Current research on international treaties suggests that flexibility provisions can facilitate the diplomatic resolution of international environmental problems.This article advances understanding of this process by describing a typology of flexibility mechanisms found in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and by arguing that negotiators strategically select different types of institutional flexibility mechanisms in response to different problems. Multivariate analysis of a new dataset of MEAs indicates that a wider variety of factors influence provision of institutional flexibility than many current studies consider. Specifically, power asymmetry among contracting states is shown to be the most important predictor of flexibility provisions in MEAs.
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal.2000. Hard and soft law in international governance . International Organization54(3): 37-72.
2.
Barrett, Scott.2003. Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
Bartus, Tamás.2005. Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. Stata Journal5(3): 309-332.
4.
Boockmann, B., and Paul Thurner.2006. Flexibility provisions in multilateral environmental treaties. International Environmental Agreements6(2): 113-135.
5.
Breitmeier, Helmut, Marc A. Levy, Oran R. Young, and Michael Zürn .1996. International Regimes Database (IRD): Data Protocol, IIASA WP-96-154. Laxenburg, Austria.
6.
Breitmeier, Helmut, Oran R. Young, and Michael Zürn .2006. Analyzing international environmental regimes: From case study to database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Copelovitch, Mark, and Tonya Putnam.2008. Uncertainty, context, and the duration of international agreements. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, March 26-29, San Francisco, CA.
8.
DeSombre, Elizabeth R.2000. Domestic sources of international environmental policy:Industry, environmentalists, and U.S. power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9.
Downie, David L.1999. The power to destroy: Understanding stratospheric ozone politics as a common-pool resource problem. In Anarchy and the environment: The international relations of common pool resources , eds J. Samuel Barkin and George E. Shambaugh.Albany: State University of New York Press.
10.
Downs, George W., David M. Rocke, and Peter Barsoom.1996. Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation?International Organization50(3): 379-406.
11.
Drezner, Daniel W.2007. All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
Duffield, John S.2003. The limits of "Rational Design". International Organization57(2): 411-430.
13.
Fearon, James D.1998. Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation . International Organization52(2): 269-305.
14.
Goldstein Judith O., Miles Kahler, Robert Keohane, and Anne-Marie Slaughter .2000. Introduction: Legalization and world politics. International Organization54(3): 385-399.
15.
Grieco, Joseph.1988. Anarchy and the limits of cooperation. International Organization42(3): 485-507.
16.
Gruber, Lloyd.2000. Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Hawkins, Darren G., David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson, and Michael J. Tierney, eds. 2006 . Delegation and agency in international organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Keohane, Robert, and Joseph Nye.1977. Power and interdependence. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
Koremenos, Barbara.2001. Loosening the ties that bind: A learning model of agreement flexibility. International Organization55(2): 289-325.
20.
Koremenos, Barbara.2005. Contracting around international uncertainty. American Political Science Review99(4): 549-565.
21.
Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal.2001. The rational design of international institutions. International Organization55(4): 761-799.
22.
Miles, Edward L., Arild Underdal , Steinar Andresen, Jørgen Wettestad, Jon Birger Skjærseth, and Elaine M. Carlin (eds). 2002. Environmental regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Mitchell, Ronald B. 2002-2008. International Environmental Agreements Website. Available at http://iea.uoregon.edu and described in Ronald B. Mitchell (2003). International environmental agreements: A survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28 (November).
24.
Mitchell, Ronald B., and Patricia Keilbach .2001. Situation structure and institutional design: Reciprocity, coercion, and exchange. International Organization55(4): 891-917.
25.
Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin, and Emilia Justyna Powell.2009. Legal systems and variance in the design of commitments to the International Court of Justice. Conflict Management and Peace Science (this volume).
26.
North, Douglass C., and Robert Paul Thomas .1973. The rise of the Western World: A new economic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Pfetsch, Frank R.1997. Negotiating political conflicts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
Raustiala, Kal.2005. Form and substance in international agreements . American Journal of International Law99(3): 581-614.
29.
Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Helen V. Milner .2001. The optimal design of international trade institutions: Uncertainty and escape. International Organization55(4): 829-857.
30.
Thompson, Alexander.2006. Rational design in motion: Uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. Ohio State University: manuscript.
31.
Victor, David G.2001. The collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the struggle to slow global warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Young, Oran R. (ed.) 1999. The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33.
Young, Oran R., and Michael Zürn .2006. The International Regimes Database: Designing and using a sophisticated tool for institutional analysis . Global Environmental Politics6(3):121-143.
