The third strand of the socialization literature provides an interactive dynamic of global and local actors involved in the socialization process while revealing the dynamic nature of international norms (Global-local perspectives of socialization) (Wiener, 2004, Wiener, 2008, Wiener, 2007, Wiener, 2014, Zimmermann, 2017, Orchard and Betts, 2014).
Socialization studies have recognized that such global interaction can be traced back to the late 1990s when Martha Finnemore explained how international organizations teach values engendering norm-consistent domestic institutions and procedures in target states. She provided the empirics of state adherence to the norms and practices promoted by UNESCO, the Red Cross and the World Bank, even in the absence of material interests (Finnemore, 1996b, Finnemore, 1996a). However, her explanation suggested a unidirectional flow of social actions from agents of IOs delivering to domestic norm recipients. And thus, her account can be considered ‗inter‘ as it involves global-local encounters, but the portion of ‗active‘ is missing as her research failed to include the reactions from the sides of domestic actors, which can be diverse with pro-norm and anti-norm elements. Alastair Iain Johnston also pointed out such oversights (Johnston, 2008: 17).
Legal scholar Harold Hongju Koh discusses transnational legal processes as ‗the best strategies for internationalization‘ of norms. He distinguishes three dimensions of internalization: social, political and legal internationalization as the outcome of transnational legal processes. He recognizes the complexity of interaction among the three dimensions. For him, ‗social internalization‘ occurs when the norm acquires strong public legitimacy and widespread public obedience. ‗Political internalization‘ occurs when political elites adopt the norms in government policies and legal internalization occurs when norms are incorporated in domestic legal systems through executive, legislative and judiciary processes (Koh, 1997: 2656-
2657). But his studies discuss less how political and legal internalization leads to social internalization.
Lisbeth Zimmermann‘s studies of norm translation, in post-conflict contexts in Guatemala, also reveals the interactions of the global rule of law promotion and domestic norm translation, theorizing the outcomes of global-local joint translations of international norms. She provides categories of norm translation in norm target states: ‗translation into discourse‘, ‗translation into law‘ and ‗translation into implementation‘. She considers three scenarios in the process of translation into implementation. All three scenarios focus on government actions; i.e., complete rejection of the norm set with no effort to put it into practice, reshaping of norm sets involving the government or responsible agencies partially implementing, and full adoption involving intensive activity by the government and responsible agencies (Zimmermann, 2017: 59). Such narrow focus on government action will explain government policy changes relating to international norms but their study is not adequate to explain norm practice variation across issue areas.
Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard introduced a distinctive theory of ‗implementation‘, bringing to light gaps between well-institutionalized norms at international level and domestic practices that deviate from norms‘ prescriptions. Given the existence of such institutionalization-implementation gaps, they argue for analytical distinction between institutionalization and implementation. These scholars define ‗implementation‘ as ‗the steps necessary to introduce the new international norm‘s precepts into formal legal and policy mechanisms within the state or organization in order to routinize compliance‘ (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 2, Orchard, 2014: 105). ‗Implementation‘ is conceptualized as ‗a distinct but parallel process of institutionalization‘.
Despite its definitional focus on ‗state and organization‘s legal and policy mechanisms‘, their empirical studies look into norm practices within the state and organizations and their works capture the interactive dynamic of global and local actors in norm implementation. They use the term ‗international in domestic‘ in examining the role of external norm agents in domestic ground. These scholars identify important factors influencing norm implementation in a comprehensive manner. They consider the influences of domestic structures, external and domestic agencies of norms, typology of norms and contingencies over norm practices. Their analytical disaggregation of domestic structures into ideational (legal and cultural influences), material (actors‘ interests and capacity) and institutional is useful for my research in observing
the respective actors‘ activities (and lack of activities). Implementation studies overcome the limitation of earlier norm studies‘ state-centric analysis as implementation theory recognizes the significance of non-state actors (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 274). Whether the norms face contestation, adaption or adoption may be shaped domestic ideational, material and institutional structures (Betts and Orchard, 2014: 12-24, 278-282).
Analyzing state‘s norm implementation through the lens of domestic structures is in line with many scholars‘ concepts on the importance of domestic cultural and structural factors; cultural match and receptivity of norm recipients (Acharya, 2004, Checkel, 2001, Checkel, 2005b). Frank Schimmelfennig considers the states‘ habitualization of norm-conforming behaviour as ‗the outcome of a stable and structurally determined equilibrium in which actors simply have no incentive to deviate from the institutionalized norm‘ (Schimmelfennig, 2000:119).
Notwithstanding the rich empirical insights and useful conceptual lens these scholars offer, implementation studies have three issues. First, their empirical findings on the role of external actors in implementation processes are far from being conclusive as they do not reveal much of external actors‘ interaction with domestic actors. Second, their empirical studies on the relations between norm typologies (treaty, principles and policy norms) do not provide a clear conclusion. Third, implementation theory under-theorizes the relationship between the influence of structures and agency. Given these three shortcomings, implementation theory finds it difficult to explain instances of norm practice variation across issue areas in a given context.
Empirical studies contributing to the work on implementation theory tend to agree on the role of domestic actors (local agents) in norm implementation processes. For instance, Alexander Betts demonstrates, through studies of South Africa‘s and Botswana‘s implementation of refugee norms, that domestic political contestations explain the variation between the two countries‘ policies and responses to the refugee crisis. Likewise, Urvashi Aneja‘s study on the implementation of need-based humanitarian assistance in Sri Lanka recognizes the important roles of domestic actors and their interests.
With regard to the role of external actors, these scholars‘ empirical works findings vary. In the studies of refugee norms in South Africa and Botswana, Alexander Betts found that United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR) followed the host state‘s position
rather than making independent causal impact in the implementation of refugee norms. Similarly, Urvashi Aneja examines the implementation of the norm governed by the Geneva Convention for need-based humanitarian assistance in conflict situations in Sri Lanka and found that some international humanitarian NGOs‘ translation of need-based norm into the rights-based approach was counterproductive to implementation (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 22- 23).
Contrary to these findings on the less encouraging role of international actors in norm implementation in states, Phil Orchard‘s studies on implementation of the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) norm in Uganda and Nepal found that ‗at concerted international pressure‘ through capturing ‗the state‘s positive rhetorical stance‘ help the implementation process in Uganda (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 23). Similar conclusions on the role of external actors are reached by Michael Bluman Schoeder and Alana Tiemessen, Brian L. Job and Anastasia Shesterinina and Jennifer M. Welsh Michael Schroeder and Alana Tiemessen suggests that in many instances implementation is realized through ‗international actions‘ of international pressures and incentives (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 272). These scholars‘ empirical findings suggest a familiar channel of external actors‘ influence on states, pressure (in the cases of Phil Orchard‘s studies), and also persuasion and capacity support to local agents (in the cases of Michael Schroeder and Alana Tiemessen).
Given such variation in the findings on external actors‘ role in norm implementation, it is important to deepen norm research‘s understanding on external actors‘ role in implementation of international norms in the domestic arena. In other words, the study of socialization in domestic sites of states needs to be broadened empirically and deepened conceptually.
Another aspect Alexander Betts and Phil Orchards task for the benefit of students of norms is to study the relations between norm contents and implementation outcomes. As their studies to find the linkage between types of norms (treaty, principles and policy) and their impact on implementation produce less clear guidance, study of norm contents and impact nexus is warranted. Considering these spaces left by ‗norm implementation‘ studies for future
studies, this research employs their conceptual framework to learn how socialization animates in domestic sites, or in other words how norms are put into practice at national level.32
In summary, the global-local interactive strand of socialization studies provides better conceptual insights on the ways norms can be implemented, adapted or contested in domestic sites. As this research is interested in the socialization process in states from state policies of norms to societal practices, it embeds itself in ‗norm implementation‘ studies and extends this line of studies by deepening empirical insights and conceptual extensions.