Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:38:08.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of international environmental institutions: how we might learn more

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Thomas Bernauer
Thomas Bernauer
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Get access

Abstract

Analysts of international politics can measure and explain the effect of international environmental institutions on the behavior of states and other actors and on the natural environment in three steps. First, we measure the outcome to be explained in terms of goal attainment, defined as the difference, over time or across cases, between actor behavior or the state of the natural environment on dimensions identified by institutional goals and certain end points determined by institutional goals. Second, we assess the effect of an institution in terms of the extent to which the existence or operation of the institution contributes, ceteris paribus, to variation in goal attainment. We transform these two variables into a score of institutional effectiveness to indicate the degree to which institutions contribute to the resolution of the environmental problems that motivate their establishment. Third, we analyze the relationship between institutional effectiveness and specific dimensions of institutional design—such as decision-making rules, membership and access conditions, and the compliance system.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 351 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1995

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.)

References

1. See, for example, Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; and Keohane, Robert O., “Institutionalist Theory and the Realist Challenge After the Cold War,” working paper 92–7, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., Center for International Affairs, 1992Google Scholar.

2. See, for example, Oye, Kenneth A., ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Stein, Arthur A., Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Young, Oran R., “The Politics of International Regime Formation: Managing Natural Resources and the Environment,” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989), pp. 349–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Among the most important studies are Haas, Peter M., Keohane, Robert O., and Levy, Marc A., eds., Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Young, Oran R., “The Effectiveness of International Institutions: Hard Cases and Critical Variables,” in Rosenau, James N. and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto, eds., Governance Without Government: Change and Order in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 160–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wettestad, Jorgen and Andresen, Steinar, The Effectiveness of International Resource Cooperation: Some Preliminary Findings (Lysaker, Norway: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 1991)Google Scholar; Underdal, Arild, “The Concept of Regime ‘Effectiveness,’” Cooperation and Conflict 27 (09 1992), pp. 227–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levy, Marc A., “The Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions: What We Think We Know, and How We Might Learn More,” paper presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–27 03 1993)Google Scholar; Levy, Marc, Osherenko, Gail, and Young, Oran R., The Effectiveness of International Regimes: A Design for Large-Scale Collaborative Research (Hanover, N.H.: Dartmouth College, Institute for Arctic Studies, 4 12 1991)Google Scholar; and Wettestad, Jorgen, Institutional Design and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: A Conceptual Framework (Lysaker, Norway: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 1994)Google Scholar.

4. Somewhat broader definitions can be found in List, Martin and Rittberger, Volker, “Regime Theory and International Environmental Management,” in Hurrell, Andrew and Kingsbury, Benedict, eds., The International Politics of the Environment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 85–109Google Scholar; and Krasner, Stephen D., “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, p. 2Google Scholar. Note that the more narrow definition in this article controls for the peculiar (and poorly understood) effects that unintentionally established or informal institutions (often called social conventions) may have. For analyses of informal social institutions, seeKnight, Jack, Institutions and Social Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kratochwil, Friedrich, “Contract and Regimes: Do Issue Specificity and Variations of Formality Matter,” in Rittberger, Volker and Mayer, Peter, eds., Regime Theory and International Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 73–93Google Scholar.

5. Haas, Keohane, and Levy estimate that more than half of the 140 multilateral environmental treaties adopted since 1921 were concluded after the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. See their Institutions for the Earth, p. 6.

6. See, for example, Caldwell, Lynton Keith, International Environmental Policy: Emergence and Dimensions, 2d ed. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Hurrell, Andrew and Kingsbury, Benedict, eds., The International Politics of the Environment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992)Google Scholar; The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Green Globe Yearbook 1993 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Mathews, Jessica Tuchman, ed., Preserving the Global Environment: The Challenge of Shared Leadership (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991)Google Scholar; Carroll, John E., ed., International Environmental Diplomacy: The Management and Resolution of Transfrontier Environmental Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; and Stevis, Dimitris, Assetto, Valerie J., and Mumme, Stephen P., “International Environmental Politics: A Theoretical Review of the Literature,” in Lester, James P., ed., Environmental Politics and Policy: Theories and Evidence (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989), pp. 289–313Google Scholar.

7. See, for example, Young, Oran R., International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Kratochwil, Friedrich and Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 753–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, International Regimes; Keohane, Robert O., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1989)Google Scholar; and Rittberger and Mayer, Regime Theory and International Relations.

8. Keohane, Robert, McGinnis, Michael, and Ostrom, Elinor, eds., Proceedings of a Conference on Linking Local and Global Commons, Held at Harvard University, April 23–25, 1992 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, The Center for International Affairs, 1993)Google Scholar; and Haas, Keohane, and Levy, Institutions for the Earth. For a critical review of claims that institutions can facilitate progress in international politics, see Gallarotti, Giulio M., “The Limits of International Organization: Systematic Failure in the Management of International Relations,” International Organization 45 (Spring 1991), pp. 183–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. See Krasner, Stephen D., “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, pp. 1–21Google Scholar; S., Emerson M.Niou, and Ordeshook, Peter C., “Less Filling, Tastes Great: The Realist-Neoliberal Debate,” World Politics 46 (01 1994), pp. 209–34Google Scholar; Powell, Robert, “Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate,” International Organization 48 (Spring 1994), pp. 313–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., “Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier,” World Politics 43 (04 1991), pp. 336–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Waltz, Kenneth N., “The Emerging Structure of International Politics,” International Security 18 (Fall 1993), pp. 44–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Baldwin, David, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

10. See, for example, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Green Globe Yearbook 1993; Sand, Peter H., “Innovations in International Environmental Governance,” Environment 32 (11 1990), pp. 16–44Google Scholar; and Sand, Peter H., ed., The Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements: A Survey of Existing Legal Instruments (Cambridge: Grotius Publications, 1992)Google Scholar.

11. For an analysis of the stratospheric ozone case, see Benedick, Richard E., Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

12. Zürn, Michael, “Consequences of Regime Definitions and Definitions of Regime Consequences: Proposals for a Data Bank on International Regimes,” working paper, presented at a meeting entitled “Regimes Summit,” Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, 10 1991Google Scholar.

13. Haas, , Keohane, , and Levy, , Institutions for the Earth, pp. 3–24 and 397–426Google Scholar.

14. Jacobson, Harold K. and Kay, David A., eds., Environmental Protection: The International Dimension (Totowa, N.J.: Allanheld/Osmun, 1983)Google Scholar.

15. Aggarwal, Vinod K., Liberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 20Google Scholar. Similar concepts can be found in Zacker, Mark V., “Trade Gaps, Analytical Gaps: Regime Analysis and International Commodity Trade Regulation,” International Organization 41 (Spring 1987), p. 117Google Scholar; and Chayes, Abram and Chayes, Antonia Handler, “Compliance Without Enforcement: State Behavior Under Regulatory Treaties,” Negotiation Journal (07 1991), pp. 311–30Google Scholar.

16. Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 55–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. See Levy, The Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions; and Underdal, “The Concept of Regime ‘Effectiveness.’”

18. Levy, , The Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions, p. 4Google Scholar. On the whaling case, see Peterson, M. J., “Whalers, Cetologists, Environmentalists, and the International Management of Whaling,” International Organization 46 (Winter 1992), pp. 147–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Halldor Asgrimsson, “Developments Leading to the 1982 Decision of the International Whaling Commission for a Zero Catch Quota 1986–90,” in Andresen, Steinar and østreng, Willy, International Resource Management: The Role of Science and Politics (London: Belhaven Press, 1989), pp. 221–31Google Scholar. Negative effects of international institutions are discussed by Gallarotti, “The Limits of International Organization.”

19. For a discussion of various evaluative standards, see Young, “The Effectiveness of International Institutions”; and Underdal, “The Concept of Regime ‘Effectiveness.’”

20. Thomas Bernauer, “International Financing of Environmental Protection: Lessons from Efforts to Protect the River Rhine Against Chloride Pollution,” Environmental Politics, forthcoming.

21. For an abstract comparison of five global regimes for greenhouse gas reductions against economic efficiency criteria, see Epstein, Joshua M. and Gupta, Raj, Controlling the Greenhouse Effect: Five Global Regimes Compared (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990)Google Scholar.

22. Cairncross, Frances, Costing the Earth (London: Economist Books, 1991)Google Scholar.

23. Underdal, , “The Concept of Regime ‘Effectiveness,’” pp. 230–34Google Scholar.

24. Michael Zürn, Gerechte Internationale Regime: Bedingungen und Restriktionen der Entstehung nicht-hegemonialer internationaler Regime untersucht am Beispiel der Weltkommunikationsordnung (Just international regimes: Conditions and restrictions for the emergence of nonhegemonic international regimes, analyzed on the basis of the world communication order) (Frankfurt a.M: Haag und Herchen, 1987).

25. For a rational-choice-based analysis of equity and fairness issues, see Young, Peyton H., Equity in Theory and Practice (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

26. See Chayes, Abram and Chayes, Antonia Handler, “On Compliance,” International Organization 47 (Spring 1993), pp. 175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, Ronald B., Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea: Environmental Policy and Treaty Compliance (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994)Google Scholar; and Young, Oran R., Compliance and Public Authority: A Theory with International Applications (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Haggard, Stephen and Simmons, Beth A., “Theories of International Regimes,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 491–517 and p. 496 in particularCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Mitchell, Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea.

28. Wettestad and Andresen, The Effectiveness of International Resource Cooperation.

29. Levy, Osherenko, and Young, The Effectiveness of International Regimes.

30. Underdal, , “The Concept of Regime ‘Effectiveness,’” p. 229Google Scholar.

31. Ku, Charlotte, “Ocean Boundaries: Does the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention Matter?” paper prepared for the annual convention of the International Studies Association in Acapulco, Mexico, 23–27 03 1993Google Scholar.

32. Haas, Peter M., Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

33. Wettestad and Andresen, The Effectiveness of International Resource Cooperation.

34. For examples of the former, see Rosenau, James N., “Before Cooperation: Hegemons, Regimes, and Habit-Driven Actors in World Politics,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 849–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kratochwil, Friedrich V., “The Force of Prescriptions,” International Organization 38 (Autumn 1984), pp. 685–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kratochwil, Friedrich V., Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Wendt, Alexander, “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 391–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wendt, Alexander and Duvall, Raymond, “Institutions and International Order,” in Czempiel, Ernst-Otto and Rosenau, James N., eds., Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989), pp. 51–73Google Scholar. For examples of the latter, see Knight, Institutions and Social Conflict; Yarbrough, Beth V. and Yarbrough, Robert M., “International Institutions and the New Economics of Organization,” International Organization 44 (Spring 1990), pp. 235–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williamson, Oliver E., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting (New York: Free Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., “The Demand for International Regimes,” in Krasner, , International Regimes, pp. 141–71Google Scholar; and Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

35. See in particular Haas, , Keohane, , and Levy, , Institutions for the Earth, pp. 408–15Google Scholar.

36. Young, “The Effectiveness of International Institutions.”

37. See Chayes and Chayes, “On Compliance”; and Mitchell, Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea.

38. See Sand, Peter H., Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1990); and Peter H. Sand, “Innovations in International Environmental Governance.”Google Scholar

39. Wettestad and Andresen, The Effectiveness of International Resource Cooperation.

40. See also Wettestad, Institutional Design and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. For an analysis of the science and politics interface in international environmental affairs, see Andresen and østreng, International Resource Management; Skodvin, Tora and Underdal, Arild, “The Science-Politics Interface: Transforming Knowledge into Decision Inputs for International Environmental Regimes,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., 29 03–1 04 1994Google Scholar; and Kowalok, Michael E., “Research Lessons from Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion, and Global Warming,” Environment 35 (07/08 1993), pp. 12–38Google Scholar.

41. Keohane, McGinnis, and Ostrom, Proceedings of a Conference on Linking Local and Global Commons; and Ostrom, Governing the Commons. Another area of research on institutions at the domestic level deals with legislatures. See, for example, Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Weingast, Barry R., “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power,” American Political Science Review 81 (03 1987), pp. 85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. See McGinnis, Michael and Ostrom, Elinor, “Design Principles for Local and Global Commons,” in Keohane, , McGinnis, , and Ostrom, , Proceedings of a Conference on Linking Local and Global Commons, pp. 16–65Google Scholar; and Ostrom, , Governing the Commons, p. 90Google Scholar.

43. See Haas, Keohane, and Levy, Institutions for the Earth; and Chayes and Chayes, “Compliance Without Enforcement.”

44. Taylor, Michael, “The Economics and Politics of Property Rights and Common Pool Resources,” Natural Resources Journal 32 (Summer 1992), p. 640Google Scholar in particular.

45. See Yarbrough and Yarbrough, “International Institutions and the New Economics of Organization”; and Kydd, Andrew and Snidal, Duncan, “Progress in Game-Theoretical Analysis of International Regimes,” in Rittberger and Mayer, Regime Theory and International Relations, pp. 112–35Google Scholar.

46. Elster, Jon, Explaining Technical Change: A Case Study in the Philosophy of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

47. Simon, Herbert, “Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 68 (05 1978), p. 3Google Scholar.

48. See Haas, Keohane, and Levy, Institutions for the Earth; and Levy, Osherenko, and Young, The Effectiveness of International Regimes.

49. See McGinnis and Ostrom, “Design Principles for Local and Global Commons”; Wettestad and Andresen, The Effectiveness of International Resource Cooperation; and Wettestad, Institutional Design and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes.

50. Yarbrough, and Yarbrough, , “International Institutions and the New Economic of Organization,” p. 253Google Scholar.

51. Ulfstein, Geir, “The Barents Sea After the Cold War,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Washington, D.C., 28 03–1 04 1994Google Scholar.

52. For an analysis of institutional effect in the ozone layer case, see Edward A. Parson, “Protecting the Ozone Layer,” in Haas, , Keohane, , and Levy, , Institutions for the Earth, pp. 27–73Google Scholar.

53. Miller, Kenton R., Reid, Walter V., and Barber, Charles V., “Deforestation and Species Loss,” in Mathews, , Preserving the Global Environment, pp. 78–111Google Scholar.

54. Okidi, C. O., “Environmental Stress and Conflicts in Africa: Case Studies of African International Drainage Basins,” manuscript, School of Environmental Studies, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya, 1992Google Scholar.

55. For an attempt to distinguish cooperation on security and economic issues, which raises similar problems, see Lipson, Charles, “International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,” World Politics 37 (10 1984), pp. 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. For an analysis of international regulations on trade in toxic waste, seeHilz, Christoph and Ehrenfeld, John R., “Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Options to Control the International Waste Trade,” International Environmental Affairs 3 (Winter 1991), pp. 26–63Google Scholar.

57. Mitchell, Ronald B., “Regime Design Matters: Intentional Oil Pollution and Treaty Compliance,” International Organization 48 (Summer 1994), pp. 425–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. See, for example, Alt, James E. and Shepsle, Kenneth A., eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. For an innovative approach to measuring ex ante preferences, which is based on indicators of environmental vulnerability and costs of environmental regulation, seeSprinz, Detlef and Vaahtoranta, Tapai, “The Interest-based Explanation of International Environmental Policy,” International Organization 48 (Winter 1994), pp. 77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60. Snidal, Duncan, “Coordination Versus Prisoner's Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes,” American Political Science Review 74 (12 1985), pp. 923–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61. Personal interview with Walter Jülich, Internationale Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwerke im Rheineinzugsgebiet (International Association of Waterworks in the Rhine Basin), Amsterdam, December 1993.

62. Keohane, After Hegemony.

63. Andresen, Steinar, “Science and Politics in the International Management of Whales,” Marine Policy 13 (04 1989), pp. 99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64. Thomas Widmer, Evaluation von Massnahmen zur Luftreinhaltepolitik in der Schweiz (Evaluation of clean-air policy in Switzerland) (Chur, Switzerland: Verlag Rüegger, 1991). The Box-Tiao method was proposed by Box, George E. P. and Tiao, George C., “Intervention Analysis with Applications to Economic and Environmental Problems,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 70 (03 1975), pp. 70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65. Lenhardt, W. Christopher, “International Trade and Measuring the GATT Regime Effect on Developing Country Trade,” paper presented at the annual convention of the International Studies Association, Acapulco, Mexico, 23–27 03 1993Google Scholar.

66. Ruloff, Dieter and Schneider, Gerald, “Gorby, Grit, or Rambo: A Quantitative Appraisal of the End of the Cold War,” paper prepared for the annual convention of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 31 03–4 04 1992Google Scholar.

67. Stevenson, Glenn G., Common Property Economics: A General Theory and Land Use Applications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. Ibid.

69. Thomas Bernauer, “International Financing of Environmental Protection.”

70. See Fearon, James D., “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science,” World Politics 43 (01 1991), pp. 169–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dessler, David, “Beyond Correlations: Toward a Causal Theory of War,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (09 1991), pp. 337–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a comprehensive treatment of qualitative methods, seeKing, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

71. For an analysis of the ozone case, see Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy; and Parson, “Protecting the Ozone Layer.”

72. See, for example, Taylor, Michael, The Possibility of Cooperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Sandier, Todd, Collective Action: Theory and Applications (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Ordeshook, Peter C., Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kydd and Snidal, “Progress in Game-Theoretical Analysis of International Regimes.”

73. See M. J. Peterson, “Whalers, Cetologists, Environmentalists, and the International Management of Whaling”; and Asgrimsson, “Developments Leading to the 1982 Decision of the International Whaling Commission for a Zero Catch Quota 1986–90.”

74. For an analysis of European Community/Union environmental policy from an institutionalist perspective, see Hildebrand, Philipp M., “The European Community's Environmental Policy, 1957–‘1992’: From Incidental Measures to an International Regime,” in Judge, David, ed., A Green Dimension for the European Community: Political Issues and Processes (London: Frank Cass, 1993)Google Scholar.

75. See, for example, Peter H. Sand, Lessons Learned in Global Environmental Governance; Chayes and Chayes, “On Compliance”; and Kovenock, Dan and Thursby, Marie, “GATT, Dispute Settlement, and Cooperation,” Economics and Politics 4 (07 1992), pp. 151–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. Mitchell, “Regime Design Matters.”

77. A preliminary discussion of such design dimensions can be found in Wettestad, Institutional Design and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes.

78. Keohane, McGinnis, and Ostrom, Proceedings of a Conference on Linking Local and Global Commons.