The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 163–191 | Cite as

Non-compliance by design: Moribund hard law in international institutions

Article

Abstract

States often create international institutions that impose legally binding rules on member states, and then do not even attempt to enforce these rules. Why? In this article, we present a game-theoretic model of moribund hard law in international institutions. We show that if some states face domestic pressure to negotiate a hard law treaty, their incentive to insist on hard law in the negotiations is maximized when less enthusiastic states expect that the hard law will probably not be enforced. Domestic proponents of hard law reward states for negotiating a hard law treaty, while states that oppose hard law can accept it because they expect no enforcement. As a form of informal governance, moribund hard law allows non-compliance by design.

Keywords

Informal governance Hard law Soft law Treaty design International bargaining Game theory Environmental agreements 

JEL Classification

F53 F55 

Supplementary material

11558_2012_9157_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (252 kb)
(PDF 251 KB)

References

  1. Aakre, S., & Hovi, J. (2010). Emission trading: participation enforcement determines the need for compliance enforcement. European Union Politics, 11(3), 427–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, K.W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbott, K.W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abbott, K.W., Keohane, R.O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, S. (2003). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bechtel, M.M., & Tosun, J. (2009). Changing economic openness for environmental policy convergence: when can trade agreements induce convergence of environmental regulation?” International Studies Quarterly, 53(4), 931–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benedick, R.E. (1998). Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Börzel, T.A. (2000). Why there is no ‘Southern Problem:’ on environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breitmeyer, H., Young, O.R., Zuern, M. (2006). Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cameron, M.A. (1997). North American free trade negotiations: liberalization games between asymmetric players. European Journal of Internationa Relations, 3(1), 105–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A.H. (1995). The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clapp, J. (1994a). Africa, NGOs, and the international toxic waste trade. Journal of Environment and Development, 3(2), 17–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clapp, J. (1994b). The toxic waste trade with less-industrialised countries: economic linkages and political alliances. Third World Quarterly, 15(3), 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clapp, J. (2001). Toxic exports: The transfer of hazardous wastes from rich to poor countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dai, X. (2002). Information systems in treaty regimes. World Politics, 54(4), 405–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dai, X. (2005). Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanism. International Organization, 59(2), 363–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeSombre, E. (2000). The experience of the Montreal protocol: particularly remarkable, and remarkably particular. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 19, 49–81.Google Scholar
  18. Desombre, E.R. (1995). Baptists and bootleggers for the environment: the origins of United States unilateral sanctions. Journal of Environment and Development, 4(1), 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dimitrov, R.S., Sprinz, D.F., DiGiusto, G.M., Kelle, A. (2007). International nonregimes: a research agenda. International Studies Review, 9(2), 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Downs, G.W., Rocke, D.M., Barsoom, P.N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(3), 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ENB (2000). Summary of the sixth conference of the parties to the framework convention on climate change: 13–25 Nov 2000. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12(163), 1–19.Google Scholar
  23. Gulbrandsen, L.H., & Andresen, S. (2004). NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hafner-Burton, E.M. (2005). Trading human rights: how preferential trade agreements influence government repression. International Organization, 59(3), 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawkins, D.G., Lake, D.A., Nielson, D.L., Tierney, M.J. (2006). Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joseph, J. (1994). The tuna-dolphin controversy in the Eastern Pacific Ocean: biological, economic, and political impacts. Ocean Development and International Law, 25(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keck, M.E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Keohane, R.O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Koremenos, B. (2005). Contracting around international uncertainty. American Political Science Review, 99(4), 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kydd, A.H. (2000). Trust, reassurance, and cooperation. International Organization, 54(2), 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lipson, C. (1991). Why are some international agreements informal? International Organization, 45(4), 495–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahler, V.A. (1994). The Lomé Convention: assessing a north-south institutional relationship.” Review of International Political Economy, 1(2), 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marcoux, C. (2009). Institutional flexibility in the design of multilateral environmental agreements. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marcoux, C., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). Capacity, not constraints: a theory of north-south regulatory cooperation. Review of International Organizations. doi:10.1007/s11558-012-9142-0.Google Scholar
  36. McCall Smith, J. (2000). The politics of dispute settlement design: explaining legalism in regional trade pacts. International Organization, 54(1), 137–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McLean, E.V., & Stone, R.W. (2012). The Kyoto Protocol: two-level bargaining and European integration. International Studies Quarterly, 56(1), 99–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mearsheimer, J.J. (1994–1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, J.W., Boli, J., Thomas, G.M., Ramirez, F.O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitchell, R.B. (1994). Regime design matters: intentional oil pollution and treaty compliance. International Organization, 48(3), 425–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R.B. (1999). International environmental common pool resources: more common than domestic but more difficult to manage. In J.S. Barkin, & G.E. Shambaugh (Eds.), Anarchy and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mitchell, R.B. (2003). International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation, and Effects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Najam, A. (2005). Developing countries and global environmental governance: from contestation to participation to engagement. International Environmental Agreements, 5(3), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oberthür, S., & Hermann, O. (1999). The Kyoto Protocol: International climate policy for the 21st century. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. O’Neill, K. (2000). Waste trading among rich nations: Building a new theory of environmental regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Parker, R.W. (1999). The use and abuse of trade leverage to protect the global commons: what we can learn from the tuna-dolphin conflict. Georgetown International Law Review, 12(1), 1–123.Google Scholar
  47. Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: transnational civil society targets land mines.” International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Price, R. (2003). Transnational civil society and advocacy in world politics. World Politics, 55(4), 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Putnam, R.D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organization, 44(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 719–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sell, S.K. (1995). Intellectual property protection and antitrust in the developing world: crisis, coercion, and choice. International Organization, 49(2), 315–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sell, S.K. (1996). North-South environmental bargaining: ozone, climate change, and biodiversity. Global Governance, 2(1), 97–118.Google Scholar
  53. Shaffer, G., & Pollack, M.A. (2010). Hard vs. soft law: alternatives, complements and antagonists in international governance. Minnesota Law Review, 94(3), 706–799.Google Scholar
  54. Simmons, B.A. (2010). Treaty compliance and violation. Annual Review of Political Science, 13, 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stasavage, D. (2004). Open-door or closed-door? Transparency in domestic and international bargaining. International Organization, 58(4), 667–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinberg, R.H. (1997). Trade-environment negotiations in the EU, NAFTA, and WTO: regional trajectories of rule development. American Journal of International Law, 91(2), 231–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steinberg, R.H. (2002). In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56(2), 339–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stone, R.W. (2004). The political economy of IMF lending in Africa. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stone, R.W. (2008). The scope of IMF conditionality. International Organization, 62(4), 589–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stone, R.W. (2011). Controlling institutions: International organizations and the global economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tolba, M.K. (1998). Global environmental diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Urpelainen, J. (2010). Enforcement and capacity building in international cooperation. International Theory, 2(1), 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Von Stein, J. (2005). Do treaties constrain or screen? Selection bias and treaty compliance. American Political Science Review, 99(4), 611–622.Google Scholar
  64. Weiss, E.B. (1998). The five international treaties: a living history. In E.B. Weiss, & H.K. Jacobson (Eds.), Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wolinsky, Y. (1997). Two-level game analysis of international environmental politics. Annual Convention of the International Studies Association.Google Scholar
  66. Young, O.R. (1989). The politics of international regime formation: managing natural resources and the environment. International Organization, 43(3), 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political ScienceDePauw UniversityGreencastleUSA
  2. 2.Political ScienceColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations