Multilevel Bilateralism and Multilateralism: States’ Bilateral and Multilateral Fisheries Treaties and Their Secretariats

  • James Hollway
  • Johan Koskinen
Part of the Methodos Series book series (METH, volume 12)


Actors often face challenges demanding bilateral or multilateral cooperation, each with quite different implications. Analytically separating these levels of activity raises the question whether they are driven by similar or different factors. We argue that to answer such questions, one should treat them as interlocking unipartite and bipartite networks, respectively, in a multilevel network. Here we employ multilevel ERGMs to model how bilateral and multilateral fisheries treaties between states, as well as relationships between multilateral treaties, are structured. We find that states prefer either bilateralism or multilateralism and, amongst multilateral treaties, those that are managed or similar.


Bilateral Agreement Bipartite Network Multilateral Agreement Bilateral Investment Treaty Multilateral Treaty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andresen, S., & Skjaerseth, J. (1999, July 14–16). Can international secretariats promote effective co-operation? A background paper written for the United Nations University conference on Synergies and co-ordination between multilateral environmental agreements, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  2. Barkin, J. S., & DeSombre, E. R. (2000). Unilateralism and multilateralism in international fisheries management. Global Governance, 6, 339–360.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, S. (2006). Does bureaucracy really matter? The authority of intergovernmental treaty secretariats in global environmental politics. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer, S., Busch, P. O., Siebenhüner, B. (2009). Treaty secretariats in global environmental governance. In F. Biermann, B. Siebenhüner, & A. Schreyögg (Eds.), International organizations in global environmental governance (pp. 174–192). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Breiger, R. L. (1974). The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr, C. L., & Scott, G. L. (1999). Multilateral treaties and the environment: A case study in the formation of customary international law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 27(2), 313–335.Google Scholar
  7. Cha, V. D. (2010). Powerplay: Origins of the US alliance system in Asia. International Security, 34(3), 158–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daggett, A. P. (1934). The regulation of maritime fisheries by treaty. The American Journal of International Law, 28(4), 693–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daraganova, G., Pattison, P. E., Koskinen, J. H., Mitchell, B., Bill, A., Watts, M., & Baum, S. (2012). Networks and geography: Modelling community network structures as the outcome of both spatial and network processes. Social Networks, 34(1), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ECOLEX. (2011). The gateway to environmental law.
  11. FAO. (2011) FishStatJ – Software for fishery statistical time series.Google Scholar
  12. Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (2008). Fishbase Database.
  13. Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2006). Power positions: International organizations, social networks, and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hornik, K., Mair, P., Rauch, J., Geiger, W., Buchta, C., & Feinerer, I. (2013). The textcat package for n-Gram based text categorization in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 52(6), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurrell, A. (2007). One world? Many worlds? The place of regions in the study of international society. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 83(1), 127–146.Google Scholar
  16. Ingram, P., Robinson, J., & Busch, M. L. (2005). The intergovernmental network of world trade: IGO connectedness, governance, and embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), 824–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jupille, J., Mattli, W., & Snidal, D. (2013). Institutional choice and global commerce. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keohane, R. O. (1986). Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization, 40(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 980–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinne, B. J. (2013). Network dynamics and the evolution of international cooperation. The American Political Science Review, 107(4), 766–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koskinen, J. H., & Edling, C. (2012). Modelling the evolution of a bipartite network—Peer referral in interlocking directorates. Social Networks, 34(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koskinen, J. H., & Lomi, A. (2013). The local structure of globalization. Journal of Statistical Physics 151(3–4), 523–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lazega, E., Jourda, M. T., Mounier, L., & Stofer, R. (2008). Catching up with big fish in the big pond? Multi-level network analysis through linked design. Social Networks, 30(2), 159–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lusher, D., Koskinen, J. H., & Robins, G. L. (Eds.), (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, R. B. (2013). International environmental agreements database project (version 2013.2). University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  27. Petersen, E. (2003). The catch in trading fishing access for foreign aid. Marine Policy, 27(3), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robins, G. L., & Alexander, M. (2004). Small worlds among interlocking directors: Network structure and distance in bipartite graphs. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(1), 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robins, G. L., & Lusher, D. (2013). Illustrations: Simulation, estimation, and goodness of fit. In D. Lusher, J. Koskinen, & G. Robins (Eds.), Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 167–185). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ruggie, J. G. (1992). Multilateralism: The anatomy of an institution. International Organization, 46(3), 561–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandford, R. (1994). International environmental treaty secretariats: Stage-hands or actors? In H. Ole Bergesen & G. Parmann (Eds.), Green globe yearbook of international co-operation on environment and development 1994 (pp. 17–29). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shaw, M. N. (2003). International law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Snyder, D., & Kick, E. L. (1979). Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955–1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interactions. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(5), 1096–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tobin, J. L., Rose-Ackerman, S. (2010). When BITs have some bite: The political-economic environment for bilateral investment treaties. The Review of International Organizations, 6(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Volgy, T. J., Sabic, Z., Roter, P., Fausett, E., & Rodgers, S. (2009). In search of the post-cold war world order: Questions, issues, and perspectives. In T.J. Volgy, Z. Šabič, P. Roter, & A. Gerlak (Eds.), Mapping the new world order (pp. 1–28). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang, P., Robins, G. L., Pattison, P. E., & Lazega, E. (2013). Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Social Networks, 35(1), 96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang, P., Robins, G. L., Pattison, P. E., & Koskinen, J. H. (2014). MPNet: Program for the simulation and estimation of (p*) exponential random graph models for multilevel networks, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  38. Ward, H. (2006). International linkages and environmental sustainability: The effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wasserman, S., & Iacobucci, D. (1991). Statistical modelling of one mode and two mode networks: Simultaneous analysis of graphs and bipartite graphs. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44(1), 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Witbooi, E. (2008). The infusion of sustainability into bilateral fisheries agreements with developing countries: The European Union example. Marine Policy, 32, 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xue, G. (2005). Bilateral fisheries agreements for the cooperative management of the shared resources of the China seas: A note. Ocean Development and International Law, 36(4), 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zelli, F., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Introduction: The institutional fragmentation of global environmental governance: Causes, consequences, and responses. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Relations/Political ScienceGraduate InstituteGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.Social Statistics Discipline AreaUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations