Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T07:22:42.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Flexibility in International Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2013

By
Laurence R. Helfer
Edited by
Jeffrey L. Dunoff  and
Mark A. Pollack
Jeffrey L. Dunoff
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia
Mark A. Pollack
Affiliation:
Temple University, Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

The form and substance of international agreements are intimately linked. This insight, recently articulated by scholars working at the intersection of international law (IL) and international relations (IR) (Guzman 2005; Hathaway 2005; Raustiala 2005), has important implications for the study of legalized interstate cooperation. The relationship between form and substance affects issues central to the international legal system, including treaty design, the choice between hard and soft law, delegation of authority to international organizations and tribunals, and treaty compliance. The form and substance equation is, in turn, shaped by the many uncertainties that pervade international affairs, including insufficient information about future events, the preferences of other states, and shifts in domestic politics (Koremenos, Lipson, and Snidal 2001).

The linkage between form and substance also illuminates the choices and constraints that governments face, both when they negotiate international agreements and when they decide whether to comply with those agreements over time. Consider as a preliminary example a country that favors the adoption of a “deep” multilateral agreement that requires extensive changes to existing behavior. The state can pursue a range of different strategies to achieve its goal. It may limit participation to a smaller number of countries with similar preferences that will accept the treaty's onerous requirements. Or, it may broaden participation by offering incentives or concessions to nations reluctant to ratify the agreement. These inducements can take many forms, such as side payments, technical assistance, and other treaty membership benefits. But they can also include flexibility mechanisms that make the treaty more attractive by authorizing the parties to manage the risks of joining the agreement. These provisions function as insurance policies. They provide a hedge against uncertainty that allows a state to revise, readjust, or even renounce its commitments if the anticipated benefits of treaty-based cooperation turn out to be overblown (Bilder 1981; Sykes 1991; Helfer 2005).

Type
Chapter
Information
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations
The State of the Art
 , pp. 175 - 196
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aceves, William J. (1996). “The Economic Analysis of International Law: Transaction Cost Economics and the Concept of State Practice,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 995–1068.Google Scholar
Alter, Karen J. (2005). “International Courts Are Not Agents! The Perils of the Principal-Agent Approach to Thinking about the Independence of International Courts,” American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 99, pp. 138–41.Google Scholar
Alvarez, José E. (2005). International Organizations as Law-Makers (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Aust, Anthony (1986). “The Theory and Practice of Informal International Instruments,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 787–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aust, Anthony (2007). Modern Treaty Law and Practice, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aust, Anthony (2010). Handbook of International Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Scott (2003). Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Ed (2008). “Avoiding Legal Obligations Created by Human Rights Treaties,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 751–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilder, Richard B. (1981). Managing the Risks of International Agreement (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Blix, Hans, and Emerson, Jirina H (1973) (eds.). The Treaty Maker's Handbook (New York: Oceana Publications).Google Scholar
Boockmann, Bernhard, and Thurner, Paul W (2006). “Flexibility Provisions in Multilateral Environmental Treaties,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 113–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Curtis A., and Goldsmith, Jack Landman III (2000). “Treaties, Human Rights, and Conditional Consent,” Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 149, No. 2, pp. 399–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Curtis A., and Kelley, Judith G. (2008). “The Concept of International Delegation,” Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Brummer, Chris (2007). “The Ties That Bind? Regionalism, Commercial Treaties, and the Future of Global Economic Integration,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 5, pp. 1349–1408.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram (1972). “An Inquiry into the Workings of Arms Control Agreements,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 905–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogan, Jacob Katz (2006). “Noncompliance and the International Rule of Law,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 189–210.Google Scholar
Cogan, Jacob Katz (2009). “Representation and Power in International Organization: The Operational Constitution and Its Critics,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 209–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Wade M. (2009). “Hard and Soft Commitments to Human Rights Treaties, 1966–2000,” Sociological Forum, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, George W., Rocke, David M., and Barsoom, Peter N. (1998). “Managing the Evolution of Multilateralism,” International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunoff, Jeffrey L. (2010). “How Not to Think about Safeguards,” in Bagwell, Kyle W., Bermann, George A, and Mavroidis, Petros C (eds.), Law and Economics of Contingent Protection in International Trade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 401–12.Google Scholar
El Zeidy, Mohamed M. (2003). “The ECHR and States of Emergency: Article 15 – a Domestic Power of Derogation from Human Rights Obligations,” San Diego International Law Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 277–318.Google Scholar
Evatt, Elizabeth (1999). “Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the ICCPR: Denunciation as an Exercise of the Right of Self-Defence,” Australian Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 215–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Joan (1994). Human Rights in Crisis: The International System for Protecting Human Rights during States of Emergency (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathii, James T. (2011). African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Ryan (2002). “Human Rights Treaties, Invalid Reservations, and State Consent,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 531–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Ryan, and Jinks, Derek (2004). “How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 621–704.Google Scholar
Gross, Oren, and Aoláin, Fionnuala Ní (2006). Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T. (2002). “The Cost of Credibility: Explaining Resistance to Interstate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 303–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T. (2005). “The Design of International Agreements,” European Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 579–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T. (2008). “International Tribunals: A Rational Choice Analysis,” The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 157, No. 1, pp. 171–236.Google Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T., and Landsidle, Jennifer (2008). “The Myth of International Delegation,” California Law Review, Vol. 96, No. 6, pp. 1693–1724.Google Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T., and Meyer, Timothy L (2010). “International Soft Law,” Journal of Legal Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 171–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Helfer, Laurence R., and Fariss, Christopher J (2011). “Emergency and Escape: Explaining Derogation from Human Rights Treaties,” International Organization, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 673–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, Oona A. (2005). “Between Power and Principle: An Integrated Theory of International Law,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 469–536.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. (2002). “Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash against Human Rights Regimes,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 7, pp. 1832–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R (2005). “Exiting Treaties,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 7, pp. 1579–1648.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R (2006a). “Not Fully Committed? Reservations, Risk, and Treaty Design,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 367–82.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R (2006b). “Understanding Change in International Organizations: Globalization and Innovation in the ILO,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 649–726.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R (2008a). “Nonconsensual International Lawmaking,” University of Illinois Law Review, No. 1, pp. 71–126.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R (2008b). “Monitoring Compliance with Unratified Treaties: The ILO Experience,” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 193–218.Google Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R (forthcoming). “Terminating Treaties,” in Hollis, Duncan (ed.), The Oxford Guide to Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Helfer, Laurence R., and Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2005). “Why States Create International Tribunals: A Response to Professors Posner and Yoo,” California Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 899–956.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Hoekman, Bernard M., and Kostecki, Michel M. (1995). The Political Economy of the World Trading System from GATT to WTO (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Jenks, C. Wilfred (1969). A New World of Law? A Study of the Creative Imagination in International Law (London: Longmans).Google Scholar
Joseph, Sarah, Schultz, Jenny, and Castan, Melissa (2005). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kearney, Patrick Michael, and Powers, Ryan M (2011). “Veto Players and Conditional Commitment to U.N. Human Rights Agreements,” APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara (2002). “Can Cooperation Survive Changes in Bargaining Power? The Case of Coffee,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, S259–S284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara (2005). “Contracting around International Uncertainty,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 549–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara (2007). “If Only Half of International Agreements Have Dispute Resolution Provisions, Which Half Needs Explaining?” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara (2013). “Institutionalism and International Law,” in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. and Pollack, Mark A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, and Nau, Allison (2010). “Exit, No Exit,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 81–120.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan (2001). “The Rational Design of International Institutions,” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucik, Jeffrey, and Reinhardt, Eric (2008). “Does Flexibility Promote Cooperation? An Application to the Global Trade Regime,” International Organization, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 477–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorz, Ralph Alexander (2003). “Possible Derogations from Civil and Political Rights under Article 4 of the ICCPR,” Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 33, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
McDougal, Myres S., Lasswell, Harold D., and Reisman, W. Michael (1967). “The World Constitutive Process of Authoritative Decision,” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 253–300.Google Scholar
McMahon, J. F. (1965–66). “The Legislative Techniques of the International Labour Organization,” British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 41, pp. 1–102.Google Scholar
Meyer, Timothy (2010). “Power, Exit Costs, and Renegotiation in International Law,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 379–425.Google Scholar
Miles, Thomas J., and Posner, Eric A. (2008). “Which States Enter into Treaties, and Why?” University of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 420; University of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 225, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Ronald B. (2006). “Problem Structure, Institutional Design, and the Relative Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements,” Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, Eric (2007). “Qualified Ratification: Explaining Reservations to International Human Rights Treaties,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 397–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumayer, Eric (2011). “Do Governments Mean Business When They Derogate? Human Rights Violations during Notified States of Emergency,” Working Paper, pp. 1–42.CrossRef
Oraá, Jaime (1992). Human Rights in States of Emergency in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Parisi, Francesco, and Ševčenko, Catherine (2003). “Treaty Reservations and the Economics of Article 21(1) of the Vienna Convention,” Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Patterson, Eliza (2002). “The US Provides Section 201 Relief for the American Steel Industry,” ASIL Insights, available at .
Pauwelyn, Joost (2008). Optimal Protection of International Law: Navigating between European Absolutism and American Voluntarism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelc, Krzysztof J. (2009a). “Seeking Escape: The Use of Escape Clauses in International Trade Agreements,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 349–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelc, Krzysztof J (2009b). The Cost of Wiggle-Room: On the Use of Flexibility in International Trade Agreements, Georgetown University, PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Perez, Antonio F. (1994). “Survival of Rights under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Withdrawal and the Continuing Right of International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards,” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 749–830.Google Scholar
Polakiewicz, Jörg (1999). Treaty-Making in the Council of Europe (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishers).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A., and Yoo, John C. (2005). “Judicial Independence in International Tribunals,” California Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 1–74.Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal (2005). “Form and Substance in International Agreements,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 3, pp. 581–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, W. Michael (2002). “Unratified Treaties and Other Unperfected Acts in International Law: Constitutional Functions,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 729–47.Google Scholar
Ress, Georg (1994). “Ex Ante Safeguards Against Ex Post Opportunism in International Treaties: Theory and Practice of International Public Law,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 150, No. 1, pp. 279–303.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Milner, Helen V. (2001). “The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape,” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 829–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudzinski, Aleksander Witold (1977). “Denunciation of International Treaties,” Book Review, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 805–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salacuse, Jeswald W. (2010). “The Emerging Global Regime for Investment,” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 427–74.Google Scholar
Sandler, Todd (2004). Global Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Stephen C. (2003). Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations: A Story of Superpowers, Secret Agents, Wartime Allies and Enemies and Their Quest for a Peaceful World (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).Google Scholar
Servais, J. M. (1986). “Flexibility and Rigidity in International Labour Standards,” International Labour Review, Vol. 125, No. 2, pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
Setear, John K. (1999). “Ozone, Iteration, and International Law,” Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 193–310.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory C., and Pollack, Mark A. (2010). “Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 706–99.Google Scholar
Swaine, Edward T. (2003). “Unsigning,” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 2061–89.Google Scholar
Swaine, Edward T. (2006). “Reserving,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 307–66.Google Scholar
Sykes, Alan O. (1991). “Protectionism as a ‘Safeguard’: A Positive Analysis of the GATT ‘Escape Clause’ with Normative Speculations,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 255–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, Harold J. (1933). The Termination of Multipartite Treaties (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos, Antonios (2011). “Denunciation of the ICSID Convention under the General International Law of Treaties,” in Hofman, Rainer and Tams, Christian (eds.), International Investment Law and General International Law: From Clinical Isolation to Systemic Integration (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft Mbh & Co), pp. 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (2007). Multilateral Environmental Agreement Negotiator's Handbook, 2nd ed. (Joensuu: University of Joensuu, Department of Law).Google Scholar
United Nations Legal Department (1951). Handbook of Final Clauses (New York: Treaty Section of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs).Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos, Antonios (1957). Handbook of Final Clauses (New York: Treaty Section of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs).Google Scholar
Tzanakopoulos, Antonios (2003). Handbook of Final Clauses (New York: Treaty Section of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs).Google Scholar
van Aaken, Anne (2009). “International Investment Law between Commitment and Flexibility: A Contract Theory Analysis,” Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 507–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdows, Kelvin (1982). “The Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties Containing No Denunciation Clause,” British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 53, pp. 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A. and Others v. United Kingdom, App. No. 3455/05, 2009–__ Eur. Ct. H.R. (Grand Chamber) (2009)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×