Advanced search
1 file | 6.32 MB

The European Union’s normative foreign policy : perspectives of EU human Rights promotion in Japan

Zeren Langjia (UGent)
(2019)
Author
Promoter
Jian Shi, (UGent) and (UGent)
Organization
Abstract
The term “Normative Power Europe” reflects the political posturing of the European Union (EU) foreign policies to shape what “normal” is. Nonetheless, the value orientation and policy priorities of EU normative foreign policy are markedly different in face of different countries. The extant research has shown that EU normative foreign policies are mainly targeted at prospective member states, small developing countries and major “non-democratic” powers rather than established democratic states. Bearing in mind this research result, the author argues that if the EU only pays more attention to the former groups of countries and less significance for developed democracies in the spectrum of the EU’s normative foreign policies, the asymmetrical policy focus will make it less likely for the EU to construct a normative identity globally. Quite the contrary, with regard to the EU’s practices of normative power, it is of significant importance to understand how established democracies perceive the EU and whether they recognize EU norm exports. Besides, there is a big question mark over whether the EU’s normative approaches can surmount the obstacle of different political civilizations and become the criteria for international disputes. The answers to these questions not only depend upon the EU and its followers who share the same political cultures with Europe, but also rely upon those who are the heterogeneous polities and non-Western style democracies. As an important political power in East Asia, Japan has a very different historical and cultural history, and its political system widely differs from Western countries. In the context of reflecting upon “Eurocentrism”, Japan is one of the best countries to assess the normativity of the EU’s foreign policies. Meanwhile, the analysis of the EU’s normative foreign policies towards Japan will have significant implications for other non-Western polities. Human rights promotion has become an increasingly crucial foreign policy goal of the EU. Through exporting norms to its targeted countries and regions, the EU endeavours to (re)shape an order of ‘normal’ according to its conception on the one hand and create an image of being a “human rights actor” on the other hand. Human rights also became a repeatedly mentioned principle in the bilateral relations since the EU and Japan signed the milestone document—the 1991 Hague Declaration. Since then, the EU-Japan relations extended from economic and trade cooperation into political areas. In the following thirty years, the EU and Japan have steadily enhanced mutual relations. Therefore, in view of these developments in the EU-Japan relations, this dissertation analyses their respective interpretations on major human rights issues under discussion and explores the EU’s normative power in the field of human rights in Japan. The main research question is this: Can the EU be conceived of as a “normative power” in terms of its human rights promotion in Japan? To answer the question, the author puts emphasis on the two-way process of interaction between the EU and Japan over four human rights issues. The author attaches equal significance to the function of norm-maker and norm-takers with respect to constructing the EU’s normative identity. Besides, when the human rights issues are more sensitive and the disputes over them are more undisguised, it becomes easier to observe and assess the bottom-line values of polities. Therefore, to choose such propositions as research objects not only has a very high academic value, but also their operability is high. Hence, based upon two criteria, i.e., major propositions of EU-Japan human rights agenda and high relevance with Japan’s domestic human rights, this dissertation has selected four propositions as the research objects: the death penalty abolition, human rights clauses in the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA), denuclearization-human rights nexus on the Korean Peninsula and Japanese refugee policy. These two factors are treated as crucial selection criteria because disputes over human rights norms can be better observed in the cases where both the EU and Japan experience tensions most. With regard to analytical framework, having conbined Manners’ three-typology method with Björkdahl et al.’s conceptual framework of assessing external perceptions, the author creatively poses an analytical framework of four ‘variables’. Manners puts forwards the method to analyse EU normative foreign policies from aspects of principles, actions and impact while Björkdahl et al. design a conceptual framework of evaluating external perceptions on EU foreign policies according to the varied degree of external partners’ attitudes, i.e., adoption, adaptation, resistance and rejection. Hence, this dissertation integrates the conceptual framework of assessing external perceptions into the three-typology method, regards external reactions as the fourth dimension of evaluating the EU’s normative foreign policies towards Japan, and comes up with the ‘four variables’ of principels, actions, impact and external perceptions. Specifically, the four variables are as follows: Principles—EU normative objectives, i.e., what the EU is promoting; Actions—EU normative means, i.e., what means the EU employs; Impact—EU normative impact, i.e., what results the EU obtains; External perceptions—the degree of Japan’s acceptance of EU normative foreign policies, i.e., how Japan reacts to EU norm export. Of which, external perception is taken as an important dimension to understand EU normative power, and its integration into the three-typology method is an innovative point of this dissertation. Through discerning Japan’s reactions (adoption, adaptation, resistance or rejection) to EU norm exports, the author analyses how the norm-taker exerts impact on norm-maker and thus how it further influences the construction of normative identity in the course of EU normative human rights policy. Thus, this analytical framework serves two main purposes (1) to explore what human rights principles the EU promotes and how the EU approaches to human rights promotion and (2) to understand Japan’s responses to the EU’s norm promotion and its influence on the formation of EU normative impact. This dissertation employs a multi-layered method of documentary analysis, qualitative content analysis and case study. In this study, documentary analysis is treated not only as a general research approach but also, more importantly, as a data collection method. Under the framework of Japan as a single country case, the author has undertaken four empirical sub-cases that stand out most notably in the EU-Japan relations. They are the death penalty abolition, human rights clauses in the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA), denuclearization-human rights nexus (DHRN) on the Korean Peninsula and Japanese refugee policy. The term Normative Power Europe (NPE) is revisited in the first introductory chapter as a part of the literature review. It is of importance to discuss the conceptual evolution and the state of research before going further. Meanwhile, the chapter also reviews the status of EU external human rights policy (with regard to Japan). The second methodological chapter covers the theoretical framework and the methodological approach, which is followed by the third chapter, which sheds light upon human rights as a norm in EU-Japan relations in general. Specifically, this chapter focuses on human rights “position” in the bilateral joint statements of the EU-Japan annual summits from 1991 to 2017. The chapter has observed the evolutionary development of EU-Japan relations starting with the 1991 Hague Declaration up to the present. Chapter 4 focuses on the proposition of death penalty abolition. The death penalty is regarded as the most “unnegotiable” issue in the EU-Japan human rights dialogues. The unnegotiability insinuates that the EU and Japan may hold fundamentally different views on capital punishment and its abolition. Hence, it is quite likely that the EU’s promotion of death penalty abolition in Japan faces great challenges and consequently its normative power will be questioned and tested. The chapter finds that the EU has attempted to encourage Japan to abolish capital punishment and proactively promote relevant human rights propositions, such as the basic rights of those on death row, judicial independence, compliance with international criminal law and so forth, through diplomatic channels, ‘shaming and naming’ Japanese behaviours, etc. In doing so, the EU has endeavoured to trigger Japanese public debates over the death penalty and its abolition in a wider range of civil societies. On the other hand, Japanese public authorities showed resistance against EU pressure to abolish death penalty and perceived human rights as a domestic issue, clung to its deterrence theory of capital punishment and even condemned the EU’s “shaming” of Japan’s continuous executions. Chapter 5 discusses human rights conditionality in the EU-Japan FTA. Trade policy is both an important policy instrument and an indispensable dimension of the EU’s external policies. As the EU’s trade distribution and norm exportation often proceed in unison, debates over human rights conditionality in the EU-Japan FTA is an interesting angle to investigate conflicts and harmonization between the pursuit of norm promotion (labor standards and gender equality in this case) and the temptation of economic interests. Simply speaking, it is about whether the EU prioritizes economic interests over norm exports or not, whether the EU is resorting to persuasive or coercive measures in the course of its FTA negotiations. The author analyses human rights related clauses, such as labour standards and gender equality, based upon textual analysis on the one hand, and uncovers the EU’s value-oriented considerations behind signing the FTA through observing the changes in the social context. The chapter concludes that (1) the EU placed much emphasis on sustainable development and searched for compromise during the negotiations through using positive form of conditionality such as market access and low tariff; (2) the EU prioritized economic interests over norm promotion, though it synchronizes its trade distribution with norm promotion; (3) external factors have exerted much impact on speeding up the process and conclusion of the negotiations; and (4) political consideration is an important motive of both the EU and Japan for reaching a free trade agreement. On the other hand, Japanese trade negotiators have a strong aversion to EU human rights norms attached to free trade and criticised the EU for its discriminatory policy against Japan. Chapter 6 analyses the DHRN on the Korean Peninsula. The denuclearization-human rights nexus on the Korean Peninsula remains an influential Asian regional issue with global impact. Through this case, the EU’s trade-off between its strategic interests and norm promotion can be better examined. More importantly, this is an important case to show the modus operandi of the EU’s normative human rights policy through cooperation with the third party Japan. The chapter pointed out that the EU and Japan have different rationales and considerations behind their engagements in, and cooperation over, this particular issue and that the EU highlighted human rights security, regional stability and multilateralism in the third case of the denuclearization-human rights nexus through resorting to both positive conditionality (e.g. political engagement, technical assistance and aid) and negative conditionality (e.g. economic sanctions), but Japan has a narrower focus on human rights protection of Japanese nationals, which actually reflects its state-centred mentality. This case showed that the EU tries to set an example for and exert impact on Japan through mutual cooperation on human rights issues in a third country or region, which is an indirect way to exert the Union’s normative impact which in turn is of crucial significance for understanding and capturing the essence of the EU’s normative foreign policies. Meanwhile, it is quite clear that while Japan is in favour of EU sanctions on North Korean regime under the framework of UN Security Council, it does not perceive the EU as a major actor with respect to the DHRN. Chapter 7 deals with Japanese refugee protection. Under the shadow of global refugee crisis, refugee protection is a major human rights issue at the international level. The EU hopes that Japan will assume more responsibility and take the refugee protection issue more seriously. However, the EU’s efforts are challenged due to divergent interpretations on the refugee protection clauses in international conventions and to different approaches to resolving refugee crises. The chapter argued that the EU stood up for strengthening the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, the rule of law and Japanese compliance to international law in respect to refugee policy through argumentation and persuasion, but failed to convince Japan to receive more refugees. It also pointed out that the reasons why the EU and Japan do not share the same values on refugee protection stem from their divergent interpretations on refugee protection clauses of international conventions (Geneva Convention in particular) and that they hold different attitudes towards refugee crisis and resort to different approaches to solving the problem. At the same time, Japan is very strict about refugee intake and views refugee issue as a troublesome case, though its government did dispatch officials to western countries, including European ones, to learn about resettlement policy before 1991. As a consequence, Japan is doubting about the EU’s capability of addressing refugee crisis and takes warning from refugee problems the EU is facing. To sum up, this dissertation has extracted the EU’s normativity from its interaction with Japan through exploring its human rights promotion in the Japanese context. The results showed that the EU has partially displayed good normative posturing: its human rights norms have strong legitimate foundations, which are in line with international human rights laws, and the EU has taken various measures to promote its norms. With regard to Japanese reactions to EU norms, the country used to take the initiative and to learn about European values (e.g., the rule of law and the lay judge system) at the early stages of bilateral relations, but it has put up varied degree of resistance against the EU’s human rights promotion in all the four cases due to the sensitivity to human rights issues. Besides, while reiterating its shared views on the universality of human rights norms with its European counterparts in various official occassions, Japanese government is critical of the EU’s involvement in its human rights issues and does not appreciate EU efforts to search more common ground. Thus, the EU and Japan cannot reach in-depth consensus on human rights norms. In fact, the EU and Japan share human rights as a principle at the superficial level and have divergent interpretations regarding specific norms, which prevents them from reaching substantial consensus. Although the EU is proactive in human rights promotion and takes assorted means to promote the norms, Japan’s resistant reaction has clearly reduced the former’s normative impact expected and thus the EU’s normative foreign policy is ineffective in fulfilling its normative intent. As a result, the EU’s efforts did not bring any tangible improvements in the Japanese human rights policies. In other words, the EU’s normative intent has not fulfilled. Hence, to achieve normative results, the EU and Japan need to launch more constructive dialogues and strengthen mutual engagements. Based upon the above analyses, the dissertation comes to a conclusion that EU normative foreign policy goals in all these cases aim to shape certain international milieu, such as a milieu of death penalty-free zone, a milieu of liberalized trade area, a milieu of peaceful Korean Peninsula and a milieu of refugee-friendly system, from where more international foreign actors can potentially benefit. However, it is undeniable that the effectiveness of EU normative foreign policies is undesirable in practice. Although the EU has presented good normative performance in the first two phases of the three-fold typology, it rarely obtained tangible results and thus it is difficult to draw a discernable and traceable path between the EU’s actions on the one hand and changes on the other hand. The values the EU promotes are highly legitimate according to international human rights laws, but they are not well grounded in the Japanese social context through mutual communications. Japan’s resistant resactions prevent the EU from producing some considerable normative impact. Consequently, the EU’s normative impact on Japan remains unobvious. Explanations for the undesirability and for the variations in different cases have identified both EU internal reasoning (e.g., lack of agreement on how to promote human rights norms in Japan) and uncontrollable external factors (e.g., differences in socio-cultural context, different political and legal systems between the EU and other heterogeneous polities, low awareness of human rights promotion, to multilateral considerations). In short, the EU cannot be conceived of as a truly functioning “normative power Europe” in terms of its human rights promotion in Japan. The dissertation aims to enrich research on normative theory, to provide empirical evidence for how the EU exports its norms and how Japan perceives EU normative practices, and, if possible and even to a small extent, to serve as a wake-up call for EU foreign policy practitioners to reconsider its asymmetrical normative foreign policy, to avoid taking for granted commonality among established democracies, and to attach due attention to major democracies who have much influence on the formation of the EU’s normative identity. Not only is such commonality “more presumed than actual,” but it may also send wrong signal to policy-making institutions. It is the actual rather than presumed commonality that will underlie the EU’s normative basis. In the case of Japan, EU human rights policies are supposed to be well grounded in good understanding of Japanese political particularity (non-western style democracy) and of its distinct socio-cultural contexts. This dissertation ends with two general remarks that (1) the EU and Japan do not share substantially the same values of human rights and (2) constructive engagements need to be further launched so as to better fulfil normative intent. Only when the EU takes into serious account the asymmetrical policy focus can the EU shape “normal” order and principle through its normative foreign policies at the global level.
Keywords
Normative power, EU-Japan relations, Human rights promotion, Case study

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 6.32 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Langjia, Zeren. 2019. “The European Union’s Normative Foreign Policy : Perspectives of EU Human Rights Promotion in Japan.”
APA
Langjia, Z. (2019). The European Union’s normative foreign policy : perspectives of EU human Rights promotion in Japan.
Vancouver
1.
Langjia Z. The European Union’s normative foreign policy : perspectives of EU human Rights promotion in Japan. 2019.
MLA
Langjia, Zeren. “The European Union’s Normative Foreign Policy : Perspectives of EU Human Rights Promotion in Japan.” 2019 : n. pag. Print.
@phdthesis{8587107,
  abstract     = {The term {\textquotedblleft}Normative Power Europe{\textquotedblright} reflects the political posturing of the European Union (EU) foreign policies to shape what {\textquotedblleft}normal{\textquotedblright} is. Nonetheless, the value orientation and policy priorities of EU normative foreign policy are markedly different in face of different countries. The extant research has shown that EU normative foreign policies are mainly targeted at prospective member states, small developing countries and major {\textquotedblleft}non-democratic{\textquotedblright} powers rather than established democratic states. Bearing in mind this research result, the author argues that if the EU only pays more attention to the former groups of countries and less significance for developed democracies in the spectrum of the EU{\textquoteright}s normative foreign policies, the asymmetrical policy focus will make it less likely for the EU to construct a normative identity globally. Quite the contrary, with regard to the EU{\textquoteright}s practices of normative power, it is of significant importance to understand how established democracies perceive the EU and whether they recognize EU norm exports. Besides, there is a big question mark over whether the EU{\textquoteright}s normative approaches can surmount the obstacle of different political civilizations and become the criteria for international disputes. The answers to these questions not only depend upon the EU and its followers who share the same political cultures with Europe, but also rely upon those who are the heterogeneous polities and non-Western style democracies. As an important political power in East Asia, Japan has a very different historical and cultural history, and its political system widely differs from Western countries. In the context of reflecting upon {\textquotedblleft}Eurocentrism{\textquotedblright}, Japan is one of the best countries to assess the normativity of the EU{\textquoteright}s foreign policies. Meanwhile, the analysis of the EU{\textquoteright}s normative foreign policies towards Japan will have significant implications for other non-Western polities.
Human rights promotion has become an increasingly crucial foreign policy goal of the EU. Through exporting norms to its targeted countries and regions, the EU endeavours to (re)shape an order of {\textquoteleft}normal{\textquoteright} according to its conception on the one hand and create an image of being a {\textquotedblleft}human rights actor{\textquotedblright} on the other hand. Human rights also became a repeatedly mentioned principle in the bilateral relations since the EU and Japan signed the milestone document---the 1991 Hague Declaration. Since then, the EU-Japan relations extended from economic and trade cooperation into political areas. In the following thirty years, the EU and Japan have steadily enhanced mutual relations. Therefore, in view of these developments in the EU-Japan relations, this dissertation analyses their respective interpretations on major human rights issues under discussion and explores the EU{\textquoteright}s normative power in the field of human rights in Japan. 
The main research question is this: Can the EU be conceived of as a {\textquotedblleft}normative power{\textquotedblright} in terms of its human rights promotion in Japan? To answer the question, the author puts emphasis on the two-way process of interaction between the EU and Japan over four human rights issues. The author attaches equal significance to the function of norm-maker and norm-takers with respect to constructing the EU{\textquoteright}s normative identity. Besides, when the human rights issues are more sensitive and the disputes over them are more undisguised, it becomes easier to observe and assess the bottom-line values of polities. Therefore, to choose such propositions as research objects not only has a very high academic value, but also their operability is high. Hence, based upon two criteria, i.e., major propositions of EU-Japan human rights agenda and high relevance with Japan{\textquoteright}s domestic human rights, this dissertation has selected four propositions as the research objects: the death penalty abolition, human rights clauses in the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA), denuclearization-human rights nexus on the Korean Peninsula and Japanese refugee policy. These two factors are treated as crucial selection criteria because disputes over human rights norms can be better observed in the cases where both the EU and Japan experience tensions most.
With regard to analytical framework, having conbined Manners{\textquoteright} three-typology method with Bj{\"o}rkdahl et al.{\textquoteright}s conceptual framework of assessing external perceptions, the author creatively poses an analytical framework of four {\textquoteleft}variables{\textquoteright}. Manners puts forwards the method to analyse EU normative foreign policies from aspects of principles, actions and impact while Bj{\"o}rkdahl et al. design a conceptual framework of evaluating external perceptions on EU foreign policies according to the varied degree of external partners{\textquoteright} attitudes, i.e., adoption, adaptation, resistance and rejection. Hence, this dissertation integrates the conceptual framework of assessing external perceptions into the three-typology method, regards external reactions as the fourth dimension of evaluating the EU{\textquoteright}s normative foreign policies towards Japan, and comes up with the {\textquoteleft}four variables{\textquoteright} of principels, actions, impact and external perceptions. Specifically, the four variables are as follows:
Principles---EU normative objectives, i.e., what the EU is promoting;
Actions---EU normative means, i.e., what means the EU employs;
Impact---EU normative impact, i.e., what results the EU obtains;
External perceptions---the degree of Japan{\textquoteright}s acceptance of EU normative foreign policies, i.e., how Japan reacts to EU norm export.
Of which, external perception is taken as an important dimension to understand EU normative power, and its integration into the three-typology method is an innovative point of this dissertation. Through discerning Japan{\textquoteright}s reactions (adoption, adaptation, resistance or rejection) to EU norm exports, the author analyses how the norm-taker exerts impact on norm-maker and thus how it further influences the construction of normative identity in the course of EU normative human rights policy. Thus, this analytical framework serves two main purposes (1) to explore what human rights principles the EU promotes and how the EU approaches to human rights promotion and (2) to understand Japan{\textquoteright}s responses to the EU{\textquoteright}s norm promotion and its influence on the formation of EU normative impact.
This dissertation employs a multi-layered method of documentary analysis, qualitative content analysis and case study. In this study, documentary analysis is treated not only as a general research approach but also, more importantly, as a data collection method. Under the framework of Japan as a single country case, the author has undertaken four empirical sub-cases that stand out most notably in the EU-Japan relations. They are the death penalty abolition, human rights clauses in the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA), denuclearization-human rights nexus (DHRN) on the Korean Peninsula and Japanese refugee policy. 
The term Normative Power Europe (NPE) is revisited in the first introductory chapter as a part of the literature review. It is of importance to discuss the conceptual evolution and the state of research before going further. Meanwhile, the chapter also reviews the status of EU external human rights policy (with regard to Japan). The second methodological chapter covers the theoretical framework and the methodological approach, which is followed by the third chapter, which sheds light upon human rights as a norm in EU-Japan relations in general. Specifically, this chapter focuses on human rights {\textquotedblleft}position{\textquotedblright} in the bilateral joint statements of the EU-Japan annual summits from 1991 to 2017. The chapter has observed the evolutionary development of EU-Japan relations starting with the 1991 Hague Declaration up to the present.
Chapter 4 focuses on the proposition of death penalty abolition. The death penalty is regarded as the most {\textquotedblleft}unnegotiable{\textquotedblright} issue in the EU-Japan human rights dialogues. The unnegotiability insinuates that the EU and Japan may hold fundamentally different views on capital punishment and its abolition. Hence, it is quite likely that the EU{\textquoteright}s promotion of death penalty abolition in Japan faces great challenges and consequently its normative power will be questioned and tested. The chapter finds that the EU has attempted to encourage Japan to abolish capital punishment and proactively promote relevant human rights propositions, such as the basic rights of those on death row, judicial independence, compliance with international criminal law and so forth, through diplomatic channels, {\textquoteleft}shaming and naming{\textquoteright} Japanese behaviours, etc. In doing so, the EU has endeavoured to trigger Japanese public debates over the death penalty and its abolition in a wider range of civil societies. On the other hand, Japanese public authorities showed resistance against EU pressure to abolish death penalty and perceived human rights as a domestic issue, clung to its deterrence theory of capital punishment and even condemned the EU{\textquoteright}s {\textquotedblleft}shaming{\textquotedblright} of Japan{\textquoteright}s continuous executions.
Chapter 5 discusses human rights conditionality in the EU-Japan FTA. Trade policy is both an important policy instrument and an indispensable dimension of the EU{\textquoteright}s external policies. As the EU{\textquoteright}s trade distribution and norm exportation often proceed in unison, debates over human rights conditionality in the EU-Japan FTA is an interesting angle to investigate conflicts and harmonization between the pursuit of norm promotion (labor standards and gender equality in this case) and the temptation of economic interests. Simply speaking, it is about whether the EU prioritizes economic interests over norm exports or not, whether the EU is resorting to persuasive or coercive measures in the course of its FTA negotiations. The author analyses human rights related clauses, such as labour standards and gender equality, based upon textual analysis on the one hand, and uncovers the EU{\textquoteright}s value-oriented considerations behind signing the FTA through observing the changes in the social context. The chapter concludes that (1) the EU placed much emphasis on sustainable development and searched for compromise during the negotiations through using positive form of conditionality such as market access and low tariff; (2) the EU prioritized economic interests over norm promotion, though it synchronizes its trade distribution with norm promotion; (3) external factors have exerted much impact on speeding up the process and conclusion of the negotiations; and (4) political consideration is an important motive of both the EU and Japan for reaching a free trade agreement. On the other hand, Japanese trade negotiators have a strong aversion to EU human rights norms attached to free trade and criticised the EU for its discriminatory policy against Japan.  
Chapter 6 analyses the DHRN on the Korean Peninsula. The denuclearization-human rights nexus on the Korean Peninsula remains an influential Asian regional issue with global impact. Through this case, the EU{\textquoteright}s trade-off between its strategic interests and norm promotion can be better examined. More importantly, this is an important case to show the modus operandi of the EU{\textquoteright}s normative human rights policy through cooperation with the third party Japan. The chapter pointed out that the EU and Japan have different rationales and considerations behind their engagements in, and cooperation over, this particular issue and that the EU highlighted human rights security, regional stability and multilateralism in the third case of the denuclearization-human rights nexus through resorting to both positive conditionality (e.g. political engagement, technical assistance and aid) and negative conditionality (e.g. economic sanctions), but Japan has a narrower focus on human rights protection of Japanese nationals, which actually reflects its state-centred mentality. This case showed that the EU tries to set an example for and exert impact on Japan through mutual cooperation on human rights issues in a third country or region, which is an indirect way to exert the Union{\textquoteright}s normative impact which in turn is of crucial significance for understanding and capturing the essence of the EU{\textquoteright}s normative foreign policies. Meanwhile, it is quite clear that while Japan is in favour of EU sanctions on North Korean regime under the framework of UN Security Council, it does not perceive the EU as a major actor with respect to the DHRN.
Chapter 7 deals with Japanese refugee protection. Under the shadow of global refugee crisis, refugee protection is a major human rights issue at the international level. The EU hopes that Japan will assume more responsibility and take the refugee protection issue more seriously. However, the EU{\textquoteright}s efforts are challenged due to divergent interpretations on the refugee protection clauses in international conventions and to different approaches to resolving refugee crises. The chapter argued that the EU stood up for strengthening the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, the rule of law and Japanese compliance to international law in respect to refugee policy through argumentation and persuasion, but failed to convince Japan to receive more refugees. It also pointed out that the reasons why the EU and Japan do not share the same values on refugee protection stem from their divergent interpretations on refugee protection clauses of international conventions (Geneva Convention in particular) and that they hold different attitudes towards refugee crisis and resort to different approaches to solving the problem. At the same time, Japan is very strict about refugee intake and views refugee issue as a troublesome case, though its government did dispatch officials to western countries, including European ones, to learn about resettlement policy before 1991. As a consequence, Japan is doubting about the EU{\textquoteright}s capability of addressing refugee crisis and takes warning from refugee problems the EU is facing.
To sum up, this dissertation has extracted the EU{\textquoteright}s normativity from its interaction with Japan through exploring its human rights promotion in the Japanese context. The results showed that the EU has partially displayed good normative posturing: its human rights norms have strong legitimate foundations, which are in line with international human rights laws, and the EU has taken various measures to promote its norms. With regard to Japanese reactions to EU norms, the country used to take the initiative and to learn about European values (e.g., the rule of law and the lay judge system) at the early stages of bilateral relations, but it has put up varied degree of resistance against the EU{\textquoteright}s human rights promotion in all the four cases due to the sensitivity to human rights issues. Besides, while reiterating its shared views on the universality of human rights norms with its European counterparts in various official occassions, Japanese government is critical of the EU{\textquoteright}s involvement in its human rights issues and does not appreciate EU efforts to search more common ground. Thus, the EU and Japan cannot reach in-depth consensus on human rights norms. In fact, the EU and Japan share human rights as a principle at the superficial level and have divergent interpretations regarding specific norms, which prevents them from reaching substantial consensus. Although the EU is proactive in human rights promotion and takes assorted means to promote the norms, Japan{\textquoteright}s resistant reaction has clearly reduced the former{\textquoteright}s normative impact expected and thus the EU{\textquoteright}s normative foreign policy is ineffective in fulfilling its normative intent. As a result, the EU{\textquoteright}s efforts did not bring any tangible improvements in the Japanese human rights policies. In other words, the EU{\textquoteright}s normative intent has not fulfilled. Hence, to achieve normative results, the EU and Japan need to launch more constructive dialogues and strengthen mutual engagements. 
Based upon the above analyses, the dissertation comes to a conclusion that EU normative foreign policy goals in all these cases aim to shape certain international milieu, such as a milieu of death penalty-free zone, a milieu of liberalized trade area, a milieu of peaceful Korean Peninsula and a milieu of refugee-friendly system, from where more international foreign actors can potentially benefit. However, it is undeniable that the effectiveness of EU normative foreign policies is undesirable in practice. Although the EU has presented good normative performance in the first two phases of the three-fold typology, it rarely obtained tangible results and thus it is difficult to draw a discernable and traceable path between the EU{\textquoteright}s actions on the one hand and changes on the other hand. The values the EU promotes are highly legitimate according to international human rights laws, but they are not well grounded in the Japanese social context through mutual communications. Japan{\textquoteright}s resistant resactions prevent the EU from producing some considerable normative impact. Consequently, the EU{\textquoteright}s normative impact on Japan remains unobvious. Explanations for the undesirability and for the variations in different cases have identified both EU internal reasoning (e.g., lack of agreement on how to promote human rights norms in Japan) and uncontrollable external factors (e.g., differences in socio-cultural context, different political and legal systems between the EU and other heterogeneous polities, low awareness of human rights promotion, to multilateral considerations). In short, the EU cannot be conceived of as a truly functioning {\textquotedblleft}normative power Europe{\textquotedblright} in terms of its human rights promotion in Japan.
The dissertation aims to enrich research on normative theory, to provide empirical evidence for how the EU exports its norms and how Japan perceives EU normative practices, and, if possible and even to a small extent, to serve as a wake-up call for EU foreign policy practitioners to reconsider its asymmetrical normative foreign policy, to avoid taking for granted commonality among established democracies, and to attach due attention to major democracies who have much influence on the formation of the EU{\textquoteright}s normative identity. Not only is such commonality {\textquotedblleft}more presumed than actual,{\textquotedblright} but it may also send wrong signal to policy-making institutions. It is the actual rather than presumed commonality that will underlie the EU{\textquoteright}s normative basis. In the case of Japan, EU human rights policies are supposed to be well grounded in good understanding of Japanese political particularity (non-western style democracy) and of its distinct socio-cultural contexts. This dissertation ends with two general remarks that (1) the EU and Japan do not share substantially the same values of human rights and (2) constructive engagements need to be further launched so as to better fulfil normative intent. Only when the EU takes into serious account the asymmetrical policy focus can the EU shape {\textquotedblleft}normal{\textquotedblright} order and principle through its normative foreign policies at the global level.},
  author       = {Langjia, Zeren},
  keyword      = {Normative power,EU-Japan relations,Human rights promotion,Case study},
  language     = {eng},
  school       = {Ghent University},
  title        = {The European Union{\textquoteright}s normative foreign policy : perspectives of EU human Rights promotion in Japan},
  year         = {2019},
}