International Cooperation Theory and International Institutions (2024)

  • 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 (Unpublished manuscript).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.

  • Gartzke, 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.

International Cooperation Theory and International Institutions (2024)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Aracelis Kilback

Last Updated:

Views: 6458

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (64 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Aracelis Kilback

Birthday: 1994-11-22

Address: Apt. 895 30151 Green Plain, Lake Mariela, RI 98141

Phone: +5992291857476

Job: Legal Officer

Hobby: LARPing, role-playing games, Slacklining, Reading, Inline skating, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Dance

Introduction: My name is Aracelis Kilback, I am a nice, gentle, agreeable, joyous, attractive, combative, gifted person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.