IRGN490 International Law and Regulation Spring 2011

Transcription

1 IRGN490 International Law and Regulation Spring 2011 Instructors: Professor Emilie M. Hafner- Burton School of International Relations and Pacific Studies Office Professor David G. Victor School of International Relations and Pacific Studies Office Office Hours: Assistant: Wednesdays, 11:00am to 12:00pm, by appointment Amanda Brainerd Seminar: Monday and Wednesday, 9:30am 10:50am Room 3201 This course exposes students to seminal research on the role of international laws and regulations in world politics. The first part of the course will seek to explain how, if at all, international institutions (IIs) obtain some measure of authority in international affairs. We will consider the legalization of world politics and ask why states delegate certain tasks to international organizations instead of dealing unilaterally or multilaterally outside of an institutional context. We will also consider the role of domestic politics and non- state actors (such as NGOs and other experts), both as sources of international cooperation and limitations. The second part of the course focuses on the design and influence of IIs. We assess the rational design line of explanation and its critics and consider in detail enforcement and flexibility features of institutions. We also assess whether and how IIs influence state compliance with agreements and explore the conditions under which IIs have influence on political behavior. The final part of the course explores the pathologies and complexities associated with growing legalization. The course emphasizes the development of critical thinking, analytical writing and formal presentational skills.

2 Course requirements: Attendance is mandatory. This is a large seminar: all students are required to come to class prepared to discuss the assigned readings and will be called on to share their views. Class participation, 4 group debates, an in- class presentation, a simulation (and accompanying memo) and a final paper (10 double spaced pages) are required. This course is reading and speaking intensive; we will work to build your critical thinking skills and sharpen your analytical and presentational skills. Reading Assignments: Approximately 150 pages per week. To help you focus your preparation for the in- class discussion, this syllabus lays out questions for every session. You should come to class prepared to discuss these and related questions. Course Materials: All course materials are on reserve or are available electronically. Simulation: All students will participate in a simulation of the negotiation of an international legal agreement. Teams and roles will be assigned during the quarter. The simulation will require a substantial amount of time outside the classroom and is not optional. The final exam is a paper based on the simulation process and outcome as they relate to the course material. Grading: Final grades will reflect class participation including participation in the simulation (30%), an in- class presentation (20%), 4 in- class debates (20%) and a final paper in lieu of a final exam (30%). In addition, each student will be responsible for developing a minute group presentation on one of the case studies and then leading a minute class discussion. Assignments for this task will be given out at the second class. The presentation should not be a summary of the assigned material. Rather, the presenters should outline how the case should be considered within the analytical approaches described in the unit s theoretical readings and then pose a few central questions and lead a class discussion. We highly recommend that all presenters see one of us in advance to discuss their assignment and approach. At the end of every presentation there will be a public debrief on style and content. Each student will also participate in 4 formal debates as part of an assigned team. The final paper (10 double- spaced pages) is a paper explaining the process and result of the simulation. Papers are due on Tuesday, May 31 st, 2011, at 5:00pm to: abrainerd@ucsd.edu. There will be no late papers accepted class on Wednesday, June 1 st will cover some of the topics discussed in the papers.

3 Monday, March 28: Introduction No reading. An introduction by the professors /// /// UNIT ONE THE AUTHORITY OF LEGAL INSTITUTIONS Wednesday, March 30: Cooperation under anarchy Stein, Arthur A Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World. International Organization 36(2): Discussion Questions: 1. What does it mean that international relations are anarchic? How does anarchy shape the possibility for international cooperation? 2. What is an international regime and why are there so many different regimes rather than a single overarching one? 3. Finish the following statement: there is no need for an international regime when. 4. What is the difference between a dilemma of common interest and a dilemma of common aversion? What are some examples of each type of dilemma? Why is this difference important and what does it tell us about international cooperation? 5. Is the prisoner s dilemma a useful metaphor for understanding international cooperation? Why or why not? Give examples. What are its main lessons about cooperation? Its main limitations? 6. When actors confront mutual aversions but diverge in their assessments of what they prefer, coordination can still be accomplished in at least two different ways. How? 7. Stein argues that regimes arise because actors forgo independent decision making in order to deal with different dilemmas only when it is in their own self- interest. Is he correct that self interest is a necessary condition for cooperation to emerge? What are the implications if he is correct? Can you think of any cases when he may be wrong? 8. What are the structural bases of regime formation? 9. What explains changes in institutions ( regimes ) according to Stein?

4 Monday, April 4: Legalization Abbott, Kenneth W., Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne- Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54(3): Case: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Abbott, Frederick M NAFTA and the Legalization of World Politics: A Case Study. International Organization 54(3): Discussion Questions: 1. What are the three dimensions of legalization? What does it mean that some legalization is hard with other legalization is soft? Does that distinction correlate with the distinction between law and politics? Why or why not? 2. Why don t we define legalization in terms of effects? 3. What is meant by obligation? How do we know legal obligation when we see it? What are some examples of high and low obligation? What kinds of techniques do actors utilize to vary their legal obligations? 4. What is precision? How does it differ from obligation? How do we know legal precision when we see it? Does most international law tend to be precise or imprecise? Why? 5. What is meant by delegation? How do we know delegation when we see it? What is an example? Is delegation necessary for international law to be effective? Why or why not? 6. What are the nine forms of international legalization that Abbott, Keohane, Moravcsik, Slaughter and Snidal identify? Are they all equally likely in the real world? Which are most likely? Why? 7. Where does NAFTA fall on the legalization continuum? Why? How does it compare to the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs), administered by the World Trade organization? How does it compare to the charter of the European Union? 8. According to Abbott, what explains the preference for using hard law in international economic arrangements like NAFTA? 9. Why is only a moderate level of authority delegated to NAFTA s dispute settlement mechanism?

5 Wednesday, April 6: Cooperation without Legalization Finnemore, Martha J. and Stephen Toope Alternatives to Legalization : Richer Views of Law and Politics. International Organization 55(3): Case: Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Kahler, Miles Legalization as Strategy: The Asia- Pacific Case. International Organization 54(3): Discussion Questions: 1. What is the main disagreement Finnemore and Toope have with the legalization approach? 2. What is the richer view that the authors advocate? 3. Finnemore and Toope argue that the legalization perspective has been too narrow and misses three major aspects of a richer view of law. What are they? 4. How would a broader view of how law works lead to a better understanding of how domestic groups are mobilized in support of law? 5. Why do you think the framers of the legalization approach adopted such a narrow perspective and focused on obligation, precision and delegation? 6. Why is the Asia Pacific much less legalized than Europe and North America? 7. What is the ASEAN Way? Is it more or less effective than its more highly legalized counterparts in Europe and North America? 8. How and why does ASEAN differ from APEC with regards to legalization? 9. Does the Asia Pacific region have a legalized future in store? Why or why not?

6 Monday, April 11: Delegation Hawkins, Darren G., David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson and Michael J. Tierney Delegation Under Anarchy: States, International Organizations and Principal- Agent Theory. In Delegation and Agency in International Organizations. Darren G. Hawkins, David A. Lake, Daniel L. Nielson and Michael J. Tierney, eds. Cambridge University Press, Case: World Bank Environmental Reform Nielson, Daniel L. and Michael J. Tierney Delegation to International Organizations: Agency Theory and World Bank Environmental Reform. International Organization 57(2): Discussion Questions: 1. What is delegation? What is the principal- agent (PA) approach? How is it a challenge to so- called Realist approaches? 2. Why do states delegate certain tasks and responsibilities to international organizations? What are some of the alternatives to delegation? 3. What are some of the benefits associated with delegation? What are some of the risks? 4. According to the Nielson and Tierney article, principals possess at least four tools to help them design self- enforcing contracts and mitigate agency slippage. What are they and how do they work? 5. What does it mean that there is a trade off between the gains from delegation and the agency losses that arise from the opportunistic behavior of the agent? 6. How do states control international organizations once they have delegated authority to them? Specifically, what mechanisms do states use to ensure their interests are served? 7. Are international organizations actors in their own right? Are states always, usually, sometimes or rarely successful in this effort to ensure their interests are served through delegation? 8. Why does the case of World Bank reform (explained in Nielson and Tierney) present a puzzle for international relations theory? What is the puzzle? 9. How does a PA approach help to explain this puzzle?

7 Wednesday, April 13: Democratic Deficit Nye, Joseph S Globalization s Democratic Deficit: How to Make International Institutions More Accountable. Foreign Affairs (July/August). Dahl, Robert A Can International Organizations be Democratic? A Skeptic s View. In Democracy s Edges. Ian Shapiro, ed. Cambridge University Press, Case: UN Security Council Debate 1: The UN Security Council must be reformed to become more democratic. Farrall, Jeremy Does the UN Security Council Compound the Global Democratic Deficit? Alberta Law Review 46(4) (Special Issue: International Law and Democratic Considerations): Here is paper: cigj.anu.edu.au/cigj/link_documents/publications/alberta.pdf Discussion Questions: 1. Antiglobalization protestors complain that international institutions are illegitimate because they are undemocratic. Are they correct? 2. Can international organizations be democratic? Why does Robert A. Dahl argue that they are not and cannot? How is NAFTA an illustration of Dahl s argument? Is he correct about NAFTA? 3. Is democracy necessarily a desirable quality for international organizations? Why or why not? What are the consequences of the democratic deficit? Does it make international cooperation through institutions undesirable? 4. Can international organizations be legitimate without democracy? Should we be wary of ceding the legitimacy of democracy to non- democratic systems? 5. What are some proposed solutions to the problem (including both substantive and procedural solutions)? Are they achievable according to Dahl? What is Dahl s evidence? Are they achievable according to Nye? What is Nye s evidence? 6. Are there some alternative ways to solve problems (such as accountability) raised by the democratic deficit? 7. The UN Security Council, the WTO and the World Bank are all targets of the democratic deficit criticism. Are they equally in deficit? What would happen if these organizations were to become more democratic? Would they be more or less effective? 8. What was the UN Security Council s response to the 2008 presidential election in Zimbabwe? Did it call into question the UN s commitment to democracy? Was it an example of the democratic deficit? Farrell poses the question: Are we witnessing a demise in the global norm of democracy? Are we?

8 9. Farrell argues that the case that the Security Council compounds the global democratic deficit is not so clear cut. Why? Is he correct?

9 Monday, April 18: Domestic Politics Putnam, Robert D Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two- Level Games. International Organization 42(3): Case: Agriculture in the Doha Trade Round and the failure of the 2011 Mexican Proposal Debate 2: The U.S. was correct in rejecting Mexico s proposal for breaking Doha deadlock. WTO. Understanding the WTO- The Agreements. Agriculture: Fairer Markets for Farmers. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development Mexican Proposal for Breaking Doha Deadlock Rejected by U.S. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest 15(4). Discussion Questions: 1. What is the important lesson from the Bonn summit conference of 1978 that Putnam describes? 2. Peter Katzenstein (professor of Political Science at Cornell) once said: The main purpose of all strategies of foreign economic policy is to make domestic policies compatible with the international political economy. Was he correct? Why or why not? 3. What is a two- level game and how is it a metaphor for domestic- international interactions? In the real world, does this metaphor help to explain cooperation? How? 4. What is the importance of the win set for international bargaining and cooperation? What determines the win set? 5. Do Levels I and II ever happen simultaneously? Would that change the outcome? 6. How does a two- level game help to explain the phenomenon of an involuntary defection? Can you think of an example? How does that differ from voluntary defection? 7. What role does uncertainly play in a two- level game? Can you think of an example? 8. Can actors in two- level games try to change their bargaining situations? How? What constraints do they likely face? 9. What role does issue linkage play in a two- level game? 10. What is the role of the chief negotiator in a two- level game? 11. How is the debate over agriculture in the WTO a two- level game?

10 Wednesday, April 20: Non- State Actors Risse- Kappen, Thomas Introduction. In Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non- State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Thomas Risse- Kappen, ed. Cambridge University Press, Case: Landmines Treaty Price, Richard Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization 52(3): Discussion Questions: 1. The Risse-Kappen essay is the first chapter in a book that aims to revive study of transnational relations. What are transnational relations and how do they differ from inter-state relations? Who are the key actors in transnational relations? 2. Do you think transnational relations are likely to be harder to analyze than inter-state relations? Why? 3. In the 1970s scholars studied transnational relations by looking at multinational corporations (MNCs) that could operate globally and thus circumvent governments. This book argues that other transnational actors such as international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) now play an important role. What do you think changed from the 1970s to the 1990s that made INGOs more important and why did the earlier scholars largely ignore them? 4. What is meant by institutionalization of transnational coalitions and actors? Why are some coalitions and actors more institutionalized than others? 5. Risse-Kappen aims to explain how transnational relations affect the inter-state world. Since this is a book about transnational relations, why does he nonetheless argue that transnational relations has its biggest impacts in how states interact? 6. What does domestic structure mean? Why is this such an important concept for Risse- Kappen? 7. What are the three components of domestic structure and why does each matter? How does domestic structure determine the impact of transnational actors? 8. Take the country that you have studied the most. Where does it fit on table 1.1? If the country is already listed there does Risse-Kappen have it placed in the right box? 9. In which kinds of countries are transnational actors most able to control policy outcomes? 10. This is a complicated theory. Why didn t Risse-Kappen build something simpler? 11. Why does Price say that Land mines is a hard case (that is, a case that is a particularly severe test of the theory that transnational relations matter)?

11 12. One of the innovations in the Price article is his attention to HOW states are socialized to norms. What does that mean, and why is it so important to have a theory of how socialization occurs? 13. Who is civil society and why did civil society get focused on AP land mines? What were the roles of networks and grafting in that process? 14. Price argues that governments changed their position NOT because of domestic political pressure, such as threat of losing elections. Why is that argument so important to his larger argument about HOW transnational relations work?

12 Monday, April 25: Rational Design UNIT TWO DESIGN AND EFFECT NB: Simulation roles handed out in class: Informal negotiations begin! Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson and Duncan Snidal The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55(4): Case: Prisoners of War Treaties (Geneva Conventions) Morrow, James D The Institutional Features of the Prisoners of War Treaties. International Organization 55(4): Discussion Questions: 1. What does rational design mean? 2. Koromenos et al. argue that decentralized cooperation is hard to achieve without institutions. Why, and how do institutions help promote cooperation? They discuss decentralized cooperation in contrast with the Folk Theorem. What is the Folk Theorem and why does it matter? If the Folk theorem were always true would institutions be needed? 3. Koremenos et al. identify five dimensions within which institutions vary. What are they? Can you think of any other dimensions within which institutions vary, and why do you think Koremenos et al. didn t discuss those other dimensions? 4. How do these five dimensions influence the ability of countries to cooperate? For example, why might countries that want to cooperate alter the scope or flexibility of a treaty? 5. These five dimensions are dependent variables. What does that mean? Koremenos et al also identify some independent variables what are they, and what does the concept of an independent variable mean? 6. Koremenos et al identify a variety of conjectures. Pick a few and be sure you understand the logic. For example, they suggest that with higher uncertainty about behavior that countries will select more centralized institutions ( C1 ). Why? 7. Morrow argues that states created formal POW treaties to address four strategic problems. What are those? 8. What does Morrow mean by noise and why is it so important to the design of POW treaties? How does noise affect how states enforce POW standards? 9. What are the major design features of the POW System? Why didn t countries simply centralized control over POWs?

13 Wednesday, April 27: Membership Kahler, Miles Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers. International Organization 46(3): Case: US- Korea Free Trade Agreement Debate 3: The U.S. should ratify the bilateral trade agreement with Colombia. Roberts, James M The U.S.- Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Strengthening a Good Friend in a Rough Neighborhood, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, No See also: agreements/free- trade- agreements/colombia- fta Discussion Questions 1. What is the argument about multilateralism that Kahler thinks is overblown or misleading? Why does he think that argument is too pessimistic? 2. Traditionally, analysts thought that cooperation among large numbers of countries was possible only when there was hegemonic leadership. What does that mean? 3. Why would a hegemon be interested in building multilateral agreements rather than a series of bilateral or minilateral agreements that it could control more readily? Can you think of some examples? 4. Kahler looks at three cases in which industrialized countries were forced to invest in multilateral institutions with large numbers of developing countries. What are those three cases, and for each why did the industrialized countries support multilateralism? 5. Is the Kahler analysis consistent with the Rational Design approach taken by Koremenos et al? For example, is the Koremenos et al conjecture M3 illustrated by Kahler s analysis, or does something else explain the shift to multilateralism? 6. Where do you think Kahler s evidence is strong and weak? 7. How did voting rules, delegation, and small group brokers within these multilateral institutions affect cooperation? Kahler refers to progressive clubs within multilateral institutions what are they, and do they promote or undermine multilateral cooperation? 8. Under a 2002 Act the U.S. has implemented 8 FTAs; three FTAs remain pending awaiting Congressional approval (Colombia, Panama, S. Korea). What are the major provisions of the US-Colombia FTA? In what ways is the FTA supportive of the WTO and where not? 9. Should the FTA be viewed as a progressive club? Is it an example of big powers shifting from multilateralism to bilateral institutions that are easier to control? If negotiations on the next WTO round were proceeding more smoothly would the FTA exist?

14 Monday, May 2: Legalization and Enforcement Abbott, Kenneth W. and Duncan Snidal Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54(3): Case 1: US GSP actions against Mauritania Case 2: Universal Declaration on Human Rights Shelton, Dinah Introduction: Law, Non- Law and the Problem of Soft Law. In Steiner, Henry J., Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman. International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals 3 rd ed. Oxford University Press, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hafner- Burton, Emilie M Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. International Organization 59(3): Excerpt on Mauritania. Discussion Questions 1. Note that the Abbot and Snidal piece is part of the legalization framework for analysis (see April 4 th ). What are the differences in obligation, precision, and delegation between hard and soft law? Why is it useful to look at all three attributes of an agreement rather than just delegation to enforcement bodies? 2. Why would countries choose to use hard law? Abbott and Snidal look at arguments rooted in the idea of law as a contract or a covenant. What is the difference and why does it matter? 3. What is the problem of incomplete contracting and how does it affect the design of legal institutions? 4. What are the main advantages of soft legalization? What are sovereignty costs and why do they command so much attention in the article? 5. How does the choice of soft law as a compromise affect how legal institutions evolve over time? Would you expect to see more fluid evolution with hard or soft law agreements? 6. Shelton is a lawyer. What is the problem of soft law? Traditionally, lawyers have viewed hard law as a much more effective and important form of law. Why might that be? 7. When it comes to human rights, which kind of laws hard or soft are most effective? Why? How are soft laws, such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), effective (for example, how do they shape behavior)? How are hard laws, such as the UN treaty prohibiting torture, effective?

15 8. Why are there both hard and soft human rights provisions in trade agreements? Are they effective in protecting human rights? Why or why not?

16 Wednesday, May 4: Flexibility and Interpretation Case #1: Judicial Economy in the WTO Case #2: Israel s derogation from the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Derogation from Human Rights Treaties in Situations of Emergency. RULAC Project. geneva.ch/rulac/derogation_from_human_rights_treaties_in_situations_of_emergency.php United Nations Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Israel. 08/21/2003. Human Rights Committee. CCPR/CO/78/ISR. Discussion Questions 1. The cases discussed in this class will build on the rational design framework (April 25 th ) and the legalization framework (April 4 th, May 2 nd ). Review the central ideas of those two frameworks. 2. One way that the content of international law is determined is through disputes. The most advanced treaty-based dispute resolution mechanism is the WTO s system of panels. Those panels (and the Appellate Body that reviews their work) have a variety of ways that they can adjust their interpretations. One is judicial economy. What is that? Why does it offer a way to manage the politics of disputes? 3. Why is it necessary for regimes to balance rigidity and stability? How does judicial economy help the WTO perform that balance? What are some other tools that provide that balance? 4. Why do you think judicial economy is used so much more often than non-liquet and in dubio mitius as a means of avoiding issues? 5. Why are the submissions by third parties such an important part of Busch and Pelc s argument? What is the difference between a mixed submission and a partisan submission? 6. What are the main explanations for the variation in which the WTO panels actually use judicial economy? 7. Why does Israel derogate from the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Why did the drafter of that major human rights treaty allow countries to derogate? Is this type of flexibility good or bad for the legitimacy of international law? Is it good or bad for the effectiveness of the law?

17 Monday, May 9: Compliance Chayes, Abram and Antonia Handler Chayes On Compliance. International Organization 47(2): Case: Protecting the Ozone Layer Parson, Edward A "Protecting the Ozone Layer." In Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Peter M. Haas, Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy, eds. Cambridge: MIT Press, Discussion Questions 1. Do Chayes and Chayes expect the level of compliance with international agreements to be high or low? 2. How do efficiency, interests, and norms explain levels of compliance that Chayes and Chayes expect? 3. What are the major reasons for noncompliance? For each, what could the designers of international legal agreements do to reduce that cause of noncompliance? 4. Do Chayes and Chayes offer evidence for their claims about the level of compliance and the sources of noncompliance? What kind of evidence do they use and how compelling is it? 5. Why does the concept of acceptable levels of compliance matter? 6. The ozone layer is widely considered to be the most effective international environmental treaty. Why does Parson think the treaty was so effective? 7. When the Montreal Protocol was being negotiated originally the U.S. was the leading governmental force in favor of strict regulation but most European countries were opposed. Why? Why do you think that, today, on most environmental issues the positions are reversed? 8. What was the role of UNEP in the negotiation and implementation of the ozone treaty? 9. How did the state of the science on the ozone layer affect the negotiations? 10. What was the position of the leading developing countries and what was done to engage them with the treaty? 11. How would Chayes and Chayes analyze the likely compliance with the ozone treaty and the sources of non-compliance?

18 Wednesday, May 11: Influence Goldsmith, Jack and Eric Posner The Limits of International Law. Oxford University Press, Case: Law of the Sea Posner, Eric A. and Alan O. Sykes Economic Foundations of the Law of the Sea. American Journal of International Law 104: Discussion Questions 1. What are the arguments that Goldsmith and Posner are arguing against? 2. Like Chayes and Chayes, Goldsmith and Posner assume that states know their interests and make rational choices. Yet unlike Chayes and Chayes, Goldsmith and Posner are more skeptical that states will have a preference for complying with international law. Why? 3. Posner and Goldsmith look at four models that, they say, explain the observed behaviors of international cooperation. What are they? What are the main differences, for example, between coincidence of interest and coercion. In which of these four kinds of behavior is the role for formal international legal institutions the greatest? The least? 4. Why is this book widely read yet very unpopular among traditional international law professors? 5. Why are the debates about compliance with international law with distinct viewpoints represented by Chayes & Chayes and Goldsmith & Posner important to resolve? 6. Why did it prove impractical to continue to treat the oceans as a common pool resource? 7. As the population grew and technology changed and the ocean s resources became overtapped, what did governments do in response? Which of those responses happened on their own and which required a treaty such as the Law of the Sea? 8. What are the major provisions of the Law of the Sea that help governments manage these common pool resources? Does the treaty appear to be an efficient solution to the problem of managing these resources? 9. Using the framework of rational design, how can you explain choices such as the delegation of authority to the Seabed Authority or the number of countries involved in the Law of the Sea Negotiations?

19 /// /// UNIT THREE PATHOLOGIES OF LEGAL INSTITUTIONS & ALTERNATIVES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW Monday, May 16: Complex Overlapping Institutions Simulation team memo due by noon to (abrainerd@ucsd.edu). One page single- spaced. One memo per team, co- authored by the team. Alter, Karen J. and Sophie Meunier The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics 7(1): Case: Climate Change Debate 4: The framework convention on climate change should be the only treaty on climate change. Keohane, Robert O. and David G. Victor The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Perspectives on Politics 9(1). Discussion Questions 1. The Alter/Meunier piece is an introduction to a larger symposium of articles on this topic. What is regime complexity? What are the major reasons why institutions are overlapping in one issue-area (e.g., trade) but not in another area (e.g., testing of nuclear weapons)? 2. The symposium that Alter/Meunier introduce is focused on how regime complexity affects the outcomes of international cooperation. What are some of the major possible impacts of complex and overlapping institutions on how international rules get implemented? 3. What is chessboard politics? What is forum shopping? Will these be more likely with regime complexity? Do you think these lead to more effective or less effective international institutions? Can you give some examples? 4. What are the implications of regime complexity for the rational design of international institutions? For example, one topic of keen interest to scholars of rational design is the choice of numbers how many countries (and which ones) are part of an institution? Does regime complexity favor large groups or small groups, and why? 5. Does competition between international organizations, NGOs and other actors lead to more or less effective international cooperation? 6. In the case of climate change, Keohane and Victor argue that a regime complex is an unavoidable outcome. What are the main reasons they offer for that conclusion? What are the main implications?

20 7. Why are some parts of the climate change regime complex bound tightly to other parts while others are only loosely coupled? 8. If regime complexes are inevitable, what can be done to make that institutional outcome as effective as possible in promoting international cooperation?

21 Wednesday, May 18: Private Authority Vogel, David Private Global Business Regulation. Annual Review of Political Science 11: Case: Labor Standards and the Apparel Industry Mayer, Frederick and John Pickles Re- embedding Governance: Global Apparel Value Chains and Decent Work. Capturing the Gains, Working paper. Discussion Questions 1. What is civil regulation? Why would firms be interested in going beyond compliance and setting tougher standards for themselves? 2. Why would firms try to set these standards into soft laws rather than hard laws? What are the main mechanisms for accountability in these soft laws? 3. Vogel reviews a variety of different kinds of codes? What are the most important differences between these codes? Why do you think multi-stakeholder codes have attracted the most attention? Why do you think environmental codes have been highly detailed and effective in some areas (notably forestry) but not others (such as ozone-depleting substances)? 4. When do you think civil regulation is transformed into public regulation, such as binding legal treaties? 5. The apparel industry is an example of civil regulation related to labor standards. Mayer and Pickles argue that these standards emerge in part to fill a governance deficit. What is that deficit and why does it exist? Why, in particular, has there been a privatization of labor enforcement? 6. Why were Nike and the Collegiate Apparel industry among the leaders in setting voluntary standards? What kinds of industries are most likely to invest in creating these standards? 7. What is the race to the bottom and why would firms like Nike be keen to avoid it? How do private standards help avoid that race? When might a race to the top happen? 8. Which kinds of NGOs are likely to pay a role in setting private labor standards? 9. What was the role of the ILO in setting labor standards? 10. Under what circumstances to you think private regulation is likely to be a better alternative than public regulation?

22 Monday, May 23: Simulation Day (part 1) Formal statements from chief negotiators (9:30am) Formal negotiations (9:45am - 10:35am) Formal statements from chosen members of country delegations (10:35-10:50am) Informal negotiations (outside class) Wednesday, May 25, Simulation Day (part 2) Formal update from chief negotiators or chosen representatives (9:30am) Formal negotiations (9:45am - 10:30am) Final text presented to Secretary General (10:30am) Formal vote (10:30am) Closing statements from chief negotiators or chosen representatives (10:35am) Closing statements from chosen members of country delegations (10:40-10:50am) Monday, May 30: Memorial Day No class Tuesday, May 31: FINAL PAPER Due at 5:00pm to abrainerd@ucsd.edu Wednesday, June 1: Simulation Debrief No assignment

23 In- Class Debating Procedures We will hold 4 in- class debates. The purpose of these debates is to explore multiple sides of a controversial issue and to hone your presentational and analytical skills. Some students might be debating positions opposite to their beliefs. This is an important skill for you to learn. Students will be assigned randomly to a debate team. You will be with your team members for the duration of the course; there will be no switching teams for any reason. Each team will debate one to two times (depending on class size) and will serve in the audience for the others debates. The grades are by team (not individual). Debate Preparation You should meet with your team prior to the debate to discuss the issues with your panel members and learn from one another. During this time, you and your team members should develop a strategy to organize and coordinate your presentations. You should split up responsibilities (e.g., specific arguments and/or points) among the team, making sure that your presentations are linked to, while not being redundant with, one another. The team should be presenting a consistent argument based on the position you have been assigned (not on what you may personally believe). In preparing for your panel presentation, you may find it helpful to do research and reading beyond that listed on the syllabus. When you refer to information from sources in your presentations, please tell us whose work you are referring to and the source of the information. Presentation of Arguments during the Debates Each of the two sides of the debate will present a summary of the arguments supporting its position. The pro side will start first, followed by the con side. Each side will be given 5 minutes for the summary. We will time the presentations and stop each team after 5 minutes. Thus, you should prepare, practice, and time what you want to say beforehand. This preparation and practice will help you speak clearly while adhering to the time limit. It is much better to talk, in conversational style, from prepared notes, rather than to read verbatim from a script. If you talk (rather than read) it will be easier to listen to you and you will be more engaging and interesting. You may use power point or other visual aids. Both sides will then be given 5 minutes to confer and prepare for their rebuttal. Each side will be given 3 minutes for the rebuttal, starting with the con side and followed by the pro side. Next, the audience will be asked to direct questions to either team. Questions from the audience must be concise and directed to particular teams or individuals. Answers must be given in 1

24 minute or less. At the discretion of the instructors, there may be some additional back and forth time given during the question period. Finally, each side will be given 1 minute for closing statements. Everyone on the team must participate; it is for you to decide how. Each debate will take about minutes, followed by a 5 minute debrief. Role of the Professors The professors job is to keep the discussion on track and make sure that everyone has an equal chance to participate. We will try as much as possible to have you rather than us talk in discussions. One of the goals of these debates is for you to gain practice in speaking in groups, and presenting and defending your ideas and arguments. For each of the debate issues, the professors may also pose questions to the teams which are designed to test your understanding of the subject matter. The professors may choose a particular panel member or open the question up to the whole panel. With this in mind, you will probably want to become well versed in the issue. Role of Audience Each member of the audience should come prepared with at least two questions for each side. At the end of the debate, the audience will vote on the winner of the debate. Pointers Make your presentations clear, interesting, relevant, engaging, and within the time limit. Deliver your presentation to the audience, making a connection with them (e.g., talk to people, making eye- contact with them). State your argument as clearly and as interestingly as possible within the time limit. The keys are to (1) not be boring! (2) be knowledgeable and accurate, and (3) engaging - - get the audience to listen to your presentation. In other words, know what you are talking about and present your knowledge and beliefs in a well- reasoned, interesting, attention- keeping manner. It is often good to provide illustrative examples and/or ask (perhaps rhetorical) questions that are relevant to everyone. It is essential that each team anticipate the arguments or points which will be made by the opposition. This will enable you to create a more effective argument. All speakers should dress appropriately (to their role). Grades

25 The debates constitute 20% of your course grade. You will be graded as a team, not individually: all members of the team will receive the same grade. Thus, it is important to work together to prepare your presentations. Guidelines and Grading Criteria These are the items that we will be looking for from each team in the debate: Grasp of the issue and important related points. Ability to make presentation interesting, engaging, and relevant. Ability to support arguments. Use of constructive criticism and rationale Ability to anticipate and/or counter opposing viewpoints. Ability to see and challenge flaws in the opposition's arguments and research Ability to strongly defend your position against rebuttal from other team and instructor, including anticipating other team s questions Strong opening summary of position Participation Coherent and consistent message supporting your panel s position Team coordination These are the items that we will be looking for from the audience: Grasp of the issue and important related points. Ability to ask clear, concise and relevant questions. Ability to see and challenge flaws in the teams arguments and research. Participation

26 Simulation Agricultural Tariffs and Subsidy Cuts in the WTO Trade Round The formal simulation will begin at 9:30am on May 23 rd, 2011 and end at 10:50am on May 25 th, However, the simulation roles will be given out in class on April 18 th and informal discussions, negotiations, etc., should begin immediately thereafter. Each student will be assigned a role by the professors. That role will be part of a team that represents a country. The following countries may be represented in the negotiations: Brazil, China, India, South Africa, South Korea, United States, Mexico and France, Germany and the U.K (as part of an EU delegation). Roles may include chief negotiator, minister of agriculture, head of the farm lobby, NGO activist and legislator or member of a political party. All participants should dress and act appropriate to their role during the formal simulation. Teaching instructors will play the roles of heads of state. The first part of the simulation will happen outside of class, informally while each country team meets as many times as necessary to develop a country negotiating position. Your country (or the interests groups in your country) may also want to begin informal discussions with other countries or groups prior to the start of formal negotiations on May 23 rd. (It would be highly advisable and also highly realistic.) Each team must hand in a one page (single- spaced) memo by noon on May 16 (to abrainerd@ucsd.edu) explaining your country s negotiating position in the international negotiations and the domestic context of how your team arrived at that position (i.e., what do your team s leaders and interest groups want and what bargains have you made domestically to improve your team s chances of getting a positive outcome from international negotiations?) Be sure to indicate in the team memo if there are any differences in opinion that have not been resolved. Extra credit will be given to students who also individually write a brief memo summarizing the results of such preliminary talks, stating names, places and dates of meetings as well as a brief discussion of the talks they have been involved in. Formal talks will open at 9:30am on May 23 rd. The aim of these talks is to achieve a multilateral agreement on agricultural subsidies which is a major element of the current trade round. The negotiations and final agreement should cover (1) the level and type of subsidy, (2) whether the agreement should be binding (i.e., enforceable) or non- binding and (3) whether the agreement should allow governments the flexibility to opt- out of certain obligations. The negotiators can add other aspects to the design should they so choose however, the simulation negotiations must cover these three aspects. A standard agreement in this context would be 1 to 2 pages long. The talks will begin with a formal 3- minute opening statement from the lead negotiator of each country. That statement should include a summary of the progress made or setbacks in informal negotiations with other countries prior to the start of formal talks. The talks will be public (open to all interest groups from your country) and mandatory (everyone must attend). The lead country negotiators are responsible for drafting the text of a final agreement they may, at their discretion, delegate part or all of that responsibility to their national delegations. After formal opening statements, the Secretary- General of the WTO will direct questions to the delegations and as needed suggest breaking out into smaller negotiating groups that may include some of the domestic interest groups.

27 Formal talks will end that day at 10:50am, and each country delegation will brief their head of state at that time in writing (by ). Negotiations may informally continue into the night at the discretion of the negotiators or any other participant. Formal talks will end at 10:30am on May 25 th. At that time, a final agreement must be presented to the Secretary- General for a vote by all chief negotiators. For any agreement to pass into binding law, it must be universally accepted by all states parties to the agreement. There must be a final text, even if that text is not a full- fledged agreement. It would be highly advisable to have a working version of this text before negotiations begin on May 23 rd and certainly before the second day of negotiations begin on May 25 th. Any country or country participant may submit a proposed text to the Secretary- General s office (including dissenting texts or proposed texts that could break log jams). Negotiators may choose also to make side agreements with some or all states and must present those side agreements to the Secretary- General at this time. The voting procedures are one country one vote. After the vote, the chief negotiator or a chosen representative for each country will give a final statement of 1 minute. The final paper, based on this simulation (and described in detail below) is due on May 31 st at 5:00pm. In class on June 1 st, we will debrief and discuss the simulation results and process in detail. Thus, no late papers will be accepted because the in class discussion on June 1 st will revolve around those papers.

28 Final Paper The final paper is a reflection on the preparation and outcome of the simulation. The paper has four parts, (1) a two to three paragraph executive summary, (2) a section summarizing your formal role in the simulation, including your position going into the exercise and (3) your analysis of the negotiation process and outcome. Part 1: Executive Summary Your executive summary should encapsulate your formal position in the simulation and the main arguments you are making in the paper about why the outcome of the simulation took the form it did. It should be concise and clearly written (no jargon). This is a roadmap to the arguments you will elucidate in Parts 2 and 3 of the paper. This section should be no longer than one double- spaced page. Part 2: Summary of Formal Role and Position Briefly describe your position in the simulation and explain your position going into the simulation. What were your aims? And what were the outcomes you were trying to avoid? Explain why. This section should be approximately 1 to 2 double- spaced pages. Part 3. Analysis Given your aims in Part 2, explain why the actual outcomes were consistent with or different from your goals. (a) Begin by stating, briefly, the outcome of the simulation. (b) Next, explain in detail the design of the agreement if one was negotiated (even if it was not passed). The discussion of design should cover topics discussed in class, including membership, enforcement and flexibility and explain why these choices were made. (c) next, address your choice of two topics from the following list nature of the cooperation problem, principal agent relationships, democratic deficit, domestic politics, non- state actors, and the mechanisms for promoting compliance and explain how those topics affected the negotiation process and outcome of the simulation. This section should be approximately 8 double- spaced pages. The paper must include citations to all sources, including course materials and also secondary research materials that you read outside of class. Papers are due on Tuesday, May 31 st, 2011, at 5:00pm to: abrainerd@ucsd.edu. It must not exceed 10 double- spaced pages. The paper is worth 30% of your course grade. Grading criteria include: Clarity of argument. Analytical rigor. Do not state your opinions. Rather, argue on the facts.