quickly and easily. However, after have witnessed the outcome of the work of the
international coalition in China, it is undeniable to say that the group got his point and reached its purpose.
24 Obviously, the fight for the abolition of the death penalty is a classic one in the field of human rights. What is different in this paper though is the way to deal with it. Indeed, it is very interesting to look at how the international coalition is coping with human rights issued in democratic countries such as Japan or the USA and non-democratic one like China. To conclude, the analysis section is reflecting the theoretical part in the way that it explains and shows on the one hand how the networks are functioning (how much they relate on legal bottom-line to feed their argumentation) and working with the civil society (which is mostly reflected in their change of tactic and the support of the EU). On the other hand it also demonstrates to what extend this coalition framework is efficient to bring new patterns of legislation and provoke some changes in the international policy setting.
Thesis Analysis
The death penalty, a concept against fundamental Human Rights
The death penalty is against the right to live and enhances the survival of the Lex Talionis
So far, the paper has introduced the essential concepts of the theory used and given a brief explanation of the link between the theoretical and empirical research, it is turning to the description of the work of the coalition created against the death penalty and human rights violations. It goes more in depth into the normative concepts that embed such a fight. Firstly it lays down the legal key concepts of the coalition in order to clarify its strategy. Then, it describes the several discriminations hidden behind the capital punishment and show how a coalition can undercover them. The paper starts with explaining that the world politics at the beginning of the twenty-first century does not involve only states and interstates relations anymore. Alongside with governmental actors, there are many non-governmental actors such as the non-governmental organizations or the civil society, states and actors active
internationally like the international organizations.
This interaction, that scholars now call 'network' or 'coalition' is working
25 formed of activists, sharing basic values, with the aim to tackle the death penalty worldwide (Keck and Sikkink, 1998).
This first section of the paper deals with ethical and judicial aspects of the death penalty abolition since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights qualified the capital punishment as a complete denial of human rights. It will illustrate that the death penalty is a concept at odds with the right to life that the UDHR defends. On March 29, 2012, Japan has executed three men condemned to death. This is the last «bomb" released in the field of HR. It has had a strong effect on the opponent of the capital punishment and this is why it will be quickly illustrated in the following second sub-section.
In fact, this recent event provoked a chock within the international community. First of all because the International Organization Amnesty International does not stop to urge Japan to abolish the death penalty, as it is contradictory with its definition of being a democracy. But more specifically, it happened to be amazement among the Human Rights proponents because Japan had not executed any of its prisoners for the last two years. It was considered as a retrograded step. Therefore, this brought back to the fore the debate over the death penalty within the international community, the medias, scholars and so on.
In order to place the research in its context, it is necessary to give some background information. Thus, this subsection first introduces a definition of the right to life and provides some facts and figures related to its implementation across the world. Indeed, It is important to mention the UNHR and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in this first subsection since these are the two main treaties the transnational coalition leans on when it faces a democratic country. Later on, the paper highlights the discriminatory character of the death penalty. Finally, it gives some first examples of activism of International Organizations and their interplay within the coalitions.
26 its importance later on).
As a matter of fact, the EU in addition with the IO/NGOs which link the domestic civil society to a transnational network of civil society and the experts, journalists or members of government are the main actors of the international coalition presented in this paper. The transnational network allows then to tie the local organizations and the civil society with higher institutions like the EU or the UN that help to work at an international level. As main instrument of their strategy, they use the human rights key treaties aforementioned. Therefore, they have motivating values, resources and are structured in order to influence the policy regarding the death penalty worldwide. Their strategy is based on this shared beliefs and the use of their resources such as the media, their reports and petitions as instruments of
communication and diffusion of campaign.
To come back on the event that triggered off the intense campaign of the transnational network against the death penalty, it is important to measure the normative bottom-line of such a coalition entailed in the human rights ideal they defend. In fact, this is also a reason why the EU is so opposed to the practice of the capital sentence in Japan, considering that Japan is a democracy and has ratified all key-treaties concerning human rights. Therefore, the values the EU rely on are to be found in the ECHR that defines the right to life as such: "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of the sentence of a court following its conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law" (Korff D, 2006: 4). The article 2 of the ECHR lists the right to life in first position because it is estimated that "it is the most basic human right of all: if one could be arbitrarily deprived of one's right to life, all other rights will become illusory" (Korff D, 2006: 6).
This same article 2 devotes a specific paragraph to the death penalty issue with reference to the protocols number 3 and 6 that respectively abolish the death penalty in time of peace and in all circumstances. Hence, each citizen of member states of the Council of Europe is protected by law against discrimination, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention or sudden death condemnation. It is important to remind that the law of the Council of Europe overrides the domestic law of member’s states, in many cases.
27 ratification of international treaties) was adopted later in 2002 and was ratified by 43 member states. All these protocols are to be counted in the policy beliefs of the European structure, hence it sounds logical to use them as a bottom-line in their tactic.
This is interesting to notice that the IO Amnesty International was already very
involved in the struggle for the abolition of the capital punishment in 1989 during the Soering v. The United Kingdom. Indeed, AI was urging the court to define the death penalty as '' an inhuman and degrading punishment'' (Korff, 2006: 86), being in the line of thought with the evolving standard of the European Union. As a result, it is not surprising to notice the crucial presence and activity of the IO inside the transnational network. Amnesty International is also working as a network with offices in numerous countries around the globe and local partners on stage. But working in cooperation with the EU or the UN within a same coalition
multiplies the access to the international system. This principle is the same for any activist joining the network.
The EU has deep normative bases that it aims to diffuse. Indeed, any candidate to become a member state of the Council of Europe is due to abolish the death penalty as a requirement to be part of the CE. The CE and the protocol No.13 of the ECHR strictly forbid any extra-judicial execution, in time of peace or war. It condemns the practice of torture and discriminations. In addition it proclaims that the law beside protects all citizen to deserve to have a fair trial (Korff, 2006). It comes to strengthen the argument of the article 2 of the protocol No. 6 that states, ''the implementation of the death penalty in respect of a person who has not had a fair trial would not be permissible'' (Korff, 2006: 89). Moreover, the latter protocol forbids the capital punishment in times of peace and call states to retain to use the death penalty in times of war.
However, as underlines the Human Rights handbook No 8 written by Douwe Korff; the term war is not very clear but the author says that it should be interpreted ''in accordance with international law, and more specifically with international humanitarian law, it should be read as referring to actual or imminent armed conflict'' (Korff, 2006: 90). Thus, during a domestic conflict, the capital sentence cannot be used as a judgment. The same occurs during the so-called war on terror, as long as it is not recognized as an international armed conflict.
The Protocol No. 13, however, forbids the use of the death penalty in all
28 protect a person; otherwise it goes against the convention. As a result, the EU norms are very engaged in the protection of human being.
Therefore, if the person accused is a foreigner, likely to be expatriated and sent back to his homeland where the capital punishment is still in practice; the detaining country is
allowed to ask the destination-state to assure that capital measure will not be taken against the accused. Nevertheless, the problem of member states of the ECHR that have not yet ratified or signed these protocols is an issue to deal with. For instance, Russia did not sign the protocol No. 6 and can then use the capital punishment in time of war. Nonetheless, it would be extremely risky because it still goes against the principles of the convention that they all signed.
The EU values have proven to be influential toward another now largely known and recognized human rights standard stemming from the creation of the United Nations in 1945 (AI, ratification of international treaties). Everything has started in 1948 with the drafting and approval of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that ''proclaims the right of every individual to protection from deprivation of life. It states that no one should be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment'' (AI, ratification of international treaties). Afterwards, under the influence of the EU and the UN, a waterfall of treaties and international conventions were ratified. In 1966, the UN has adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The European Union as well was soon embedded in the fight against the death sentence and served as a guide in the defense of human rights. As such, the European Convention on Human Rights adopted the Protocol No.6 in 1982. Then, the UN General Assembly has endorsed the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) ''Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty'' in 1984. The second optional protocol of the ICCPR had for aim the abolition of the death sentence in 1989. This is how the international coalition, triggering for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide was born with a common belief, lots of resources and the support of internationally spread activists who help leading the strategy of the network internationally.
29 considered as a violation of the fundamental human rights. They called for ''all states that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty'' (AI, ratification of international treaties).
All these treaties, conventions and protocols are very important back up for the IOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or the Council of Europe in their fight against all discriminations. According the ACF, there are more chances to reach a long-term consensus when the 'internal factors' of a country are stable and its government open. That is to say when there are minimal external factors such as changes in socio-economic conditions or public opinion and optimal institutional situation such as a stable and efficient government able to afford a basic distribution of resources as well as ''socio-cultural values and social structure'' (Sabatier, 1998: 102). All struggle for the right to life because, as has said Laura Huey, a Feminist scholar '' preserving a right to privacy and integrity of one's body does not rule out the exceptional ability of the state to hold that body through lawful incarceration or detention'' (Huey L, 2004: 177).
Let's turn now to a first aspect of the utilitarian character of the death penalty well illustrated by the case of the USA. Indeed, The U.S. that has reintroduced the death penalty in 1976, after a decision of the Supreme Court is used in the following to demonstrate the social inequalities resulting in the death sentencing (HRW report, U.S.: An Attack on Human Dignity, 2011). This choice is justified by the fact that the USA are a democracy and more particularly because the American authorities ratified three of the ''key human rights treaties'' (Dieter R. C, The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law, DPIC: 27) that is to say the ICCPR, the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Yet, it is proven by a lot of studies that racial, social, age or gender discriminations occur in the death sentencing in the USA. Therefore, the transnational coalition is calling its counterpart to stop all discrimination or abuse. The U.N.'s Special Rapporteur and the
30 Hence, the following highlights the fact that the death penalty is sometimes utilized as a mean to conserve the Lex Talionis and hide states abuses. It also shows how the activists of the transnational network are coping with this issue. As a matter of fact, the USA, with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq and Iran, was still the only perpetrator of the capital punishment over juvenile people until 2005 (Dieter R. C, The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law, DPIC: 14). The IOs Human Rights Watch and Amnesty international are very present in the USA and are urging them to stop the practice of the capital punishment. The issue of the death penalty in the U.S is a domestic one but it is slowly growing internationally. Then, the U.N in collaboration with AI, HRW and the civil society are working toward the re-adjustment of the ideas of justice and respect for the life of a human being in the U.S..
HRW released a report about the high rate of death sentence in USA: considering that it is a democracy, it means that those killing are going against all the principles they are intended to defend. It is stated in a report of October 10, 2011, written after the famous execution of the Afro-American prisoner Troy Davis, that "Race, poverty, and geography are inexorably intertwined with the death penalty. Defendants whose victims were white are more likely to be sentenced to death than those whose victims were members of a minority
group"(HRW, U.S: An Attack on Human Dignity, 2011). Indeed, Troy Davis claimed his innocence until his death and doubts still remain on his culpability.
The authors Mitchell and Sidanius support this claim. In their essay, they use the interesting theory of social dominance, which is based on a society divided into sub-groups. This maintains a hierarchical system that enhances the hegemony of the dominant group (people with high social status) over the subordinate group (people with low status). They also point out the so-called ''institutional discrimination'' issuing from this hierarchical society (Mitchell M. and Sidanius T. 1995: 592). It occurs when ''institutional decisions tend to distribute more positive social values to members of dominant groups and more negative social values to members of subordinate groups, all other things being equal'' (Mitchell M. and Sidanius T. 1995: 592).
31 and African-American but the European and Asian Americans (who are the less attacked) are the ones favoring the death penalty.
Furthermore, the scholar Elizabeth Rapaport also demonstrated in her essay 'The Death Penalty and Gender Discrimination' that there were substantially less women
condemned to death than men. This is, according to her, essentially for two reasons. Firstly, women commit mainly intimate crimes or within the domestic sphere. And secondly, men seem to be more active in the economic and ''other predatory murder'' for which the death penalty is more likely to be pronounced. Therefore, there is an important ratio of men
condemned compare to women. For instance, for the same amount of rape murders, 96.1% of men were sentenced to death whereas only 3.9% of women were. The gender bias is evident in that case (Rapaport, 1991: 371).
Nonetheless, some contradictions exist. Gary Klerk reviewed some studies about the racial discrimination in the United States of America concerning the death sentence process and came up with the conclusion that there are no fundamental discrimination against black people. He says ''the death penalty has not generally been imposed for murder in a fashion discriminatory towards blacks, except in the South. Elsewhere, black offenders have been less likely to receive a death sentence or be executed than whites'' (Klerk, 1981: 798). He quotes some others scholars and authors who analyzed this issue. Thus, Mr. Bullock came out with the conclusion, in 1961, than shorter prison sentence were attributed to black accused of murder. Mr. Gibson, in 1978, studied the judge's attribution of sentences and found out that ''seven of eleven judges gave a higher percentage of severe sentences to whites than to blacks'' (Klerk, 1981: 799).
One question remains in suspense though: why such a difference with other studies? Gary Klerk has enumerated several reasons for that, namely ''Blacks as devalued victims'' (Klerk, 1981: 800). That is to say usually black offenders commit crimes or rape towards the black population. In addition, Gary Klerk says that '' Black victims are considered by
predominantly white social-control agents to be less serious offenses, representing less loss or threat to the community than crimes with white victims'' (Klerk, 1981: 800).
32 To conclude, this paragraph has shown how the practice of the capital punishment is at odds with the key-treaties of human rights, namely the UN ICCPR and the ECHR protocol No. 6 and 13. Nonetheless, it remains signatory states, like the USA, that are still practicing the death sentence. The transnational network with the help of activists issued from IO/NGOs and scholars like Mitchell and Sidanius are saying out-loud this 'faux pas' from the American since it is going against all human rights principles and democratic values. But in despite of the denunciations, the capital punishment seems to be a great tool for a state to remind the power of the government and keep in mind of the population the Lex talionis. This is the case when a death row prisoner is executed without real proof of his guilt as Troy Davis. Let’s now turn to a second aspect the utilitarian character of the capital punishment, i.e.: the death
penalty utilized as a political instrument.
The role of the death penalty in the USA:
The paper has reviewed so far, on the one hand the legal basis on which the international coalition based its strategy. On the other hand, it has illustrated one aspect of the utilitarian character of the capital punishment, showing the inequalities embedded in this type of sentence, using the case of the USA. To continue on this case, the article now turns to another instrumental role of the death penalty practiced in the U.S. that is to say: how do the American cope with the issue of the capital punishment, being a country signatory of the main Humanitarian treaties?
This paragraph focuses on the USA and their usage of the death penalty in order to determine if they see it as a human rights issue (as being part of the international coalition) or an issue dealing with political and economic interests? On the one hand, Americans argue in favor of the death penalty because they believe it is efficient to reduce the crime-rate. On the other hand, they heavily criticize China for its high rate of death capital punishment and are active within the coalition against the death penalty. Therefore, is there some kind of hypocrisy or do Americans use the death penalty as a political tool?
33 American argumentation to re-introduce the death penalty in 1976 (Dieter, DPIC report). But it especially goes with the "war against terror" that they began after the terrorists’ attacks of the 9/11. Indeed, the USA became more and more nationalist and eager to protect its territory which provoked a rise of conservatism within the American Society.
As a matter of fact, the scholar Michael Mitchell claims in his essay entitled 'Social Hierarchy and the Death Penalty' that "social hierarchy and conservatism were consistently and significantly related to the use of execution" (Mitchell and Sidanius, 1995: 591). In reality, the American society was struck by a strong wave of conservatism after the attacks of the 9/11 2001. This pushed the population to follow the enclosure of the society and its state under the ruling of the president George W. Bush.
The excuse of being threatened by a worldwide spread terrorist group was taken as a support for numerous violations of international treaties relying on war and human rights. This is back then that the practice of torture was found justified by the so-called 'ticking-bomb argument'. This new publication provided a base for the legitimization of the use of torture supposed to lead to the release of information that could save life. It has been utilized as a norm by the American authorities and thanks to it, U.S officials and army members violated many international laws (HRW report, U.S: Reject torture as a policy option, 2005).
Furthermore, the United States of America became more and more conservative and kept leading a 'terror politic' which was aimed at scaring the society in order to obtain the public approval to apply exceptional laws in case of war. Then, American officials gave an ethical and legitimized sense to the use of torture and unfair practice of killings, because they followed their ideologies and beliefs. At that time, the American society was more focused on protecting its own country from a big threat than to promote the ideal of democracy and human rights as they use to (Mitchell and Sidanius, 1995).
As mentioned before in the paper, the American society is very hierarchical and discriminations are still widely occurring. Notably during judgments as the very influential nature of the judges and the jury has been shown. In this line of thought, Mitchell and Sidanius said in their essay that:
"Among other differences, legitimizing beliefs come in two basic varieties: hierarchy-attenuating beliefs and hierarchy-enhancing beliefs. Political liberalism is an example of a hierarchy-attenuating beliefs since it places primary value upon increasing the degree of social equality between different groups in the social system (like classes, race, genders). Political conservatism is considered a hierarchy-enhancing ideology because it tends to elitists rather than egalitarian principles of social relations" (Mitchell and Sidanius, 1995: 593).
34 regarding diversity and equality. As already mentioned, there is a large majority of white people among the elite in the USA and they are rarely condemned to death, unlike black and Hispanic people. Unfortunately, this trend is also reflected in the surveys presenting the percentage of the population in favor of the death penalty and those for its abolition, as shows the figure below (Hanley, 2008: 114).
Therefore, a question can be asked: how does the American government use the death sentence? Has the capital punishment become a deterrence tool used in political ways, and would then the USA violate the International law by imposing its hegemonic view?
Especially since the U.S. are part of the international coalition formed for the abolition of the death penalty and at the same time criticize China's situation. This is, at least, many questions that the international community is wondering. The IOs such as Human Rights Watch or AI are pinpointing and criticizing this issue (HRW report, U.S: An Attack on Human Dignity, 2011). The reader is now in front of a case where two or more members of a same coalition have to find a consensus in order to go on efficiently in their struggle (Sabatier, 1998).
