Download Powerpoint

Outline for today’s class
 Relative effectiveness discussion paper
 Negotiation theory & practice
 Guest lecture on this Thursday
 How to analyze and graph data
Treaty 1 – overarching thoughts
 Good strategy: look at analysis of similar treaty in
chapters in any of the many books I have put on
reserve in the library for the course. Imitate that
analysis.
 Polar bears: use 1973 treaty and research question is
WHICH countries were influenced – some were and
some weren’t and want to use evidence to make
convincing claim about which.
Discussion paper Thurs, next week
Relative Effectiveness
 Fully described in assignment packet
 Goals of exercise
 Compare problem effect/effectiveness in light of
differences in problem structure – a REALLY hard thing
to think about
 Practice THINKING about graphing
 Practice GRAPHING
 Lay foundation for Treaty Assignment 2
Negotiation Theory
 Sprinz and Vaahtoranta
 Positions states take in negotiations (the DV) are
determined by two IVs: the costs states face to take action
to protect the environment (abatement costs) and the
benefits they receive if the environment is protected
(ecological vulnerability)
 Betsill and Corell show:
 Need to clarify research question – WHAT is influence?
 Evidence of NGO influence
 Use of process tracing AND counterfactuals
 Building on work of prior others
Questions in a negotiation
 Who to involve – which states, which non-states
 What to discuss and how to discuss it (framing)
 How ambitious to be
 Means of implementation
 Response to compliance and noncompliance
 Different general strategies of negotiation process
Why States Take Positions They Do
in Int’l Negotiations
Ecological Vulnerability
Yes
No
Low
Pusher
Bystander
High
Intermediate
Dragger
Abatement
Costs
Sprinz and Vaahtoranta, 1994.
–Start at minute 19:10
Variation in negotiation practice
 Agreements reached or not
 No forest agreement; no nitrogen-fixing agreement
 Many agreements in other issue areas




Marine pollution: 11 treaties, 4 protocols, 74 amendments
Whaling – annual amendments since 1946
LRTAP: 8 protocols; Montreal: 17 amendments/adjusts
Desertification: no additional agreements
 Strength of agreements
 Montreal vs. climate
 Timing of agreements: why in 19xx vs. earlier/later?
 Approach to agreements: fisheries v. regional v. global
Why do negotiations succeed?
 Type of problem
 Structural and contextual factors
 Concern about the issue and costs
 Scientific influence
 Actors involved
 Institutional design factors
How do choices about what’s in
climate change agreement affect
whether there is one?
 Choice #1: Single or comprehensive - is linkage across
issues good or bad?
 Choice #2: Few actors or universal
 Choice #3: Fixed targets or renegotiable
 Choice #4: Binding treaty (hard law) or informal
guidelines (soft law)
 Choice #5: World Environmental Organization