35 years of Multilateral Environmental Agreements ratifications: a network analysis

Abstract

With the ratification of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) the countries of the international community or of intentional communities—be they political, economic, financial, securitarian or strategic—endow these instruments of international cooperation with significant autonomy. From the 3550 dates of ratification of these MEAs recorded from 1979 to mid-September 2014, we produce a graph whose vertices are the 48 MEAs (ratified at least once) and whose links are induced by the succession of ratifications in time. On this basis we propose a diagnosis on the international acceptance of this type of legal instruments and their vulnerability in a global context that builds on the change in the balance of powers as a result of globalization, the break of the bipolar and then unipolar system, and the rise of new powers. Thus, it appears that a global environmental order has been promoted and implemented with some success in the 90s mainly by liberal Western countries who were then able to lead other countries less likely to bind to the fulfillment of environmental obligations. However, the expansion of this global environmental order now seems frozen, due to the current crisis of multilateralism. The rise of many countries, particularly in the South, whose environmental, political and economic weight grew, confronted with the “stable community” formed in the past 35 years suggests that there is a real power shift in the international arena and consequently, multilateralism needs to reflect this new reality. In other terms, the global environmental order is being slowly reformed. As a consequence, the treaties formed clusters in the past but they did not follow the same pattern since the twenty-first century began.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    Boulet R, Barros-Platiau AF, Mazzega P: Country communities underlying the ratification of international environmental treaties, submitted.

  2. 2.

    https://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=27&subid=A&lang=en.

  3. 3.

    Websites describing these institutions and their State members can be easily found on the worldwide web. Like the EU, the MERCOSUR and ASEAN are adopting negotiating agendas that are more political. Although the BASIC Group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) could be an interesting counter-example, it was not considered because of it is still just a group under disputable institutionalization in the near future.

  4. 4.

    Here the word “partition” is used in a set-theoretic sense: a partition of a set S is a set P of subsets p of S such that the p are pairwise disjoint, the union of all p forms the whole set S, and none of the elements of P is empty.

  5. 5.

    Boulet R, Barros-Platiau AF, Mazzega P: Country communities underlying the ratification of international environmental treaties, submitted.

  6. 6.

    A directed edge in a graph is a link (an arrow) from a source vertex to a target vertex.

  7. 7.

    Here the term “community” is used in the context of graph theory. We shall use the term of “cluster” to name a group (“community”) of MEAs.

  8. 8.

    The density of a graph is the ratio between the number of edges of the graph and the total number of possible edges (if vertices were all linked pairwise).

  9. 9.

    A hierarchical clustering consists, from an initial partition where each single vertex is a community, in gathering gradually two groups. This process of merging can be represented by a dendrogram.

  10. 10.

    The Dice dissimilarity measure how close two vertices are (dis)similar following the idea that the more they have common neighbors, the more they are similar.

  11. 11.

    A spectral clustering is a method to detect community based on first embedding the vertices on an Euclidean space Rk (thanks to eigenvectors of a matrix) and then applying classical statistical methods (like k-means) to make groups.

  12. 12.

    The eigenvector centrality is computed, for a connected graph, by the leading eigenvector of the adjacency matrix. This centrality measure is such that the centrality of a node is proportional to the centrality of its adjacent nodes.

  13. 13.

    This method is based on the Dice dissimilarity computed on the bipartite graph with two sets of vertices, the countries and the treaties, with an edge linking a country with a treaty if this country ratified this treaty.

  14. 14.

    More precisely ratified or approved.

References

  1. Barabasi A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Barros-Platiau AF, de Carvalho FV, Silva CHRT (2012) A dissonância do quadro institucional brasileiro e os desafios para a Rio + 20. Revista de Direito Internacional 9:159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Battistella D (2009) Théories des relations internationales, 3rd edn. Presses de Sciences Po, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bommarito MJ, Katz DM (2010) A mathematical approach to the study of the United States code. Phys A 389:4195–4200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boulet R, Mazzega P, Bourcier D (2010) Network analysis of the French environmental code. In: Casanovas P, Pagallo U, Sartor G, Ajani G (eds) AI approaches to the complexity of legal systems: complex systems, the semantic web, ontologies, argumentation, and dialogue, LNAI 6237. Springer, Berlin, pp 39–53

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boulet R, Mazzega P, Bourcier D (2011) A network approach to the French system of legal codes part I: analysis of a dense network. Artificial Intelligence and Law 19:333–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bourcier D, Mazzega P (2007) Codification, law article and graphs. In: Lodder AR, Mommers L (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems, JURIX. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 29–38

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ferré L, Jouve B (2002) Vertex partitioning of a class of digraphs. Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines 158:59–77

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Hathaway O (2002) Do human rights treaties make a difference? Yale Law J 111. In: Boston Univ. School of Law Working Paper No. 02-03. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=311359

  10. Kim RE (2013) The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environ Change. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.006

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lantis JS (2006) The life and death of international treaties: double-edged diplomacy and the politics of ratification in comparative perspective. Int Politics 43:24–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lantis JS (2009) The life and death of international treaties—double-edged diplomacy and the politics of ratification in comparative perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  13. Morin JF, Orsini A (2014) Essential concepts of global environmental governance. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nye J Jr (2010) Leadership e potere. Hard, soft, smart power. Laterza, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ohtsuki H, Hauert C, Lieberman E, Nowak MA (2006) A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature04605

    Google Scholar 

  16. Orsini A, Morin JF, Young OR (2013) Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom or a boost for global governance? Glob Gov 19:27–39

    Google Scholar 

  17. Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D (2007) An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Netw 29:173–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruggie JG (1998) Constructing the world polity: essays in international institutionalization. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Santos FC, Santos MD, Pacheco JM (2008) Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature06940

    Google Scholar 

  20. Slaughter A-M (2004) A new world order: government networks and the disaggregated state. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  21. Trachtman JP (2010) International law and domestic political coalitions: the grand theory of compliance with international law. Chicago J Int Law 11. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1549337

  22. von Luxburg U (2007) A tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat Comput 17:395–416

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH (1998) Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature 393:440–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partly founded by the University of Lyon III, under the project “Multi-scale Complexity of Environmental Law”. We would like to thank Radboud Winkels and Nicola Lettieri for giving us the opportunity to discuss about this work during the workshop Network Analysis in Law which was held in Krakow (Poland) on December 2014.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romain Boulet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boulet, R., Barros-Platiau, A.F. & Mazzega, P. 35 years of Multilateral Environmental Agreements ratifications: a network analysis. Artif Intell Law 24, 133–148 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9180-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multilateral Environmental Agreements
  • Graph theory
  • Emerging countries
  • Country intentional community
  • Ratification dynamics
  • Global environmental order