Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42(1), 3–32.
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456.
Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Acharya, A., & Ramsay, K. W. (2013). The calculus of the security dilemma. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 183–203.
Allee, T., & Peinhardt, C. (2014). Evaluating three explanations for the design of bilateral investment treaties. World Politics, 66(01), 47–87.
Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 353–375.
Axelrod, R. (1981). The emergence of cooperation among egoists. American Political Science Review, 75, 306–318.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. O. (1985). Achieving cooperation under anarchy: Strategies and institutions. World Politics, 38(1), 226–254.
Barnett, M. N., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International organization, 53(4), 699–732.
Bättig, M. B., & Bernauer, T. (2009). National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization, 63(2), 281–308.
Bernauer, T. (1995). The effect of international environmental institutions: How we might learn more. International Organization, 49(2), 351–377.
Brewster, R. (2004). The domestic origins of international agreements. Virginia Journal of International Law, 44(2), 501–544.
Brewster, R. (2008). Unpacking the state’s reputation. (Unpublished manuscript). Harvard Law School.
Busch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2002). Testing international trade law: Empirical studies of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. In D. L. Kennedy & J. D. Southwick (Eds.), The political economy of international trade law: Essays in honor of Robert E. Hudec (pp. 457–481). New York: Cambridge University Press,
Büthe, T., & Mattli, W. (2011). The new global rulers: The privatization of regulation in the world economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Calvert, R. (1995). Rational actors, equilibrium, and social institutions. In J. Knight & I. Sened (Eds.), Explaining social institutions (pp. 57–93). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carlsnaes, W., Risse-Kappen, T., & Simmons, B. A. (2013). Handbook of international relations. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Cederman, L-E. (1997). Emergent actors in world politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chapman, T. L. (2007). International security institutions, domestic politics, and institutional legitimacy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(1), 134–166.
Chaudoin, S. (2014). Audience features and the strategic timing of trade disputes. International Organization, 68(04), 877–911.
Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1993). On compliance. International Organization, 47(2), 175–205.
Conybeare, J. (1987). Trade wars: The theory and practice of international commercial rivalry. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cooley, A., & Spruyt, H. (2009). Contracting states: Sovereign transfers in international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dai, X. (2002a). Information systems in treaty regimes. World Politics, 54(4), 405–436.
Dai, X. (2002b). Political regimes and international trade: The democratic difference revisited. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 159–165.
Dai, X. (2005). Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanism. International Organization, 59(2), 363–398.
Dai, X. (2006a) Dyadic myth and monadic advantage: Conceptualizing the effect of democratic constraints on trade. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 18(3), 267–296.
Dai, X. (2006b). The conditional nature of democratic compliance. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 690–713.
Dai, X. (2007). International institutions and national policies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, C. L. (2004). International institutions and issue linkage: Building support for agricultural trade liberalization. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 153–169.
Diehl, P. F., Ku, C., & Zamora, D. (2003) The dynamics of international law: The interaction of normative and operating systems. International Organization, 57(1), 43–57.
Donnelly, J. (1986). International human rights: A regime analysis. International Organization, 40(3), 599–642.
Downs, G. W., & Jones, M. A. (2002). Reputation, compliance, and international law. Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1), S95–S114.
Downs, G. W., & Rocke, D. M. (1995). Optimal imperfection? Domestic uncertainty and institutions in international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(3), 379–406.
Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1998). Managing the evolution of multilateralism. International Organization, 52(2), 397–419.
Drezner, D. W. (1999). The sanctions paradox: Economic statecraft and international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Drezner, D. W. (2000). Bargaining, enforcement, and multilateral sanctions: When is cooperation counterproductive? International Organization, 54(1), 73–102.
Drezner, D. W. (2014). The system worked: How the world stopped another Great Depression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elster, J. (Ed.). (1984). Ulysses and the sirens: Studies in rationality and irrationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elsig, M. (2011). Principal–agent theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex agency and “missing delegation.” European Journal of International Relations, 17(3), 495–517.
Evans, P. B., Jacobson, H. K., & Putnam, R. D. (Eds.). (1993). Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fang, S. (2008). The informational role of international institutions and domestic politics. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 304–321.
Fang, S., & Stone, R. W. (2012). International organizations as policy advisors. International Organization, 66(04), 537–569.
Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577–592.
Fearon, J. D. (1995). Rationalist explanations for war. International Organization, 49(3), 379–414.
Fearon, J. D. (1998). Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. International Organization, 52(2), 269–305.
Fearon, J. D., & Wendt, A. (2002). Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferejohn, J. (1991). Rationality and interpretation: Parliamentary elections in early Stuart England. In K. Monroe (Ed.), The economic approach to politics: A critical reassessment of the theory of rational action. New York: HarperCollins.
Fioretos, O. (2011). Historical institutionalism in international relations. International Organization, 65(2), 367–399.
Fioretes, O. (Ed.). (2016). International politics and institutions in time. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Fortna, V. P. (2003). Scraps of paper? Agreements and the durability of peace. International Organization, 57(2), 337–372.
See AlsoMexico’s cartel violence haunts civilians as the June 2 election approachesThe Art of Irregular Warfare Campaigning: A Job for Which Headquarters or Agency?Concerned personal willing plus finding practical useful set instructions for line instance press found courtroom discThe Natives Land Act of 1913Gartzke, E., & Gleditsch, K. (2004). Why democracies may actually be less reliable allies. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 775–795.
Gaubatz, K. T. (1996). Democratic states and commitment in international relations. International Organization, 50(1), 109–139.
Gilligan, M. J. (2004). Is there a broader-deeper trade-off in international multilateral agreements? International Organization, 58(2), 459–484.
Goldsmith, J. L., & Posner, E. (2005). The limits of international law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, J. L. (1996). International law and domestic institutions: Reconciling North American unfair trade laws. International Organization, 50(4), 541–564.
Goldstein, J. S. (1991). Reciprocity in superpower relations: An empirical analysis. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 195–209.
Goldstein, J. S., & Pevehouse, J. C. (1997). Reciprocity, bullying, and international cooperation: Time-series analysis of the Bosnia conflict. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 515–529.
Gowa, J. (1989). Bipolarity, multipolarity, and free trade. American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1245–1256.
Green, J. F., & Colgan, J. (2013). Protecting sovereignty, protecting the planet: State delegation to international organizations and private actors in environmental politics. Governance, 26(3), 473–497.
Greif, A. (1994). Cultural beliefs and the organization of society: A historical and theoretical reflection on collectivist and individualist societies. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 912–950.
Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greif, A., Milgrom, P., & Weingast, B. (1994). Coordination, commitment, and enforcement: The case of the merchant guild. Journal of Political Economy, 102(4), 745–776.
Grieco, J. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.
Gruber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: Power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Guzman, A. (2007). How international law works: A rational choice theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guzman, A. (2013). International organizations and the Frankenstein problem. European Journal of International Law, 24(4), 999–1025.
Haas, P., Keohane, R. O., & Levy, M. (Eds.). (1993). Institutions for the earth: Sources of effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–592.
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2006). Power positions international organizations, social networks, and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27.
Hall, T., & Yarhi‐Milo, K. (2012). The personal touch: Leaders’ impressions, costly signaling, and assessments of sincerity in international affairs. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 560–573.
Hall, T. H. (2011). We will not swallow this bitter fruit: Theorizing a diplomacy of anger. Security Studies, 20(4), 521–555.
Helm, C., & Sprinz, D. F. (2000). Measuring the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 630–652.
Helfer, L. R., & Voeten, E. (2014). International courts as agents of legal change: Evidence from LGBT rights in Europe. International Organization, 68(01), 77–110.
Hoffmann, A. M. (2002). A conceptualization of trust in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 8(3), 375–401.
Hoffmann, M. J. (2010). Norms and social constructivism in international relations. The International Studies Encyclopedia, 8, 5410–5426.
Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F., & Underdal, A. (2003). The Oslo–Potsdam solution to measuring regime effectiveness: Critique, response, and the road ahead. Global Environmental Politics, 3(3), 74–96.
Iida, K. (1993). When and how do domestic constraints matter? Two-level games with uncertainty. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37(3), 403–426.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jensen, N. (2003). Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International Organization, 57(3), 587–616.
Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under security dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167–214.
Johns, L. (2014). Depth versus rigidity in the design of international trade agreements. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 26(3), 468–495.
Jupille, J., W. Mattli, & D. Snidal. Institutional choice and global commerce. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Kaul, I., Conceicao, P., Le Goulven, K., & Mendoza, R. U. (Eds.). (2003). Providing global public goods: managing globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelley, J. (2004). International actors on the domestic scene: Membership conditionality and socialization by international institutions. International Organization, 58(3), 425–457.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1986). Reciprocity in international relations. International Organization, 40(1), 1–27.
Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The promise of institutional theory. International Security, 20(1), 39–51.
Keohane, R.O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(01), 7–23.
Kertzer, J. D., & Brutger, R. (2016). Decomposing audience costs: Bringing the audience back into audience cost theory. American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 234–249.
Kertzer, J. D., & McGraw, K. (2012). Folk realism: Testing the microfoundations of realism in ordinary citizens. International Studies Quarterly, 56(2), 245–258.
Kindleberger, C. P. (1973). The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kinne, B. J. (2013). Network dynamics and the evolution of international cooperation. American Political Science Review, 107(04), 766–785.
Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and social conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koremenos, B. (2001). Loosening the ties that bind: A learning model of agreement flexibility. International Organization, 55(2), 289–325.
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International organization, 55(4), 761–799.
Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185–205.
Krasner, S. D. (1991). Global communications and national power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics, 43(3), 336–366.
Kreps, D. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory. In J. Alt & K. Shepsle (Eds.), Perspectives on positive political economy (pp. 90–143). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kucik, J., & Reinhardt, E. (2008). Does flexibility promote cooperation? An application to the global trade regime. International Organization, 62(03), 477–505.
Kuo, R., Johnson D. D. P., & Toft, M. D. (2015). Correspondence: Evolution and territorial conflict. International Security, 39(3), 190–201.
Kydd, A. H. (2005). Trust and mistrust in international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lake, D. A. (1993). Leadership, hegemony, and the international economy: Naked emperor or tattered monarch with potential? International Studies Quarterly, 37(4), 459–489.
Lake, D. A., & Powell, R. (Eds.). (1999). Strategic choice and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Leeds, B. A. (1999). Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 979–1002.
Leeds, B. A. (2003). Alliance reliability in times of war: Explaining state decisions to violate treaties. International Organization, 57(4), 801–827.
Leeds, B. A., & Savun, B. (2007). Terminating alliances: Why do states abrogate agreements? Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1118–1132.
Leeds, B. A., Long, A. G., & Mitchell, S. M. (2000). Re-evaluating alliance reliability: Specific threats, specific promises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 686–699.
Lipson, C. (1984). International cooperation in economic and security affairs. World Politics, 37(1), 1–23.
Lipson, C. (1991). Why are some international agreements informal? International Organization, 45(4), 495–538.
Lipson, C. (2003). Reliable partners: How democracies have made a separable peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lohmann, S. (1997). Linkage politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 38–67.
Lupu, Y. (2013). Best evidence: The role of information in domestic judicial enforcement of international human rights agreements. International Organization, 67(03), 469–503.
Lupu, Y. (2015). Legislative veto players and the effects of international human rights agreements. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 578–594.
Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2000). Free to trade: Democracies, autocracies, and international trade. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 305–321.
Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2002). Why democracies cooperate more: Electoral control and international trade agreements. International Organization, 56(3), 477–513.
Martin, L. L. (1992a). Coercive cooperation: Explaining multilateral economic sanctions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Martin, L. L. (1992b). Interests, power, and multilateralism. International Organization, 46(4), 765–792.
Martin, L. L. (1993). The rational state choice of multilateralism. In J. G. Ruggie (Ed.), Multilateralism matters (pp. 91–121). New York: Columbia University Press.
Martin, L. L. (2000). Democratic commitments: Legislatures and international cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mattes, M., & Rodríguez, M. (2014). Autocracies and international cooperation. International Studies Quarterly, 58(3), 527–538.
Mattli, W., & Woods, N. (2009). In whose benefit? Explaining regulatory change in global politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mayer, F. W. (1992). Managing domestic differences in international negotiations: The strategic use of internal side-payments. International Organization, 46(4), 793–818.
McDermott, R. (2004). The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science. Perspectives on Politics, 2(04), 691–706.
McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2000). Trust and cooperation through agent specific punishments. International Organization, 54(4), 809–824.
McGinnis, M. D. (1986). Issue linkage and the evolution of international cooperation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(1), 141–170.
Mearsheimer, J. (1995). The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5–49.
Merand, F., Hofmann, S. C., & Irondelle, B. (2011). Governance and state power: A network analysis of European security. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(1), 121–147.
Mercer, J. (1996). Reputation and international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Mertha, A., & Pahre, R. (2005). Patently misleading: Partial implementation and bargaining leverage in Sino-American negotiations on intellectual property rights. International Organization, 59(3), 695–730.
Mercer, J. (2010). Emotional beliefs. International Organization, 64(1), 1–31.
Mercer, J. (2014). Feeling like a state: social emotion and identity. International Theory, 6(3), 515–535.
Milgrom, P., North, D., & Weingast, B. (1990). The role of institutions in the revival of trade: The medieval law merchant, private judges, and the champagne fairs. Economics and Politics, 2(1), 1–23.
Milner, H. V. (1991). The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: A critique. Review of International Studies, 17(1), 67–85.
Milner, H.V. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Milner, H.V., & Rosendorff, B.P. (1997). Domestic politics and international trade negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 117–146.
Mitchell, R. B. (1994a). Intentional oil pollution at sea: Environmental policy and treaty compliance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell, R. B. (1994b). Regime design matters: Intentional oil pollution and treaty compliance. International Organization, 48(3), 425–458.
Mo, J. (1994). The logic of two-level games with endogenous domestic coalitions. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3), 402–422.
Mo, J. (1995). Domestic institutions and international bargaining: The role of agent veto in two-level games. American Political Science Review, 89(4), 914–924.
Moravcsik, A. (2000). The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation in postwar Europe. International Organization, 54(2), 217–252.
Morrow, J. D. (1994). Modeling the forms of international cooperation: Distribution versus information. International Organization, 48(3), 387–423.
Morrow, J. D. (2002). The laws of war, common conjectures, and legal systems in international politics. Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1), S41–S60.
Morrow, J. D. (2007). When do states follow the laws of war? American Political Science Review, 101(3), 559–572.
Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. Review of International Organizations, 9(4), 385–412.
Neumayer, E. (2002). Do democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitment? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Peace Research, 39(2), 139–164.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oatley, T., & Nabors, R. (1998). Redistributive cooperation: Market failure, wealth transfers and the Basle Accord. International Organization, 52(1), 35–54.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E., & Keohane, R. O. (1995). Local commons and global interdependence: Heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains. London: SAGE.
Oye, K. (Ed.). (1986). Cooperation under anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pahre, R. (1997). Endogenous domestic institutions in two-level games and parliamentary oversight of the European Union. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 147–174.
Pelc, K. J. (2009). Seeking escape: The use of escape clauses in international trade agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 53(2), 349–368.
Powell, E. J., & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly, 53(1), 149–174.
Powell, R. (1991). Absolute and relative gains in international relations theory. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1303–1320.
Powell, R. (1994). Anarchy in international relations theory. International Organization, 48(2), 313–344.
Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
Rathbun, B. C. (2011). Trust in international cooperation: International security institutions, domestic politics and American multilateralism (Vol. 121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. (1998). Conclusions. In D. Victor, K. Raustiala, & E. Skolnikoff (Eds.), The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: Theory and practice (pp. 659–707). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (2008) Reuniting ethics and social science: The Oxford handbook of international relations. Ethics and International Affairs, 22(3), 261–271.
Ross, A. A. (2013). Mixed Emotions: Beyond Fear and Hatred in International Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, M. (2016). The strategic logic of international agreement design (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oxford.
Sartori, A. E. (2005). Deterrence by diplomacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict (2d ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2005). Strategic calculation and international socialization: Membership incentives, party constellations, and sustained compliance in Central and Eastern Europe. International Organization, 59(04), 827–860.
Schoppa, L. J. (1993). Two-level games and bargaining outcomes: Why Gaiatsu succeeds in Japan in some cases but not others. International Organization, 47(3), 353–386.
Schreurs, M., & Economy, E. (1997). The internationalization of environmental protection. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Schultz, K. A. (1998). Domestic opposition and signaling in international crises. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 829–844.
Schultz, K. A., & Weingast, B.R. (2003). The democratic advantage: Institutional foundations of financial power in international competition. International Organization, 57(1), 3–42.
Sebenius, J. (1983). Negotiation arithmetic: Adding and subtracting issues and parties. International Organization, 37(2), 281–316.
Shepsle, K., & Weingast, B. (1984). When do rules of procedure matter? Journal of Politics, 46(1), 206–221.
Shepsle, K., & Weingast, B. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 85–104.
Simmons, B. A. (2000). International law and state behavior: Commitment and compliance in international monetary affairs. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 819–835.
Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skovgaard Poulsen, L. N. (2014). Bounded rationality and the diffusion of modern investment treaties. International Studies Quarterly, 58(1), 1–14.
Smith, A. (1998) International crises and domestic politics. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 623–638.
Smith, J. M. (2000). The politics of dispute settlement design: Explaining legalism in regional trade pacts. International Organization, 54(1), 137–180.
Snidal, D. (1985a). The limits of hegemonic stability theory. International Organization, 39(4), 579–614.
Snidal, D. (1985b). Coordination versus prisoners’ dilemma: Implications for international cooperation and regimes. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 723–742.
Snidal, D. (1991). Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation. American Political Science Review, 85(3), 701–726.
Snidal, D. (2002). Rational choice and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 73–94). London: SAGE.
Stein, A. (1983). Coordination and collaboration: Regimes in an anarchic world. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 115–141). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
Stein, A. (1990). Why nations cooperate: Circ*mstances and choices in international relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Stone, R. W. (2011). Controlling institutions: International organizations and the global economy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, R. W. (2013). Informal governance in international organizations: Introduction to the special issue. Review of International Organizations, 8, 121–136
Stone, R. W., Slantchev, B. L., & London, T. R. (2008). Choosing how to cooperate: A repeated public-goods model of international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 52(2), 335–362.
Svolik, M. (2006). Lies, defection, and the pattern of international cooperation. American Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 909–925.
Tallberg, J. (2002). Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization, 56(3), 609–643.
Tarar, A. (2001). International bargaining with two-sided domestic constraints. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), 320–340.
Taylor, M. (1976). Anarchy and cooperation. London: Wiley.
Taylor, M. (1987). The possibility of cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, A. (2010). Rational design in motion: Uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. European Journal of International Relations, 16(2), 269–296.
Tomz, M. (2007). Reputation and international cooperation: Sovereign debt across three centuries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Underdal, A., & Hanf, K. (Eds.). (2000). International environmental agreements and domestic politics: The case of acid rain. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.
Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (2004). Regime consequences: Methodological challenges and research strategies. Boston: Kluwer.
Vabulas, F., & Snidal, D. (2013). Organization without delegation: Informal intergovernmental organizations (IIGOs) and the spectrum of intergovernmental arrangements. Review of International Organizations, 8(2), 193–220.
Vreeland, J. R. (2008). Political institutions and human rights: Why dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization, 62(01), 65–101.
Wagner, R. H. (1983). The theory of games and the problem of international cooperation. American Political Science Review, 70(2), 330–346.
Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ward, M. D., & Rajmaira, S. (1992). Reciprocity and norms in US–Soviet foreign policy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 342–368.
Weaver, C. (Ed.). (2009). Not so quiet on the Western Front: The American School of IPE. Review of International Political Economy, 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713393878~db=all.
Weiss, E. B., & Jacobson, H. K. (Eds.). (1998). Engaging countries: Strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with the rearview mirror: On the rational science of institutional design. International Organization, 55(4), 1019–1049.
Young, O. R. (1989). International cooperation: Building regimes for natural resources and the environment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Young, O. R. (1994). International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Young, O. R. (Ed.). (1997). International governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Young, O. R. (Ed.). (1999). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Causal connections and behavioral mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zhukov, Y. M., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Choosing your neighbors: Networks of diffusion in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 57(2), 271–287.
FAQs
What is the theory of international cooperation? ›
The theory of international cooperation developed in this paper assumes that cooperative arrangements between countries must be both individually and collectively rational: individually rational because the choice of whether to be a party to a treaty is voluntary; collectively rational because diplomats meet face to ...
Which of these theories argues that international cooperation is possible through international institutions and regimes? ›In contrast to neorealist scholarship (which is skeptical of prospects for sustainable cooperation), liberal institutionalism argues that cooperation is feasible and sustainable. Liberal institutionalists highlight the role of international institutions and regimes in facilitating cooperation between states.
How do international institutions promote cooperation? ›One of the first steps for international organizations to promote global cooperation is to define their common goals and values, and communicate them clearly to their members and stakeholders. This helps to create a shared vision and identity, and to align the interests and expectations of different actors.
Why international institutions are important in international relations? ›International organizations serve many diverse functions, including collecting information and monitoring trends (e.g., the World Meteorological Organization), delivering services and aid (e.g., the World Health Organization), and providing forums for bargaining (e.g., the European Union) and settling disputes (e.g., ...
What is an example of international cooperation? ›Interconnections of power grids, for instance, can help to balance structural differences or temporary fluctuations in national and local power generation and demand and supply and enable participants to use the available energy resources in the most sustainable and climate friendly manner.
What is the purpose of the international cooperation? ›International cooperation encompasses all professional activities aimed at supporting people in need and promoting economic, social and cultural development around the globe. International cooperation covers the fields of humanitarian aid, development cooperation and peace promotion.
What are two benefits of international cooperation? ›The question of “Why cooperate?” 2 is often answered by pointing to two concrete benefits of international cooperation: 1) the gains of minimizing the negative (or maximizing the positive) spillover effects the actions of some countries have on others, and 2) the gains from the provision of global public goods.
What is the meaning of international institutions? ›An international organization, also known as an intergovernmental organization or an international institution, is an organization that is established by a treaty or other type of instrument governed by international law and possesses its own legal personality, such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, ...
What is an example of cooperation in international relations? ›Tsunami Aid in Sri Lanka. Cooperation is one form of relationships between international bodies, often nation-states. This is often seen if one place suffers from a disaster. A victim of a tsunami gets supplies from Red Cross workers in Galle, Sri Lanka, in January 2005.
What are the functions of international institutions? ›International organisations can function for the aggregation and articulation of the national interests of its members into the international system. Thus, they bring the interested states into the same framework to articulate their interests into the world society.
What are examples of institutions in international relations? ›
This is an introduction to six of the world's most prominent international organizations: the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Group of Twenty (G20), and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
How do international institutions affect cooperation among states? ›- International institutions create a place for repeated interactions to occur between states. The more interactions states expect to have in the future, the more incentive they have to cooperate in the present. - International institutions can make it in the self-interest of states to cooperate.
What is the theory of cooperation? ›The cooperation theory was proposed by the early anthropologist Edward B. Tylor and further elaborated by Leslie A. White and Claude Lévi-Strauss. It emphasizes the value of the incest taboo in promoting cooperation among family groups and thus helping communities to survive.
What is the principle of international cooperation? ›The principle of international cooperation embodies different forms of cooperation, and the obligation to cooperate through notification, consultation, etc. (depending on the area of international cooperation and treaty obligations).
What is the main theory of international relations? ›International relations is a field of study that has many different theories about how to approach and understand international relations. The five main theories of international relations include: realism theory, liberalism theory, Marxism theory, constructivism theory, and feminism theory.
What is international cooperation according to KJ Holsti? ›According to K.J Holsti, international cooperation is a form of view of how two or more interests, values, or goals that produce something in the form of a meeting, are promoted and fulfilled by each party concerned.