Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Language of Compromise in International Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2016

Get access

Abstract

To reach agreement, international negotiators often compromise by using flexible language: they make controversial provisions vague, or add options and caveats. Does flexibility in agreement language influence subsequent state behavior? If so, do states follow both firm and flexible language somewhat, as negotiators hope? Or do governments respond strategically, increasing their energies on firmly specified tasks, and reducing their efforts on flexibly specified ones? Testing theories about agreement language is difficult because states often reserve flexible language for controversial provisions. To make causal claims, we study an unusually drafted agreement in which states had almost no opportunity to dilute agreement language. We examine the influence of the 1991 Paris Principles on the Design of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), using an original data set of twenty-two institutional safeguards of NHRIs in 107 countries, and case studies. We find that variations in agreement language can have large effects on state behavior, even when the entire agreement is nonbinding. Both democracies and authoritarian states followed the principles' firm terms closely. However, authoritarian states either ignored or reduced their efforts on flexibly specified tasks. If flexibly specifying a task is no different from omitting it altogether, as our data suggest, the costs of compromise are much greater than previously believed.


Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., Keohane, Robert O., Moravcsik, Andrew, Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54 (3):421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile. 2009. Historia de la Ley No. 20.405. Del Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos. Santiago. Available at <http://www.bcn.cl/historiadelaley/nc/historia-de-la-ley/4791/>. Accessed 16 February 2016..+Accessed+16+February+2016.>Google Scholar
Brewster, Rachel. 2010. Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block: Incrementalism and National Climate Change Legislation. Yale Law and Policy Review 28 (2):245312.Google Scholar
Cardenas, Sonia. 2014. Chains of Justice: The Global Rise of State Institutions for Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, Richard. 2000. Performance and Legitimacy: National Human Rights Institutions. 2nd ed. Versoix, Switzerland: International Council on Human Rights Policy.Google Scholar
Carver, Richard. 2005. Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions. Versoix, Switzerland: International Council on Human Rights Policy.Google Scholar
Chayes, Abram, and Chayes, Antonia Handler. 1993. On Compliance. International Organization 47 (2):175205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Wade M., and Ramirez, Francisco O.. 2013. Conditional Decoupling: Assessing the Impact of National Human Rights Institutions, 1981 to 2004. American Sociological Review 78 (4):702–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, Cosette, and Simmons, Beth A.. 2013. Transparency at Home: How Well Do Governments Share Human Rights Information with Citizens? In Transparency in International Law, edited by Bianchi, Andrea and Peters, Anne, 239–68. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMeritt, Jacqueline, Conrad, Courtenay, and Fariss, Christopher. 2015. The Unintended Consequences of Human Rights Advocacy on State Repression. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, February, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Domingo, Pilar. 2006. Weak Courts, Rights, and Legal Mobilization in Bolivia. In Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies: An Institutional Voice for the Poor? edited by Gargarella, Roberto, Domingo, Pilar, and Roux, Theunis, 233–54. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Downs, George W., Rocke, David M., and Barsoom, Peter N.. 1996. Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organization 50 (3):379406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fariss, Christopher J. 2014. Respect for Human Rights Has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability. American Political Science Review 108 (2):297318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fariss, Christopher J., and Schnakenberg, Keith E.. 2014. Measuring Mutual Dependence Between State Repressive Actions. Journal of Conflict Resolution 58 (6):1003–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Evgeny. 2012. The Authoritarian Advantage of Horizontal Accountability: Ombudsmen in Poland and Russia. Comparative Politics 44 (3):291310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1993. International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Science Policy. International Organization 47 (4):565–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Thomas M. 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gamble, John King Jr. 1985. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as Soft Law. Houston Journal of International Law 8 (1):3747.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, and Moustafa, Tamir, eds. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, Joseph. 1983. Strengthening the Soft International Law of Exchange Arrangements. American Journal of International Law 77 (3):443–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Posner, Eric A.. 2006. The Limits of International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T. 2008. How International Law Works: A Rational Choice Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T., and Linos, Katerina. 2014. Human Rights Backsliding. California Law Review 102: 603654.Google Scholar
Guzman, Andrew T., and Meyer, Timothy L.. 2010. International Soft Law. Journal of Legal Analysis 2 (1):171225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie. 2005. Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. International Organization 59 (3):593629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie. 2013. Making Human Rights a Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie, and Tsutsui, Kiyoteru, 2007. Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law to Matter Where Needed Most. Journal of Peace Research 44 (4):407–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., and Ron, James. 2009. Seeing Double: Human Rights Impact Through Qualitative and Quantitative Eyes. World Politics 61 (2):360401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hathaway, Oona. 2002. Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Yale Law Journal 111 (8):19352042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahler, Miles. 2000. Conclusion: The Causes and Consequences of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3):661–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, Judith G., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2015. Politics by Number: Indicators as Social Pressure in International Relations. American Journal of Political Science 59 (1):5570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Dongwook. 2013. International Nongovernmental Organizations and the Global Diffusion of National Human Rights Institutions. International Organization 67 (3):505–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara. 2005. Contracting Around International Uncertainty. American Political Science Review 99 (4):549–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebovic, James H., and Voeten, Erik. 2009. The Cost of Shame: International Organizations and Foreign Aid in the Punishing of Human Rights Violators. Journal of Peace Research 46 (1):7997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsnaes, Birgit B., Lindholt, Lone, and Yigen, Kristine, eds. 2001. National Human Rights Institutions: Articles and Working Papers. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Human Rights.Google Scholar
Linos, Katerina. 2011. Diffusion Through Democracy. American Journal of Political Science 55 (3):678–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linos, Katerina. 2013. Democratic Foundations of Policy Diffusion: How Health, Family, and Employment Laws Spread Across Countries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linos, Katerina. 2015. How to Select and Develop International Law Case Studies: Lessons from Comparative Law and Comparative Politics. American Journal of International Law 109: 475+.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Yonatan. 2013a. Best Evidence: The Role of Information in Domestic Judicial Enforcement of International Human Rights Agreements. International Organization 67 (3):469503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Yonatan. 2013b. The Informative Power of Treaty Commitment: Using the Spatial Model to Address Selection Effects. American Journal of Political Science 57 (4):912–25.Google Scholar
Odell, John S. 2001. Case Study Methods in International Political Economy. International Studies Perspectives 2 (2):161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okafor, Obiora Chinedu, and Agbakwa, Shedrack C.. 2002. On Legalism, Popular Agency and “Voices of Suffering”: The Nigerian Human Rights Commission in Context. Human Rights Quarterly 24 (3):662720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pegram, Thomas. 2012. National Human Rights Institutions in Latin America: Politics and Institutionalization. In Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions, edited by Goodman, Ryan and Pegram, Thomas, 210–40. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, Peter. 2005. Stability and Rigidity: Politics and the Design of the WTO's Dispute Resolution Procedure. American Political Science Review 99 (3):389400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siavelis, Peter. 2000. The President and Congress in Postauthoritarian Chile: Institutional Constraints to Democratic Consolidation. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
Sikkink, Kathryn, and Walling, Carrie Booth. 2007. The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America. Journal of Peace Research 44 (4):427–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Peter H. 2007. Courts and Judges in Authoritarian Regimes. World Politics 60 (1):122–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spilker, Gabriele, and Böhmelt, Tobias. 2013. The Impact of Preferential Trade Agreements on Governmental Repression Revisited. Review of International Organizations 8 (3):343–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, Marcelo Rojas. 2008. Instituciones Nacionales de Derechos Humanos. In Informe Anual Sobre Derechos Humanos en Chile 2008, edited by Vásquez, Marcelo Rojas, 539–72. Santiago, Chile: Centro de Derechos Humanos, Universidad Diego Portales.Google Scholar
Verdier, Pierre-Hugues, and Versteeg, Mila. 2015. International Law in National Legal Systems: An Empirical Investigation. American Journal of International Law 109 (3):514533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, Geoffrey. 2013. International Law and Public Attitudes Towards Torture: An Experimental Study. International Organization 67 (1):105–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linos and Pegram supplementary material

Linos and Pegram supplementary material 1

[Opens in a new window]
File 14 KB

Linos and Pegram supplementary material

Linos and Pegram supplementary material 2

[Opens in a new window]
File 476 KB

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 87
Total number of PDF views: 1238 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-b4dcdd7-fbgh5 Total loading time: 0.678 Render date: 2020-12-05T06:44:55.289Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Sat Dec 05 2020 06:00:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

The Language of Compromise in International Agreements
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Language of Compromise in International Agreements
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Language of Compromise in International Agreements
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *