The self-selection of democracies into treaty design: insights from international environmental agreements
Generally, democratic regime type is positively associated with participating in international environmental agreements. In this context, this study focuses on the legal nature of an agreement, which is linked to audience costs primarily at the domestic level that occur in case of non-compliance and are felt especially by democracies. Eventually, more legalized (“hard-law”) treaties make compliance potentially more challenging and as democratic leaders may anticipate the corresponding audience costs, the likelihood that democracies select themselves into such treaties decreases. The empirical implication of our theory is that environmental agreements with a larger share of democratic members are less likely to be characterized by hard law. Results from quantitative analyses strongly support our argument, shed new light on the relationship between participation in international agreements and the form of government, and also have implications for the “words-deeds” debate in international environmental policy-making.
KeywordsDemocracy Design International environmental agreements Legalization Quantitative methods Treaties
We thank the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Joyeeta Gupta, the journal’s Managing Editor, Courtney L. Vegelin, and the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions that helped to improve the manuscript.
- CIESIN. (2006). Environmental treaties and resource indicators (ENTRI). http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/.
- de Mesquita, B., Bruce, A. S., Siverson, R., & Morrow, J. (2005). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gilardi, F. (2012). Handbook of international relations (pp. 453–477). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications chapter Transnational Diffusion: Norms, Ideas, and Policies.Google Scholar
- Gregory, S., & Pollack, M. A. (2010). Hard vs soft law: Alternatives, complements, and antagonists in international governance. Minnesota Law Review, 94(3), 706–799.Google Scholar
- Lantis, J. S. (2009). The life and death of international treaties: Double-edged diplomacy and the politics of ratification in comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Punishing the prince: A theory of interstate relations, political institutions, and leader change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Miles, E. L., Andresen, S., Carlin, E. M., Skjærseth, J. B., Underdal, A., & Wettestad, J. (2001). Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, R. B. (2008). International environmental agreements database project (version 2002–2008). http://iea.uoregon.edu.
- Shaffer, G., & Pollack, M. A. (2011). Hard versus soft law in international security. Boston College Law Review, 52(4), 1147–1241.Google Scholar
- Tomz, M. (2008). Reputation and the effect of international law on preferences and beliefs. http://www.stanford.edu/tomz/working/Tomz-IntlLaw-2008-02-11a.pdf.