Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:55:29.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political representation and the normative logic of two-level games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Deborah Savage  and
Albert Weale
Deborah Savage*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester C04 3SQ, UK
Albert Weale
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester C04 3SQ, UK
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper develops the normative logic of two-level games linking international negotiation and domestic acceptability. The kernel of the logic is to be found in the claim that normatively governed relations involve agents simultaneously asking whether the expectations that they have under an agreement are reasonable given the expectations of others under that agreement. This normative logic mirrors the empirical logic that Putnam (1988) identified in his seminal account.

The normative logic is derived from a consideration of relevant concepts of representation, and in particular the concepts of authorization in international negotiation and accountability in domestic ratification. Rawls’ (1996) distinction between the reasonable and the rational is then deployed to state normative conditions of domestic acceptability as well as the obligations of fairness that states owe to one another. Two implications for democratic theory are drawn.

Keywords

two-level gamesrepresentationaccountabilityinternational negotiations
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 63 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2009

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

Allison, G.Zelikow, P. (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd edn.,New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Barry, B. (1989), Theories of Justice, London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M. (2007a), ‘Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework’, European Law Journal 13(4): 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M. (2007b), ‘New forms of accountability and EU-governance’, Comparative European Politics 5(1): 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castiglione, D. (2007), ‘Accountability’, in M. Bevir (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Governance, Vol. 1, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Deitelhoff, N.Müller, H. (2005), ‘Theoretical paradise – empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas’, Review of International Studies 31: 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichengreen, B.Uzan, M. (1993), ‘The 1933 World Economic Conference as an instance of failed international cooperation’, in P.B. Evans, H.K. Jacobson and R.D. Putnam (eds), Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, pp. 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P.B., Jacobson, H.K.Putnam, R.D. (eds) (1993), Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R.W.Keohane, R.G. (2005), ‘Accountability and abuses of power in world politics’, American Political Science Review 99(1): 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A.Thompson, D. (2004), Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, London: Heinemann (translated by T. McCarthy).Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge: Polity Press (translated by W. Rehg).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J.R. (1939), ‘The foundations of welfare economics’, Economic Journal 49: 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J.R. (1941), ‘The rehabilitation of consumers’ surplus’, Review of Economic Studies 8: 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan edited with an introduction by M. Oakeshott, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, n.d.Google Scholar
Horndijk, L. (1991), ‘Integrated environmental economic systems’, in J.B. Opschoor and D.W. Pearce (eds), Persistent Pollutants, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joerges, C.Neyer, J. (1997), ‘Transforming strategic interaction into deliberative problem-solving: European comitology in the foodstuffs sector’, Journal of European Public Policy 4(4): 609–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaldor, N. (1939), ‘Welfare propositions of economics and inter-personal comparisons of utility’, Economic Journal 49: 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, S.D. (1999), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M.A., Young, O.R.Zürn, M. (1995), ‘The study of international regimes’, European Journal of International Relations 1: 267–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd Thomas, D.A. (1969), ‘Review of Hanna Fenichel Pitkin’, The Concept of Representation, Philosophical Quarterly 19(75): 186–187.Google Scholar
MacCormick, N. (1999), Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Munton, D., Soroos, M., Nikita, E.Levy, M.A. (1999), ‘Acid rain in Europe and North America’, in O.R. Young (ed.), The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms, Cambridge, MA, London, England: The MIT Press, pp. 155–247.Google Scholar
Niemann, A. (2004), ‘Between communicative action and strategic action: the Article 113 Committee and the negotiations on the WTO Basic Telecommunications Services Agreement’, Journal of European Public Policy 11(3): 379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panke, D. (2006), ‘More arguing than bargaining? The institutional designs of the European convention and intergovernmental conferences compared’, European Integration 28(4): 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, H. (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T.W. (2003), ‘The influence of the global order on the prospects for genuine democracy in developing countries’, in D. Archibugi (ed.), Debating Cosmopolitics, London, New York: Verso, pp. 117–140.Google Scholar
Pollack, M.A. (2001), ‘International relations theory and European integration’, Journal of Common Market Studies 39(2): 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R. (1945), The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vols. 1 and 2. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (1988), ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games’, International Organization 42(3): 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1996), Political Liberalism, revised edn., New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rehfeld, A. (2005), The Concept of Constituency, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehfeld, A. (2006), ‘Towards a general theory of political representation’, The Journal of Politics 68(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse, T. (2000), ‘ “Let’s Argue!”: communicative action in world politics’, International Organization 54(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, D.Weale, A. (2006), ‘The normative logic of two-level games and the European Union’, NewGov New Modes of Governance Project http://www.eu-newgov.org/database/DELIV/DDTFD04_Normative_Logic_of_Two-Level_Games_and_the_EU.pdfGoogle Scholar
Saward, M. (2006), ‘The representative claim’, Contemporary Political Theory 5: 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1891), The Elements of Politics, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1901), The Methods of Ethics, 6th edn., London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Underdal, A. (2000), ‘Comparative analysis: accounting for variance in actor behaviour’, in A. Underdal and K. Hanf (eds), International Environmental Agreements and Domestic Politics, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 341–384.Google Scholar
Weale, A. (1992), The New Politics of Pollution, Manchester, New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Weale, A. (1998), ‘From contracts to pluralism?’, in P. Kelly (ed.), Impartiality, Neutrality and Justice: Re-reading Brian Barry’s Justice as Impartiality, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Weale, A. (2007), Democracy, 2nd edn., Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. (1989), International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O.R. (1999), ‘Regime effectiveness: taking stock’, in O.R. Young (ed.), The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms, Cambridge, MA, London, England: The MIT Press, pp. 249–279.Google Scholar
Young, O.Levy, M.A. (1999), ‘The effectiveness of international environmental regimes’, in O.R. Young (ed.), The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms, Cambridge, MA, London, England: The MIT Press, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar