Normative Compliance in a Strategic Environment

Abstract

This thesis is an investigation and analysis of the causal mechanisms that underpin Nepal’s decision-making behaviour towards two populations, the Tibetan asylum seekers, and refugees, and the Lhotshompa refugees from Bhutan. It presents two hypotheses. The first hypothesizes the causal mechanisms underlying Nepal’s decision to resist the coercion of a Great Power, China, to deport the Tibetan asylum seekers, and refugees, and instead comply with the international norm of non-refoulément, an outcome contrary to realist theory or an approach based solely on constructivist notions. This second hypothesizes the causal mechanisms underlying Nepal’s decision to accept the US proposal to resettle 100,000 Lhotshompa refugees, but contemporaneously not accept the US proposal to resettle 5,000 Tibetan refugees.

This research adopting a theoretical approach that synthesised realist theory and constructivist assumptions about the power of norms to explain Nepal’s decision-making behaviour. This research introduced a new multi method research (MMR) approach, which combines set theoretical QCA and process tracing to identify and describe the causal mechanisms underlying Nepal’s decision-making, that included the effects of a strong international norm and coercion by a Great Power, on the decision-making behaviour of a least powerful state, Nepal. This thesis explains the outcome of a critical, or deviant case, that realist theory alone could not predict nor explain, by adopting a theoretical approach that synthesised realist theory and constructivist assumptions. This research utilised intensive, and iterative, within-case, and cross-case process tracing that systematically developed causal inferences that led to the development of two general hypotheses using crisp set-theory and Boolean logic, to explain Nepal’s decision-making in the presence or absence of the two key independent variables, strong norms, and coercion by a Great Power. This research discredits a realpolitik approach to explaining the decision-making of a less powerful state, and successfully introduces the power of international norms as a force to counter the influence of a Great Power, over a least developed and least powerful state, Nepal. This study shows that coercion by a Great Power of a less powerful state will succeed when the international norm governing the activity targeted by coercion is not sufficiently strong enough to resist the coercion, and that the coercion by the Great Power can be directed at normative compliance or non-compliance by the less powerful state. The research approach adopted in this research provides a richer explanation of the causal mechanism underlying the decision-making behaviour of the less powerful state and shows that norms do matter. This thesis crosses the divide between realism and constructivism and adopts a synthesised approach to explain the outcomes of Nepal’s decision-making. It undertakes theory building and theory testing to generate a synthetic theory that counters realist theory to explain Nepal’s decision to reject the coercion of a Great Power, China, and to instead engage in normative compliance with international norms of the refugee regime. Nepal generally followed the international refugee norms except when under pressure from a Great Power to deviate from complying with norms governing the right to asylum, or durable solutions for refugees, but resisted coercion in relation to the international norm that prohibits refoulément of asylum seekers and refugees.