Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
four possible channels for dispute resolution
|
informal, mediation, arbitration, adjudication
|
|
informal dispute resolution
|
settled through diplomacy, friendly negotiations, and other informal methods
|
|
mediation
|
nonbinding form of dispute resolution in which a neutral third party assists third parties in reaching a mutually agreeable solution (usually only transmit disputants' positions)
|
|
arbitration
|
stronger than mediation, third party actors usually work towards a resolution (like a private judge)
|
|
adjudication
|
court steps in to make ruling for disputants
|
|
internal delegation
|
a body composed of representatives of the member states themselves handles the mediation, arbitration, or adjudication (could be bias--could be a past member of one state, etc.)
|
|
external delegation
|
occurs when a third party is involved (like an existing IGO like the ICJ)
|
|
hypothesis
|
agreements solving complex coop problems are more likely to include formal dispute resolutions, especially arbitration and adjudication, than those without complex problems
|
|
later in time rule
|
allows later statues to override treaty provisions
counters the problem of states not ratifying for the fear of it taking over their sovereignty |
|
standing
|
attribute assigned to the US by actors beyond its borders (foreign leaders, international orgs, etc) and assessed by citizens within them
|
|
credibility
|
US's ability to do what it says it is going to do
|
|
esteem
|
America's stature or what it is perceived to stand for
|
|
hard power
|
the nation's material military and economic capabilities. help the nation to advance its interests and achieve goals... makes it attractive/respected by others
|
|
soft power
|
the ability to get what you want through appeal rather than coercion (like standing--whether they view the US as a credible actor with traits that should be admired/emulated)
|
|
3 audiences of US standing
|
-other major countries and regions around the world
-network of international actors that includes formal organizations (UN, WTO) -within American polity itself |
|
why has standing eroded?
|
-number of countries has risen (more competing interests, US economic sway diluted)
-sense that US is not a dependable team player -fear that Americans less committed to providing international public goods (for ex., US fails to sign and ratify hugh profile widely accepted agreements-->standing falls (kyoto), US violates international laws and norms/fails to comply with treaty commitments and values (geneva convention on torture) |
|
american perceptions of standing
|
-unhappy about standing
-partisan gap |
|
sincere ratifiers
|
those that value the content of the treaty and anticipate compliance
|
|
false negatives
|
those that may be committed in principle but nonetheless fail to fatify (ex the United States). Governments may support the values a treaty represents but face daunting political and institutional challenges at home that make it difficult to secure ratification
|
|
strategic ratifiers
|
ratify because other countries are doing so and they would prefer to avoid criticism. Trade off the short term certainty of positive ratification benefits against the long-run and uncertain risk that they may face compliance costs in the future.
can also get diplomatic rewards or do it to integrate themselves with domestic groups or international audiences. Make sense only in contexts in which the likelihood that a government's commitment will be exposed as strategic is low |
|
false positives
|
meaningless commitments
|
|
rationally expressive
|
governments are more likely to ratify rights treaties they believe in and with which they can comply at a reasonable cost than those they oppose or find threatening.
reflects a government's preferences and practices, subject to the potential net costs that ratification is expected to involve. |
|
common law systems are cautious because
|
-greater adjustment costs (common law is evolutionary)
-emphasis on judge-made law -inductive--moves from specific case to general rule -paid by the lawyers--have developed specific skills that might not fit in a new system |
|
mobilization
|
function of both value that is placed on rights and likelihood that mobilization will succeed in realizing them
|
|
self-enforcing
|
rely on the interests of the parties themselves or the international community to keep the cooperation coming.
-adhere to an agreement as long as each gains more from continuing agreement than not. do not depend on third parties to enforce |
|
reciprocity
|
risk that another player will exit the agreement rather than tolerate cheating can deter cheating
|
|
reputation
|
unreliable reputation can influence willingness of others to negotiate mutually beneficial agreements in other areas
|