|
Time: T-Th 10:00-11:20 am (Winter 2001) |
Office Hours: Thurs 12:00-1:50 by signup, & by appointment |
|
Phone: 346-4880 |
Office: PLC-921 |
|
Email: rmitchel@oregon.uoregon.edu |
Course web page: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rmitchel/iep |
PS477/577: International Environmental Politics
“I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.” -- Margaret Mead
A serious research study is “a study by someone whose mind could conceivably have been changed by the evidence.” -- Paul Krugman
Increasingly, nations find themselves unable to solve their environmental problems through domestic policy alone. Government officials, nongovernmental organizations, and editorial pundits frequently proclaim the need for international solutions to environmental problems ranging from preserving wetlands and wildlife to protecting the global atmosphere. In some issue areas, nations have reached international agreements, in others, treaties remain elusive. Although environmental problems certainly -- and, we hope, their solutions -- will continue to increase in number and importance in the future, solutions to many existing international environmental problems provide us with experience with which to better understand the types of solutions available, the processes by which they can be instituted, and how effective those solutions have been at solving environmental problems.
This course develops five basic perspectives from which to understand why environmental problems arise and how we can solve them. It then explores three processes of international policy development: identifying problems, designing and negotiating solutions, and implementing policies to change national behavior. We will use case studies to develop our understandings of these processes. We will seek answers to questions such as: What conditions produce agreements between countries to resolve problems? What types of rules prove most successful at inducing compliance? What sorts of trade-offs must be made between broad membership and stringent standards? How do we evaluate whether a treaty has been effective or successful? How do nations improve treaty effectiveness over time? In short, we want to identify the sorts of agreements that will help the nations of the world solve their environmental problems.
These questions require careful attention to causal analysis, i.e., to showing that one or more factors caused the outcome we observe and that absent that factor, the observed outcome would not have occurred. Thus, a major element of this course will require that you identify and skeptically evaluate all causal claims (your own, mine, and those of authors you read) regarding environmental problems. For example, this will require being initially dubious of claims that the International Whaling Commission has been in any way responsible for the decrease in the number of whales caught since the mid-1980s, that growing scientific knowledge was the real cause for signature of the ozone protection treaty, or that treaties ever have any influence on behavior. I require PS205: Introduction to International Relations as a prerequisite to ensure that you have some familiarity with causal analysis, counterfactuals, and rigorous empirical evaluation. I hope that developing your ability to think causally will be the most important contribution of this course to your education.
· Gareth Porter, Janet Welsh Brown, and Pamela S. Chasek. 2000. Global Environmental Politics, 3rd Edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Referred to as PorterBrown.
· Ken Conca, Michael Alberty, and Geoffrey Dabelko. 1995. Green Planet Blues: Environmental Politics from Stockholm to Rio, 2nd Edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Referred to as GPB.
· Xerox Reader. All articles not in PorterBrown or GPB are in the Xerox Reader.
· Online Course Pack: The class web page (http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~rmitchel/iep/) will have links to online readings.
All the readings are require. That said, if you must make choices, I would place higher priority on the readings from PorterBrown, the Xerox Reader, and the Online Course Pack, and lower priority on the readings in GPB. My philosophy on readings is that they are another source for you to learn about the issues covered in the class, and are intended to be additional to (rather than redundant with) the lectures. I would, of course, welcome students raising questions or criticisms of the readings during any class discussion.
Come to class regularly and actively participate in class discussions.
You will be required to read one of the treaties linked on the course website; determine its goals; identify an “indicator” for assessing progress; find a data source; and post that information to the course website.
You must write two essays responding to a brief question regarding the reading and the material in lecture. One will be on the Tragedy of the Commons and the other will be on the Relative Effectiveness of Regimes
There are two assignments related to developing the argument of your final paper for the course. Their main value lies in providing you with feedback that will help you improve the final paper you write.
Students will complete a research paper of 20 double-spaced pages (25-30 for graduate students) that will evaluate whether a particular environmental treaty has been effective at improving the environmental problem that motivated its creation. The paper must answer a CAUSAL question. Papers that are historical narratives or are interesting, but non-causal descriptions of problems will not be acceptable. A paper might focus on explaining whether, why, and how the convention on endangered species trade has reduced such trade or species loss; whether, why, and how the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution has reduced acid rain in Europe; or whether, why, and how the convention on whaling has reduced whales killed or sustained the whaling industry. There will be handouts and further discussion of paper requirements throughout the term.
Note on Plagiarism: This one’s simple: don’t do it. Don’t even think about doing it. Plagiarism is intellectual theft and violates the honor code. Exact quotes must have quotation marks and an appropriate citation. Paraphrases, even if not exact quotations, must have appropriate citations. Submitting a paper written by someone else, even if updated, constitutes plagiarism. If you have any doubts, give credit to the source. If you have questions, see me before you submit the assignment. The minimum penalty for plagiarism or cheating will be a failing grade for the course. Ignorance of this policy is not a defense.
HOMEWORK DEADLINES
|
|
|
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS: Provide a discussion paper (< 1200 words) – see below. |
|
Tuesday, Feb 7
|
OUTLINE + GRAPH OF
DV: See assignment
|
Thursday, Feb 14
|
RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: Provide a discussion paper (< 1200 words) – see below. |
Monday, Mar 18
|
FINAL PAPER: Due by
5:00 PM at PS Office. NO LATE PAPERS
ACCEPTED!
|
|
Time: T-Th 10:00-11:20 am (Winter 2001) |
Office Hours: Thurs 12:00-1:50 by signup, & by appointment |
|
Phone: 346-4880 |
Office: PLC-921 |
|
Email: rmitchel@oregon.uoregon.edu |
Course web page: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rmitchel/iep |
PS477/577: International Environmental Politics
“I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world.” -- Margaret Mead
A serious research study is “a study by someone whose mind could conceivably have been changed by the evidence.” -- Paul Krugman
Increasingly, nations find themselves unable to solve their environmental problems through domestic policy alone. Government officials, nongovernmental organizations, and editorial pundits frequently proclaim the need for international solutions to environmental problems ranging from preserving wetlands and wildlife to protecting the global atmosphere. In some issue areas, nations have reached international agreements, in others, treaties remain elusive. Although environmental problems certainly -- and, we hope, their solutions -- will continue to increase in number and importance in the future, solutions to many existing international environmental problems provide us with experience with which to better understand the types of solutions available, the processes by which they can be instituted, and how effective those solutions have been at solving environmental problems.
This course develops five basic perspectives from which to understand why environmental problems arise and how we can solve them. It then explores three processes of international policy development: identifying problems, designing and negotiating solutions, and implementing policies to change national behavior. We will use case studies to develop our understandings of these processes. We will seek answers to questions such as: What conditions produce agreements between countries to resolve problems? What types of rules prove most successful at inducing compliance? What sorts of trade-offs must be made between broad membership and stringent standards? How do we evaluate whether a treaty has been effective or successful? How do nations improve treaty effectiveness over time? In short, we want to identify the sorts of agreements that will help the nations of the world solve their environmental problems.
These questions require careful attention to causal analysis, i.e., to showing that one or more factors caused the outcome we observe and that absent that factor, the observed outcome would not have occurred. Thus, a major element of this course will require that you identify and skeptically evaluate all causal claims (your own, mine, and those of authors you read) regarding environmental problems. For example, this will require being initially dubious of claims that the International Whaling Commission has been in any way responsible for the decrease in the number of whales caught since the mid-1980s, that growing scientific knowledge was the real cause for signature of the ozone protection treaty, or that treaties ever have any influence on behavior. I require PS205: Introduction to International Relations as a prerequisite to ensure that you have some familiarity with causal analysis, counterfactuals, and rigorous empirical evaluation. I hope that developing your ability to think causally will be the most important contribution of this course to your education.
· Gareth Porter, Janet Welsh Brown, and Pamela S. Chasek. 2000. Global Environmental Politics, 3rd Edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Referred to as PorterBrown.
· Ken Conca, Michael Alberty, and Geoffrey Dabelko. 1995. Green Planet Blues: Environmental Politics from Stockholm to Rio, 2nd Edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Referred to as GPB.
· Xerox Reader. All articles not in PorterBrown or GPB are in the Xerox Reader.
· Online Course Pack: The class web page (http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~rmitchel/iep/) will have links to online readings.
All the readings are require. That said, if you must make choices, I would place higher priority on the readings from PorterBrown, the Xerox Reader, and the Online Course Pack, and lower priority on the readings in GPB. My philosophy on readings is that they are another source for you to learn about the issues covered in the class, and are intended to be additional to (rather than redundant with) the lectures. I would, of course, welcome students raising questions or criticisms of the readings during any class discussion.
Come to class regularly and actively participate in class discussions.
You will be required to read one of the treaties linked on the course website; determine its goals; identify an “indicator” for assessing progress; find a data source; and post that information to the course website.
You must write two essays responding to a brief question regarding the reading and the material in lecture. One will be on the Tragedy of the Commons and the other will be on the Relative Effectiveness of Regimes
There are two assignments related to developing the argument of your final paper for the course. Their main value lies in providing you with feedback that will help you improve the final paper you write.
Students will complete a research paper of 20 double-spaced pages (25-30 for graduate students) that will evaluate whether a particular environmental treaty has been effective at improving the environmental problem that motivated its creation. The paper must answer a CAUSAL question. Papers that are historical narratives or are interesting, but non-causal descriptions of problems will not be acceptable. A paper might focus on explaining whether, why, and how the convention on endangered species trade has reduced such trade or species loss; whether, why, and how the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution has reduced acid rain in Europe; or whether, why, and how the convention on whaling has reduced whales killed or sustained the whaling industry. There will be handouts and further discussion of paper requirements throughout the term.
Note on Plagiarism: This one’s simple: don’t do it. Don’t even think about doing it. Plagiarism is intellectual theft and violates the honor code. Exact quotes must have quotation marks and an appropriate citation. Paraphrases, even if not exact quotations, must have appropriate citations. Submitting a paper written by someone else, even if updated, constitutes plagiarism. If you have any doubts, give credit to the source. If you have questions, see me before you submit the assignment. The minimum penalty for plagiarism or cheating will be a failing grade for the course. Ignorance of this policy is not a defense.
HOMEWORK DEADLINES
|
|
Date
|
Assignments
(all assignments are in boxes in syllabus below).
|
Thursday, Jan 17
|
TREATY ASSESSMENT: See assignment. |
Tuesday, Jan 22
|
CAUSAL QUESTIONS FOR
THREE POTENTIAL PAPER TOPICS: See assignment.
|
Thursday, Jan 24
|
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS: Provide a discussion paper (< 1200 words) – see below. |
Tuesday, Feb 7
|
OUTLINE + GRAPH OF
DV: See assignment
|
Thursday, Feb 14
|
RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS: Provide a discussion paper (< 1200 words) – see below. |
Monday, Mar 18
|
FINAL PAPER: Due by
5:00 PM at PS Office. NO LATE PAPERS
ACCEPTED!
|
PS 477/577: International Environmental Politics
“Twenty-five Years of Global Environmental Politics” in GPB ch. Intro.
Mitchell, Ronald B. forthcoming-a. International Environment. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PorterBrown, ch. 1.
Mitchell, Ronald B. and Thomas Bernauer. 1998. Empirical research on international environmental policy: designing qualitative case studies. Journal of Environment and Development 7 (1):4-31.
TREATY ASSESSMENT assignment due beginning of class: See assignment.
Dennis Pirages, “Global Technopolitics” in GPB ch. 09.
Sheila Jasanoff , “Skinning Scientific Cats” in GPB ch. 15.
Online readings of Andy Revkin's stories on the Hague meeting on Climate Change from the New York Times.
CAUSAL QUESTIONS assignment due beginning of class: See assignment.
Donella H. Meadows, et.
al., “Limits to Growth,” in GPB ch. 01.
Ken Conca, “Rethinking
the Ecology-Sovereignty Debate,” in GPB ch. 07.
Reitan, Eric. 1996. Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):411-24.
DISCUSSION PAPER: “Tragedy of the Commons” due beginning of class (< 1200 words – provide a word count): Write a paper that includes the following four sections. Description: describe/define a Tragedy of the Commons (ToC). Examples: describe one international environmental problem and show how it involves a ToC and another international environmental problem and show how it DOES NOT involve a ToC. Causes: what causes a ToC to arise? Solutions: what strategies can those caught in a ToC use to avert the outcomes we would expect to arise in such situations?
Garrett Hardin, “The
Tragedy of the Commons,” in GPB ch. 03.
Susan J. Buck, “No
Tragedy of the Commons,” in GPB ch. 04.
David Feeny, et al., “The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two Years Later” in GPB ch. 05.
William Ophuls, “The
Scarcity Society,” in GPB ch. 06.
Jim MacNeill, et al.,
“The Shadow Ecologies of Western Economies,” in GPB ch. 08.
Computer simulation of Tragedy of the Commons: We will be simulating the Tragedy of the Commons online during class. Prepare your strategy before class. Start by playing the “Optimizing a Private Farm” game on the course website. During the collective game, you will be able to decide how many cows you want to put on a commons to which all others in the community have access. Your goal is to maximize the milk your cows produce (so you can share that milk with homeless people in your community). What is your strategy for ensuring that you and the rest of the class do not overgraze the commons? How will you convince other class members to adopt your strategy? What should you do in the meantime to make sure you still can give milk to homeless people this year?Haas, Peter M. 1989. Do regimes matter? epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization 43 (3):377-403.
PorterBrown, ch. 4.
Nancy Lee Peluso,
“Coercing Conservation,” in GPB ch. 36.
Ruth Bell, “Do
International Environmental Agreements Really Work?” in GPB ch. 14.
Victor, David G. 1999. “Enforcing International Law: Implications for an Effective Global Warming Regime.” Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 10:1, 147-184. Available at: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/10DELPFVictor
Baker, Joni E. 1999. A substantive theory of the relative efficiency of environmental treaty compliance strategies: the case of CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 2 (1):1-45.
Mitchell, Ronald B. forthcoming-b. Quantitative Analysis in International Environmental Politics: Toward a Theory of Relative Effectiveness. In Regime consequences, edited by Arild Underdal and Oran Young.
DISCUSSION PAPER: “Relative Effectiveness” due beginning of class (< 1200 words – provide a word count): Compare the experience of the whaling and ozone protection regimes. Which regime has been more effective at influencing behavior? Which has been more effective at achieving its goals? What was the relative difficulty of the tasks the two regimes faced? In evaluating the relative effectiveness of these two conventions, which regimes accomplishments strike you as more impressive? If you see one regime as more effective than the other, to what do you attribute its success? If they were equally effective or ineffective, to what do you attribute the similarity in these outcomes?
Peterson, M. J. 1992. Whalers, cetologists, environmentalists and the international management of whaling. International Organization 46 (1):147-86.
Walsh, Virginia. 1999. Illegal Whaling for Humpbacks by the Soviet Union in the Antarctic, 1947-1972. Journal of Environment and Development 8 (3):307-27.
Grundmann, Reiner. 1998. The strange success of the Montreal Protocol: why reductionist accounts fail. International Environmental Affairs 10 (3):197-220.
Clapp, Jennifer. 1997. The Illegal CFC Trade: An Unexpected Wrinkle in the Ozone Protection Regime. International Environmental Affairs 9 (4):259-73.
Online readings:
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling text: http://sedac.ciesin.org/pidb/texts/intl.regulation.of.whaling.1946.html
International Whaling Commission Secretariat: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/iwcoffice/
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer text: http://www.unep.ch/ozone/vc-text.htm
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer text: http://www.unep.ch/ozone/mp-text.htm
Ozone Secretariat: http://www.unep.ch/ozone/welcome.htm
Thomas Homer-Dixon,
“Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases,” in GPB
ch. 29.
United Nations Development Programme, “New Dimensions of Human Security” in GPB ch. 30.
Daniel Deudney, “The
Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security,” in GPB
ch. 31.
Somaya Saad, “For Whose
Benefit? Redefining Security,” in GPB ch. 32.
Pacific Institute list of water-related conflicts since 1500 AD: http://www.worldwater.org/conflictIntro.htm
PorterBrown, ch. 5.
João Augusto de Araujo
Castro, “Environment and Development: The Case of the Developing Countries,” in
GPB ch. 02.
World Commission on
Environment & Development, “Towards Sustainable Development,” in GPB ch.
23.
Larry Lohman, “Whose
Common Future?” in GPB ch. 24.
Sharachchandra M. Lélé,
“Sustainable Development: A Critical Review,” in GPB ch. 25.
Tanvi Nagpal, “Voices
from the Developing World: Progress Toward Sustainable Development,” in GPB ch.
26.
Business Council for Sustainable Development, The Business
of Sustainable Development” in GPB ch. 27.
Alan Durning, “How Much is Enough?” in GPB ch. 28.
Mahathir Mohamed, “Statement to the UNCED,” in GPB ch. 33.
Jagdish Bhagwati, “The
Case for Free Trade,” in GPB ch. 18.
Herman E. Daly, “The Perils of Free Trade” in GPB ch. 19.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, “Trade and Sustainable Development” in GPB ch. 20.
Logsdon, Jeanne M. and Bryan W. Husted. 2000. Mexico's environmental performance under NAFTA: the first 5 years. Journal of Environment and Development 9 (4):370-83.
Bruce Rich, “The
Emperor’s New Clothes: The World Bank and Environmental Reform,” in GPB ch. 21.
Wilfredo Cruz, et. al.,
“Greening Development: Environmental Implications of Economic Policies,” in GPB
ch. 22.
Dubash, Navroz K. and Frances Seymour. 1999. The Political Economy of "Environmental Adjustment": The World Bank as Midwife of Forest Policy Reform. . Washington, DC: World Resources Institute..
Friends of the Earth. 2000. Structural Adjustment and the Environment: Promoting Efficiency or Exploiting Natural Resources? Site: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/50Years_Enough/StrucAdjust_environ.html (Published: no date 2000; printed: 12 December).
Gita Sen, “Women, Poverty, and Population: Issues for the Concerned Environmentalist,” in GPB ch. 34.
Skim the State of the World Population report at: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/swpmain.htm
Also, follow up on some of the links provided at http://www.cnie.org/billion and be prepared to discuss issues of population raised in class.
International Environmental Policy-Making and Transatlantic Co-operation Setting the Agenda for Rio+10, at http://www.ecologic.de/downloads/2000/Rio+10_Policy_Paper.pdf
FINAL PAPER DUE BY 5:00 PM at PS
OFFICE. NO LATE PAPERS WILL BE ACCEPTED!
DISCUSSION PAPER #3: “Free Trade
and the Environment”
(this option is provided only for
those who have other obligations that make it impossible for them to attend the
climate change simulation on March 10th)
Due March 13th, beginning of
class (< 1200 words – provide a word count)
In what ways do increases in free trade influence environmental quality? Make a coherent argument about the major pathways or mechanisms by which lowering tariff and other trade barriers changes the impacts of a country’s economy on the environment. Which pathways increase environmental degradation? Which pathways increase environmental protection? The last section of your paper should describe two research studies each involving a comparison of at least two cases that would allow you to evaluate whether the net effect of free trade is to harm or help environmental protection. [It goes without saying that your argument should build on, develop, and go beyond (rather than simply reiterate) what we covered in class.]
http://www.icons.umd.edu/current/univ/scenario/iwc.htm IWC simulation - to be added??
Attendance at this simulation should be quite fun and exciting and is an expected part of participation in this class. Recognizing, however, that work schedules or other conflicts may prevent one or two (I hope not more than that) from attending, those who cannot attend this all-day Saturday session will be required to write an additional 1200 word paper on a topic to be provided by me at a later date. Those showing up for the simulation will receive a 100% score for this 4% of their grade. Those writing the paper will be graded based on the quality of their paper, with the potential, of course, of earning 100%.
Climate Change Simulation
Attendance at this simulation should be quite fun and
exciting and is an expected part of participation in this class. Recognizing, however, that work schedules or
other conflicts may prevent one or two (I hope not more than that) from
attending, those who cannot attend this all-day Saturday session will be
required to write an additional 1200 word paper on a topic to be provided by me
at a later date.
Mitchell, Ronald B. forthcoming-a. International Environment. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [CLEARANCE NOT NEEDED: INSTRUCTOR IS AUTHOR.]
Mitchell, Ronald B. forthcoming-b. Quantitative Analysis in International Environmental Politics: Toward a Theory of Relative Effectiveness. In Regime consequences, edited by Arild Underdal and Oran Young. [CLEARANCE NOT NEEDED: INSTRUCTOR IS AUTHOR.]
Mitchell, Ronald B. and Thomas Bernauer. 1998. Empirical research on international environmental policy: designing qualitative case studies. Journal of Environment and Development 7 (1):4-31. [CLEARANCE NOT NEEDED: INSTRUCTOR IS AUTHOR.]
*Haas, Peter M. 1989. Do regimes matter? epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization 43 (3):377-403.
*Peterson, M. J. 1992. Whalers, cetologists, environmentalists and the international management of whaling. International Organization 46 (1):147-86.
*Reitan, Eric. 1996. Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):411-24.
*Sprinz, Detlef and Tapani Vaahtoranta. 1994. The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization 48 (1):77-105.
*Tesh, Sylvia N. and Bruce A. Williams. 1996. Identity Politics, Disinterested Politics, and Environmental Justice. Polity 18 :285-305.
Baker, Joni E. 1999. A substantive theory of the relative efficiency of environmental treaty compliance strategies: the case of CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 2 (1):1-45.
Clapp, Jennifer. 1997. The Illegal CFC Trade: An Unexpected Wrinkle in the Ozone Protection Regime. International Environmental Affairs 9 (4):259-73.
Grundmann, Reiner. 1998. The strange success of the Montreal Protocol: why reductionist accounts fail. International Environmental Affairs 10 (3):197-220.
Logsdon, Jeanne M. and Bryan W. Husted. 2000. Mexico's environmental performance under NAFTA: the first 5 years. Journal of Environment and Development 9 (4):370-83.
Walsh, Virginia. 1999. Illegal Whaling for Humpbacks by the Soviet Union in the Antarctic, 1947-1972. Journal of Environment and Development 8 (3):307-27.
PS 477/577: International Environmental Politics
Mitchell, Ronald B. forthcoming-a. International Environment. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, Ronald B. and Thomas Bernauer. 1998. Empirical research on international environmental policy: designing qualitative case studies. Journal of Environment and Development 7 (1):4-31.
Reitan, Eric. 1996. Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):411-24.
Tesh, Sylvia N. and Bruce A. Williams. 1996. Identity Politics, Disinterested Politics, and Environmental Justice. Polity 18 :285-305.
Haas, Peter M. 1989. Do regimes matter? epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization 43 (3):377-403.
Sprinz, Detlef and Tapani Vaahtoranta. 1994. The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization 48 (1):77-105.
Baker, Joni E. 1999. A substantive theory of the relative efficiency of environmental treaty compliance strategies: the case of CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 2 (1):1-45.
Mitchell, Ronald B. forthcoming-b. Quantitative Analysis in International Environmental Politics: Toward a Theory of Relative Effectiveness. In Regime consequences, edited by Arild Underdal and Oran Young.
Peterson, M. J. 1992. Whalers, cetologists, environmentalists and the international management of whaling. International Organization 46 (1):147-86.
Walsh, Virginia. 1999. Illegal Whaling for Humpbacks by the Soviet Union in the Antarctic, 1947-1972. Journal of Environment and Development 8 (3):307-27.
Grundmann, Reiner. 1998. The strange success of the Montreal Protocol: why reductionist accounts fail. International Environmental Affairs 10 (3):197-220.
Clapp, Jennifer. 1997. The Illegal CFC Trade: An Unexpected Wrinkle in the Ozone Protection Regime. International Environmental Affairs 9 (4):259-73.
Logsdon, Jeanne M. and Bryan W. Husted. 2000. Mexico's environmental performance under NAFTA: the first 5 years. Journal of Environment and Development 9 (4):370-83.