Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T07:58:30.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioral Aspects of the International Law of Global Public Goods and Common Pool Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2018

Anne van Aaken
Anne van Aaken*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law and Economics, Legal Theory, Public International Law and European Law, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Collective action problems with public good characteristics such as climate change have important implications for international law. This note argues that behavioral insights from laboratory experiments, in which individuals engage in public goods games, can contribute to our understanding of how best to optimize the design of international legal regimes dealing with global public goods and common pool resources. Behavioral economics, to the extent it supplements or displaces rational-choice models in institutional design, may enable deeper and more sustained forms of international cooperation.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 112 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 67 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For details of a rationalist account on collective action problems in international law with further references, see Barkin, Samuel & Rashchupkina, Yuliya, Public Goods, Common Pool Resources, and International Law , 111 AJIL 376 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See id. (relying on the rationalist approach). See also Brunnée, Jutta, The Kyoto Protocol: A Testing Ground for Compliance Theories? , 63 Heidelberg J. Int'l L. 255 (2003)Google Scholar.

3 Compliance theories are also theories about “the nature and operation” of international law more generally. Kingsbury, Benedict, The Concept of Compliance as a Function of Competing Conceptions of International Law , 19 Mich. J. Int'l L. 345, 346 (1998)Google Scholar. For a rationalist treatment in the field of international relations, see Downs, George W., Rocke, David M. & Barsoom, Peter N., Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? , 50 Int’l Org. 379 (1996)Google Scholar.

4 As analyzed by Hardin, Garrett, The Tragedy of the Commons , 162 Sci. 1243 (1968)Google ScholarPubMed.

5 As analyzed by Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (1971)Google Scholar.

6 Sandler, Todd, Global and Regional Public Goods: A Prognosis for Collective Action , 19 Fiscal Stud. 221 (1998)Google Scholar; Sandler, Todd, Strategic Aspects of Difficult Global Challenges , 7 Glob. Pol'y 33 (2016)Google Scholar.

7 Ostrom, Elinor, A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action , 92 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 1, 2 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For details, see Goldsmith, Jack L. & Posner, Eric A., The Limits of International Law 195–96 (2005)Google Scholar; Barrett, Scott, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Public Goods 16–18 (2007)Google Scholar.

9 See Cornes, Richard & Sandler, Todd, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods (1986)Google Scholar; and for global public goods, see Barrett, supra note 8; Barrett, Scott, International Cooperation and the International Commons , 10 Duke Envtl L. & Pol'y F. 131 (1999)Google Scholar; Snidal, Duncan, The Game Theory of International Politics , 38 World Pol. 25, 27, 28 (1985)Google Scholar.

10 Posner, Eric A. & Sykes, Alan O., Economic Foundations of International Law 232 (2013)Google Scholar.

11 Ostrom, Elinor, Burger, Joanna, Field, Christopher B., Norgaard, Richard B. & Policansky, David, Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges , 284 Sci. 278, 279 (1999)Google ScholarPubMed.’

12 Ostrom, supra note 7, at 3.

13 Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 185 Sci. 1124 (1974)Google ScholarPubMed; Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice , 211 Sci. 453 (1981)Google Scholar; Camerer, Colin, Behavioral Economics: Reunifying Psychology and Economics , 96 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 10575 (1999)Google ScholarPubMed; Rabin, Matthew, Psychology and Economics , 36 J. Econ. Lit. 11 (1998)Google Scholar.

14 But see van Aaken, Anne, Behavioral International Law and Economics , 55 Harv. Int'l L.J. 421 (2014)Google Scholar; Broude, Tomer, Behavioral International Law , 163 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1099 (2015)Google Scholar. International relations scholarship has begun to incorporate behavioral insights, although primarily in pieces that do not address international law. See Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Haggard, Stephan, Lake, David A. & Victor, David G., The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations , 71 Int'l Org. Supp. S1 (2017)Google Scholar. A discussion on the value of experiments in international law is found in Dunoff, Jeffrey L. & Pollock, Mark A., Experimenting with International Law , Eur. J. Int'l L. (forthcoming 2017)Google Scholar, available at doi:10.1093/ejil/chx076.

15 Ostrom, supra note 7, at 1 (emphasis in original). “Social-dilemma situation” is another term for a collective action problem.

16 I use psychology and behavioral economics interchangeably. Both fields have contributed to relevant insights and seek to understand deviations from behavior predicted by rational choice models.

17 For constructivist approaches to collective action problems in international law, see, instead of many, Brunnée, Jutta & Toope, Stephan J., Legitimacy and Legality in International Law. An Interactional Account (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brunnée, supra note 2.

18 See McDermott, Rose, Political Psychology in International Relations (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 For an entire journal issue devoted to the subject, see The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations , 71 Int'l Org. (2017)Google Scholar. For a call for experiments in international law, see Chilton, Adam S. & Tingley, Dustin H., Why the Study of International Law Needs Experiments , 52 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 173 (2013)Google Scholar.

20 Gowdy, John M., Behavioral Economics and Climate Change Policy , 68 J. Econ. Behav. & Org. 632, 632 (2008)Google Scholar (“[Behavioral economics] suggests that the standard economic approach to climate change policy, with its focus on narrowly rational, self-regarding responses to monetary incentives, is seriously flawed.”).

21 Moravcsik, Andrew, Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics , 51 Int'l Org. 513 (1997)Google Scholar; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Liberal Theory of International Law , 94 ASIL Proc. 240 (2000)Google Scholar. See Birnie, Patricia, Boyle, Alan E. & Redgwell, Catherine, International Law & the Environment 268–335 (2009)Google Scholar.

22 Kaul, Inge, Blondin, Donald & Nahtigal, Neva, Understanding Global Public Goods: Where We Stand; and Where to Next , in Global Public Goods, at xix (Kaul, Inge ed., 2016)Google Scholar; Kaul, Inge & Mendoza, Ronald U., Advancing the Concept of Global Public Goods , in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization (Kaul, Inge, Conceição, Pedro, Goulven, Katell Le & Mendoza, Ronald U. eds., 2003)Google Scholar.

23 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Remarks, The Big Picture: Beyond Hot Spots & Crises in Our Interconnected World , 1 Penn St. J. L. & Int'l Aff. 286, 294 (2012)Google Scholar.

24 For details, van Aaken, supra note 14, at 439–49.

25 Hart, Oliver & Moore, John, Contracts as Reference Points , 123 Q. J. Econ. 1 (2008)Google Scholar.

26 For other deviations from the rational choice model, see van Aaken, supra note 14, and Broude, supra note 14.

27 See generally Güth, Werner, Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining , 3 J. Econ. Behav. & Org. 367 (1982)Google Scholar.

28 See Engel, Christoph, Dictator Games: A Meta Study , 14 Experimental Econ. 583 (2011)Google Scholar.

29 Ostrom, supra note 7, at 2.

30 Cosmides, Leda & Tooby, John, Better than Rational: Evolutionary Psychology and the Invisible Hand , 84 Am. Econ. Rev. 327 (1994)Google Scholar.

31 Ostrom, supra note 7, at 3.

32 Fehr, Ernst & Rockenbach, Bettina, Detrimental Effects of Sanctions on Human Altruism , 422 Nature 137, 137 (2003)Google Scholar.

33 See Cookson, R., Framing Effects in Public Goods Experiments , 3 Experimental Econ. 55, 55 (2000)Google Scholar, and Ellingsen, Tore, Johannesson, Magnus, Mollerstrom, Johanna & Munkhammar, Sara, Social Framing Effects: Preferences or Beliefs? , 76 Games & Econ. Behav. 117, 118 (2012)Google Scholar for different theories about framing.

34 Cookson, supra note 33, at 55; Tversky & Kahneman, The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, supra note 13.

35 Ellingsen & others, supra note 33.

36 Tversky & Kahneman, The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, supra note 13; Tversky, Amos & Kahnemann, Daniel, Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions , 59 J. Bus. S251 (1986)Google Scholar.

37 Dufwenberg, Martin, Gächter, Simon & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike, The Framing of Games and the Psychology of Play , 73 Games & Econ. Behav. 459 (2011)Google Scholar.

38 Camerer, supra note 13, at 75.

39 Richard J. Eiser & Kum Kum Bhavnani, The Effect of Situational Meaning on the Behaviour of Subjects in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game, 4 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 93 (1974).

40 Skyrms, Brian, The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure (2004)Google Scholar (framing the prisoner's dilemma as a trust game).

41 Cf. Camerer, Colin, Behavioral Game Theory. Experiments in Strategic Interaction 3 (2003)Google Scholar.

42 Gowdy, supra note 20, at 633 (with further references to experiments). See also Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism—Experimental Evidence and New Theories , in Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity Vol. I, at 618 (Kolm, Serge & Ythier, Jean Mercier eds., 2006)Google Scholar (“[T]he real question is no longer whether many people have other-regarding preferences, but under which conditions these preferences have important economic and social effects.”).

43 Gächter, Simon, Human Pro-social Motivation and the Maintenance of Social Order , in Handbook on Behavioral Economics and the Law 37 (Zamir, Eyal and Teichman, Doron eds., 2014)Google Scholar.

44 Id. at 38. For a discussion of how guilt aversion influences behavior, see Haidt, Jonathan, The Moral Emotions , in Handbook of Affective Sciences (Davidson, Richard J., Sherer, Klaus R. & Goldsmith, H. Hill eds., 2003)Google Scholar and Charness, Gary & Dufwenberg, Martin, Promises and Partnership , 74 Econometrica 1579 (2006)Google Scholar.

45 See Gächter, supra note 43, at 38 et seq.

46 See, instead of many on expressive law theory, McAdams, Richard H., The Expressive Powers of Law: Theories and Limits (2015)Google Scholar.

47 Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel, A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition , 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 166 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fehr & Schmidt, supra note 42; Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests, 117 Q. J. Econ. 817 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Serge Kolm, Reciprocity: Its Scope, Rationales, and Consequences, in Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity Vol. I, supra note 42, at 371. Keohane, Robert O., Reciprocity in International Relations , 40 Int'l Org. 1, 3 (1986)Google Scholar. See also, extensively, Bowles, Samuel & Gintis, Herbert, A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (2011)Google Scholar.

49 Gintis, Herbert, Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality , 206 J. Theoretical Bio. 169 (2000)Google Scholar; Bowles & Gintis, supra note 48.

50 Keohane, supra note 48, at 4 (defining specific reciprocity as “situations in which specified partners exchange items of equivalent value in a strictly delimited sequence”).

51 Id. (defining diffuse reciprocity as “conforming to generally accepted standards of behavior”).

52 See, e.g., Gintis, supra note 49; Bowles & Gintis, supra note 48, at 20.

53 Surveyed in Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, Reciprocity, Culture, and Human Cooperation: Previous Insights and a New Cross-Cultural Experiment , 364 Phil. Transactions Royal Soc’y B – Biological Sci. 791 (2009)Google Scholar.

54 Ostrom, Burger, Field, Norgaard & Policansky, supra note 11, at 279.

55 Mitchell, Ronald B., Flexibility, Compliance and Norm Development in the Climate Regime , in Implementing the Climate Regime: International Compliance 77 (Hovi, Jon, Stokke, Olav & Ulfstein, Geir eds., 2005)Google Scholar.

56 Van Aaken, supra note 14, at 474.

57 U.S. Dep't of State Press Release, Communication Regarding Intent to Withdraw from Paris Agreement (Aug. 4, 2017), at https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/08/273050.htm. For an analysis of the legal consequences, see Rajamani, Lavanya & Brunnée, Jutta, The Legality of Downgrading Nationally Determined Contributions Under the Paris Agreement: Lessons from the US Disengagement , 29 J. Envtl L. 537 (2017)Google Scholar.

58 Daniel Boffey & Arthur Neslen, China and EU Strengthen Promise to Paris Deal with US Poised to Step Away, Guardian (June 1, 2017), at https:// www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/china-eu-climate-lead-paris-agreement.

59 See, e.g., Goldsmith & Posner, supra note 8, at 175–80.

60 See Charness, Gary, Self-Serving Cheap Talk: A Test Of Aumann's Conjecture , 33 Games & Econ. Behav. 177 (2000)Google Scholar.

61 Ostrom, supra note 7, at 7; Camerer, supra note 41, at 76 with further references.

62 Ostrom, supra note 7, at 7.

63 Id.

64 Falk, Armin, Fehr, Ernst & Fischbacher, Urs, Testing Theories of Fairness—Intentions Matter , 62 Games & Econ. Behav. (2008)Google Scholar.

65 Gürerk, Özgür, Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions , 312 Sci. 108 (2006)Google Scholar. This has been shown in common pool resources (CPR) experiments as well. See Falk, Armin, Fehr, Ernst & Fischbacher, Urs, Appropriating the Commons—A Theoretical Explanation , in The Drama of the Commons (Ostrom, Elinor, Dietz, Thomas, Dolsak, Nives, Stern, Paul C., Stonich, Susan & Weber, Elke U. eds., 2002)Google Scholar (finding that there is less appropriation in CPR and more contibution to public goods if the institutional setup allows for (informal) sanctions and communication).

66 See Chayes, Abram & Chayes, Antonia Handler, The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements 32–33 (1998)Google Scholar. See also Downs, Rocke & Barsoom, supra note 3.

67 Bowles & Gintis, supra note 48, at 28.

68 This experimental research has also been validated by field research, most prominently by Tyler, Tom R., Why People Obey the Law (1990)Google Scholar.

69 O'Gorman, Rick, Henrich, Joseph & Vugt, Mark Van, Constraining Free Riding in Public Goods Games: Designated Solitary Punishers Can Sustain Human Cooperation , 276 Proc. Royal Soc’y B – Biological Sci. 323 (2009)Google Scholar.

70 Ginther, Matthew R., Bonnie, Richard J., Hoffman, Morris B., Shen, Francis X., Simons, Kenneth W., Jones, Owen D. & Marois, René, Parsing the Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms of Third-Party Punishment , 36 J. Neuroscience 9420 (2016)Google Scholar (showing that “third-party punishment is … crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society”).

71 Brunnée, supra note 2, at 272 (“This mandate is designed to preserve the technical and factual focus of expert review and to clearly separate it from potentially sensitive and politicized compliance issues.”). See also United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 UNTS 107; Marrakesh Accords, Jan. 21, 2002, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Adds. 1–4.

72 Brunnée, supra note 2, at 256.

73 Mitchell, supra note 55, at 73 et seq.

74 For further examples, see Brunnée, supra note 2, at 274.

75 Decision 27/CMP.1, Procedures and Mechanisms Relating to Compliance Under the Kyoto Protocol, at V.6, UN Doc. FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3.

76 Jon Hovi, Olav Stokke & Geir Ulfstein, Introduction and Main Findings, in Implementing the Climate Regime: International Compliance, supra note 55, at 3.

77 Shishlov, Igor, Morel, Romain & Bellassen, Valentin, Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the First Commitment Period , 16 Climate Pol'y 768 (2016)Google Scholar.

78 Hathaway, Oana A. & Shapiro, Scott, Outcasting: Enforcement in Domestic and International Law , 212 Yale L.J. 252 (2011)Google Scholar.

79 Id. For the definition of club goods, see Buchanan, James M., An Economic Theory of Clubs , 32 Economica 1 (1965)Google Scholar.

80 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Sept. 16, 1987, 1522 UNTS 29.

81 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Mar. 3, 1973, 993 UNTS 243. Articles III, IV, and V regulate the trade in endangered species differently depending on the how endangered the species is. Without import and export certificates, no trade can take place.

82 For details, see van Aaken, Anne, Effectuating Public International Law Through Market Mechanisms , 165 J. Institutional & Theoretical Econ. 33 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and van Aaken, Anne, Trust, Verify or Incentivize? Effectuating Public International Law Regulating Public Goods Through Market Mechanisms , 104 ASIL Proc. 153 (2011)Google Scholar. On the efficacy of this device, see Gary Charness & Chun-Lei Yang, Public Goods Provision with Voting for Exclusion, Exit, and Mergers: An Experiment, at 21 (Working Paper, 2010), available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228687877_Public_Goods_Provision_with_Voting_for_Exclusion_Exit_and_Mergers_An_Experiment; Cinyabuguma, Matthias, Page, Talbot & Putterman, Louis, Cooperation Under the Threat of Expulsion in a Public Goods Experiment , 89 J. Pub. Econ. 1421 (2005)Google Scholar (finding “that contributions rose to nearly 100% of endowments with significantly higher efficiency compared with a no-expulsion baseline.” Expulsions were strictly of the lowest contributors, and there was an exceptionally strong fall-off in contributions in the last period, when the expulsion threat was unavailable.).

83 Charness & Yang, supra note 82.

84 Chakravarty, Surajeet Chakravarty & Fonseca, Miguel A., Discrimination via Exclusion: An Experiment on Group Identity and Club Goods , 19 J. Pub. Econ. Theory 244 (2017)Google Scholar (finding that club goods allow subjects to display their preferences for interaction with their in-group members, as well as positive in-group reciprocity).

85 Bowles & Gintis, supra note 48, at 29 et seq.

86 As here, Hafner-Burton, Haggard, Lake & Victor, supra note 14, at S3.

87 For a comparison between rationalist and constructivist approaches, see Fearon, James & Wendt, Alexander, Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View , in Handbook of International Relations (Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas & Simmons, Beth A. eds., 2002)Google Scholar.

88 See Brunnée, supra note 2, at 257, and seminal: Finnemore, Martha & Sikkink, Kathryn, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change , 52 Int'l Org. 887 (1998)Google Scholar.