EL DISEÑO Y SU IMPORTANCIA GENERAL COMO MEDIO RESOLUTIVO.

Defining and clarifying key terms employed in the research and explanation of analytical steps are fundamental to the conceptual proposal for a study. Therefore, this section defines and clarifies key terms employed in the theoretical model. As this research explains the norm practice outcomes of two selected international norms, norm practice outcomes can be considered as the explained variable. The main explanatory variables include key stakeholders (actors or agents) involved in the practice of respective norms, domestic structural factors (ideational, material and institutional), and the contents of respective norms.

Agents and agency

In employing the term agents, this research follows sociologist Anthony Giddens‘ conceptualization of agents and agency. According to him, agents possess the attributes of ‗reflexive monitoring of actions‘, ‗rationalization of actions‘ and ‗motivation of actions‘. Agency ‗refers not to the intentions people have in doing things but to their capability of doing those things in the first place which is why agency implies power. … [w]hat ever happened would not have happened if that individual had not intervened‘ (Giddens, 1984: 9). For the purpose of this research in examining domestic practices of FOA and RBC norms in Myanmar, varied roles of multiple actors are anticipated. Key agents identified for the study of FOA and RBC norms socialization in Myanmar include government agencies, societal actors (firms and businesses, trade unions, NGOs, CBOs) and international actors (individual states, development actors, international organizations, international business associations, and consultancy firms). Thomas Risse and colleagues argued that ‗until more work can be done to disaggregate the nature of the political actors with important influence over human rights outcomes, we will be missing a significant part of the dynamics that explain or impede the move from accepting principles to changing actual rights practices‘ (Risse and Sikkink, 2013: 59). Guided by the points made by these scholars, this research seeks to identify and make

analytical distinctions on the differing agential roles of multiple actors within a state in implementation of international norms.

The research categorizes the state as enabling/inhibiting agents of FOA and RBC, businesses as executing/evading agents of both norms, and workers as executing/evading agents for FOA norms, interest groups and civil society as monitoring agents, and international actors including intergovernmental organizations (IOs), INGOs, and development actors as facilitating/impeding agents of the two norms. In considering the state‘s role, this research recognizes that fact that state (or government) is far from being monolithic entity and rather is an embodiment of multiple agencies, law enforcement agencies, polices and judges whose varied agency can be diverse and conflict of interests can exist among these agents. Actions or inactions of the identified agents can go in the directions of fulfilling a norm‘s moral and functional purpose, advancing the normative purpose, or often a deviation from such purpose. Such analytical disaggregation of norm agents in target states helps to overcome the norm literature‘s struggle over analyzing multiple actors in norm target states. This research‘s analytical disaggregation of target state actors help reveal mechanisms of norm socialization within target actors in greater clarity than prevailing studies can provide. Such analytical distinction of agents allows this research to engage in a new method in examining the conceptions and actions of multiple agents within a state in a clearer way. Therefore, analytical distinctions of norm agents and methodology innovation taken by this study better explain the practices of norms (norm compliance as an act or implementation as processes) at the intersections of norms‘ effects, dynamics of actors and domestic structures, thereby adding modest value to norm research.

Agential dynamics

When observing the conceptions and activities of identified norm agents in response to the respective norm under question, the nature of their activities and characteristics of the interactions among them is understood by this research as emerging and dynamic. This research considers that such processes of interactions among those actors themselves are the manifestation of norm practices. As discussed in Chapter One, the drivers for such dynamics may include domestic structures, norms‘ contents and external actors‘ interests. These agential dynamics can also be constrained by a number of factors relating to agents, the state‘s norm- inhibiting agency, the presence of anti-norm agents, ineffective agency by international actors, and failure of executing agency. The research considers that the agential dynamic possesses two

attributes: strength/weakness and synergetic/conflicting. The degree of strength/weakness and synergy/conflicts can be observed through examining the conceptions and actions of different agents of norms, their visibility and density, intensity of their interaction and activities relating to norm practices. The agential dynamics can be thought of in four possible scenarios: strong- synergetic dynamic, weak-synergetic dynamics, strong-conflicting dynamics and weak-conflicting dynamics.

Domestic structures

This research is guided by Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard‘s synthesis of three sets of broad domestic structures which influence actors‘ conceptions of and their activities relating to international norms and these domestic structures may be ‗exacerbated or mitigated‘ by the agency of the actors (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 13). According to these scholars, the cultural context of domestic politics and legal systems may constitute and constrain the ‗Ideational Structure‘ whereas ‗Material Structure‘ represents the interests and capacity of actors to enforce the norms. ‗Institutional Structure‘ is understood as the organizational structure of administrations and bureaucratic mechanisms that engage in policy making and implementation (Orchard and Betts, 2014: 14-17).

Norm practices

When the research discusses norm practices within a state, the terms ‗compliance‘ and ‗implementation‘ are used interchangeably although different scholars have their own definition of each term. This research employs both the definition of Alexander Betts and Phil Orchard on implementation as domestic process of norm diffusion that leads to the domestic changes on the ground and the definition of Thomas Risse on compliance as sustained behaviour and domestic practices that conform to the international human rights norms or rule consistent behaviour (Risse and Sikkink, 2013: 10).

Measuring norm practice outcomes

Measuring the explained variable is an important task for any empirical research as well as for any theory building. As the cases under this study are examined historically over the periods prior to democratic transition in Myanmar as well as during the first phase of democratic transition (2011–2016), traditional measures of norm research in absolute terms of ‗compliance‘ or ‗violation‘ does not fit.

In particular, as the period under transition exhibits the emerging nature of legal/institutional structures and the dynamic nature of actors, measurement of norm practice outcomes needs to be in relative and flow terms instead of in absolute terms, such as compliance and violation. And thus, this research tries to capture norm compliance or implementation outcomes or practices of norms in track records; on-track, off-track and back- track towards the purposes of the respective norms. As discussed in Chapter One, the indicators of on-track, off-track and back-track are measured against observed practices analyzing whether the conceptions and actions of executing agents (businesses and workers) are leading towards realization of the moral and functional purposes of the two norms.

If norm practices are found to fulfill both functional and moral purposes the norm will be considered on-track. When practices of the norm are found to be going against either its moral or function purposes, the norm will be considered off-track, and when practices do not serve either moral or functional purposes, they will be considered back-tracking.

This research‘s measurement on norm practice outcomes in target states is also in line with norm research‘s emerging arguments on norm as processes. Mona Lena Krook and Jacqui True observe that norms are ‗processes‘, as works-in-progress, rather than as finished products. Norms‘ potential for contestation is ongoing and co-optation, drift, accretion and reversal of a norm or disputes over norms are possibilities (Krook and True, 2012: 104-105).