North Korea twice conducted ballistic missile tests close to Japan in 1998 and 2006. While Japan responded with non-coercive condemnations to demonstrate its disapproval in 1998, it imposed unilateral economic sanctions in 2006, marking the first instance in post-World War II of applying a substantial coercion to punish a neighbouring state. The research asks why Japanese policy toward the North shifted for a seemingly identical type of provocation. The dissertation seeks contextual explanations by using inductive process-tracing, a type of ‘middle approach’ between historical narratives and parsimonious theories. It is applied to highlight the underlying mechanism through which public discursive changes concerning national security and North Korea during this eight-year period influenced the subsequent policy shift in 2006. The dissertation concludes that the unilateral sanctions were not necessarily a calculated strategic response to punish the missile launch (or North Korean nuclear programs) per se, but were a direct consequence of a deeper shift in societal discourse taking place beforehand. During the eight-year period, there had been other visible provocations and shocks originating from the North, especially the sensational revelation in 2002 of past North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens. These highly-publicized incidents facilitated the Japanese public to be increasingly conscious about Japan’s security weaknesses and re-evaluate its historical relations with its neighbour, leading to a hardened domestic environment in which the new idea of pressuring the North became a feasible option even before 2006. These North Korean provocations and the resulting societal security discourse, along with concurrent structural changes in the Japanese government and mass media which made them both highly susceptible to discursive currents among citizens, mutually interacted to produce the policy result when the opportunity arose. The research, however, also challenges the popular view that the sanctions are the first example of the wholesale transformation of Japan’s post-war ‘pacifist’ security principles. It argues that the confined means (economic) by which the sanctions were imposed reflects the highly nuanced discourse, which endorses Japan’s legitimate right to specifically punish the North for the harms done, but that the societal momentum is not equally supportive of the more controversial areas concerning military usage and the current constitution.

North Korea twice conducted ballistic missile tests close to Japan in 1998 and 2006. While Japan responded with non-coercive condemnations to demonstrate its disapproval in 1998, it imposed unilateral economic sanctions in 2006, marking the first instance in post-World War II of applying a substantial coercion to punish a neighbouring state. The research asks why Japanese policy toward the North shifted for a seemingly identical type of provocation. The dissertation seeks contextual explanations by using inductive process-tracing, a type of ‘middle approach’ between historical narratives and parsimonious theories. It is applied to highlight the underlying mechanism through which public discursive changes concerning national security and North Korea during this eight-year period influenced the subsequent policy shift in 2006. The dissertation concludes that the unilateral sanctions were not necessarily a calculated strategic response to punish the missile launch (or North Korean nuclear programs) per se, but were a direct consequence of a deeper shift in societal discourse taking place beforehand. During the eight-year period, there had been other visible provocations and shocks originating from the North, especially the sensational revelation in 2002 of past North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens. These highly-publicized incidents facilitated the Japanese public to be increasingly conscious about Japan’s security weaknesses and re-evaluate its historical relations with its neighbour, leading to a hardened domestic environment in which the new idea of pressuring the North became a feasible option even before 2006. These North Korean provocations and the resulting societal security discourse, along with concurrent structural changes in the Japanese government and mass media which made them both highly susceptible to discursive currents among citizens, mutually interacted to produce the policy result when the opportunity arose. The research, however, also challenges the popular view that the sanctions are the first example of the wholesale transformation of Japan’s post-war ‘pacifist’ security principles. It argues that the confined means (economic) by which the sanctions were imposed reflects the highly nuanced discourse, which endorses Japan’s legitimate right to specifically punish the North for the harms done, but that the societal momentum is not equally supportive of the more controversial areas concerning military usage and the current constitution.

This thesis examines how the law dealt with international fugitives. It focuses on formal extradition and the cross-border abduction of wanted criminals by police officers and other state officials. Debates over extradition and abduction reflected important issues of state power and civil liberty, and were shaped by currents of thought circulating throughout the imperial, Atlantic, and common law worlds. Debates over extradition involved questioning the very basis of international law. They also raised difficult questions about civil liberties and human rights. Throughout this period escaped American slaves and other groups made claims for what we would now call refugee status, and argued that their surrender violated codes of law and ideas of justice that transcended the colonies and even the wider British Empire. Such claims sparked a decades-long debate in North America and Europe over how to codify refugee protections. Ultimately, Britain used its imperial power to force Canada to accept such safeguards. Yet even as the formal extradition system developed, an informal system of police abductions operated in the Canadian-American borderlands. This system defied formal law, but it also manifested sophisticated local ideas about community justice and transnational legal order. This thesis argues that extradition and abduction must be understood within three overlapping contexts. The first is the ethos of liberal transnationalism that permeated all levels of state officials in British North America/Canada. This view largely prioritised the erosion of domestic barriers to international cooperation over the protection of individual liberty. It was predicated in large part on the idea of a common North American civilization. The second context is Canada’s place in the British Empire. Extradition and abduction highlight both how British North America/Canada often expounded views on legal order radically different from Britain, but also that even after Confederation in 1867 the empire retained real power to shape Canadian policy. The final context is international law and international legal order. Both extradition and abduction were aspects of law on an international and transnational level. As a result, this thesis examines the processes of migration, adoption, and adaptation of international law.

This thesis examines how the law dealt with international fugitives. It focuses on formal extradition and the cross-border abduction of wanted criminals by police officers and other state officials. Debates over extradition and abduction reflected important issues of state power and civil liberty, and were shaped by currents of thought circulating throughout the imperial, Atlantic, and common law worlds. Debates over extradition involved questioning the very basis of international law. They also raised difficult questions about civil liberties and human rights. Throughout this period escaped American slaves and other groups made claims for what we would now call refugee status, and argued that their surrender violated codes of law and ideas of justice that transcended the colonies and even the wider British Empire. Such claims sparked a decades-long debate in North America and Europe over how to codify refugee protections. Ultimately, Britain used its imperial power to force Canada to accept such safeguards. Yet even as the formal extradition system developed, an informal system of police abductions operated in the Canadian-American borderlands. This system defied formal law, but it also manifested sophisticated local ideas about community justice and transnational legal order. This thesis argues that extradition and abduction must be understood within three overlapping contexts. The first is the ethos of liberal transnationalism that permeated all levels of state officials in British North America/Canada. This view largely prioritised the erosion of domestic barriers to international cooperation over the protection of individual liberty. It was predicated in large part on the idea of a common North American civilization. The second context is Canada’s place in the British Empire. Extradition and abduction highlight both how British North America/Canada often expounded views on legal order radically different from Britain, but also that even after Confederation in 1867 the empire retained real power to shape Canadian policy. The final context is international law and international legal order. Both extradition and abduction were aspects of law on an international and transnational level. As a result, this thesis examines the processes of migration, adoption, and adaptation of international law.