No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2025
Technology is of increasing importance for international cooperation, yet theory development in rationalist International Relations has not kept pace. I develop a theoretical framework for explaining cooperative outcomes in the international regulation of technology. I propose that uncertainty and the distribution of material capacities create a severe international collective action problem for novel technologies, which precludes robust cooperative outcomes and thus limits joint gains from the appropriation of technological benefits and from the mitigation of technological risks. While the severity of the collective action problem attenuates over time, in principle enabling greater ambition in cooperative outcomes, sociotechnical lock-in reduces the capacities and incentives of state actors to deviate from pre-existing rules. This leads to incremental change whereby rules harden over time but do not change significantly in terms of their regulatory substance. While early regulatory interventions are hampered by collective action problems, late interventions are constrained by lock-in. These temporal dynamics create a tendency towards systemic inefficiency in international technology regulation. I illustrate this argument using the cases of nuclear power and synthetic biology.
1 Ingvild Bode, ‘Norm‐making and the Global South: Attempts to regulate Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems’, Global Policy, 10:3 (2019), pp. 359–64.
2 Sebastian Oberthür and Thomas Gehring, ‘Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: The case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization’, Global Environmental Politics, 6:2 (2006), pp. 1–31; Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
3 Dario Piselli, ‘International sharing of pathogens and genetic sequence data under a pandemic treaty: What linkages with the Nagoya Protocol and the PIP Framework?’, Global Health Centre Policy Brief, (2022).
4 Stuart Haszeldine, Stephanie Flude, Gareth Johnson, and Vivian Scott, ‘Negative emissions technologies and carbon capture and storage to achieve the Paris Agreement commitments’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376:2119 (2018), p. 20160447.
5 Robert Falkner and Nico Jaspers, ‘Regulating nanotechnologies: Risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap’, Global Environmental Politics, 12:1 (2012), pp. 30–55; Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, ‘Why the world needs an international cyberwar convention’, Philosophy & Technology, 31:3 (2018), pp. 379–407; Joan Johnson‐Freese and Brian Weeden, ‘Application of Ostrom’s principles for sustainable governance of common‐pool resources to near‐earth orbit’, Global Policy, 3:1 (2012), pp. 72–81; Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Araz Taeihagh, ‘Governance of artificial intelligence’, Policy and Society, 40:2 (2021), pp. 137–57.
6 Rolf Lidskog and Göran Sundqvist, ‘When does science matter? International Relations meets Science and Technology Studies’, Global Environmental Politics, 15:1 (2015), pp. 1–20; Daniel McCarthy, ‘Technology and “the international” or: How I learned to stop worrying and love determinism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 41:3 (2013), pp. 470–90; Daniel McCarthy (ed.), Technology and World Politics: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2018).
7 E.g. Daniel W. Drezner, ‘Technological change and international relations’, International Relations, 33:2 (2019), pp. 286–303; Jane Vaynman and Tristan Volpe, ‘Dual use deception: How technology shapes cooperation in international relations’, International Organization, 77:3 (2023), pp. 599–632; Florian Rabitz, Transformative Novel Technologies and Global Environmental Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023); Jeffrey Ding, ‘The rise and fall of technological leadership: General-purpose technology diffusion and economic power transitions’, International Studies Quarterly, 68:2 (2024), pp. 1–14.
8 E.g. Nichola Raihani and David Aitken, ‘Uncertainty, rationality and cooperation in the context of climate change’, Climatic Change, 108:1 (2011), pp. 47–55; Carsten Helm, ‘International cooperation behind the veil of uncertainty: The case of transboundary acidification’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 12:2 (1998), pp. 185–201; Pollack and Shaffer, When Cooperation Fails.
9 See Michael Zürn, ‘Historical institutionalism and international relations: Strange bedfellows?’, in Thomas Rixen, Lora Anne Viola, and Michael Zürn (eds), Historical Institutionalism & International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 199–228 (pp. 199–200).
10 David Collingridge, The Social Control of Technology (London: Pinter, 1980); Gary Marchant, ‘The growing gap between emerging technologies and the law’, in Gary Marchant, Braden Allenby and Joseph Herkert (eds), The Growing Gap between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011), pp. 19–34.
11 Kenneth W. Abbott, Robert O. Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal, ‘The concept of legalization’, International Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 401–19.
12 E.g. Frank W. Geels, ‘From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory’, Research Policy, 33:6–7 (2004), pp. 897–920; Johan Schot and Frank W. Geels, ‘Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17:5 (2007), pp. 605–22; Jochen Markard and Bernhard Truffer, ‘Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework’, Research Policy, 37:4 (2008), pp. 596–615.
13 Maximilian Mayer, Mariana Carpes, and Ruth Knoblich (eds), The Global Politics of Science and Technology: An Introduction (Heidelberg: Springer, 2014); Lidskog and Sundqvist, ‘When does science matter?’; McCarthy (ed.), Technology and World Politics.
14 Drezner, ‘Technological change and international relations’; Ding, ‘The rise and fall of technological leadership’.
15 Vaynman and Volpe, ‘Dual use deception’; Guillaume Beaumier and Madison Cartwright, ‘Cross-network weaponization in the semiconductor supply chain’, International Studies Quarterly, 68:1 (2024), pp. 1–18.
16 See Johnson-Freese and Weeden, ‘Application of Ostrom’s principles’.
17 Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); William M. Alley and Rosemarie Alley, Too Hot to Touch: The Problem of High-Level Nuclear Waste (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
18 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Synthetic Biology. CBD Technical Series No. 100 (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022); see also Pollack and Shaffer, When Cooperation Fails.
19 E.g. Piselli, ‘International sharing of pathogens and genetic sequence data under a pandemic treaty’.
20 See Scott Barrett, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
21 Ronald B. Mitchell and Patricia Keilbach, ‘Situation structure and institutional design: Reciprocity, coercion, and exchange’, International Organization, 55:4 (2001), pp. 891–917.
22 Marchant, ‘The growing gap between emerging technologies and the law’.
23 William E. Scheuerman, Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009); Alexander Wendt, ‘Why a world state is inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4 (2003), pp. 491–542.
24 Collingridge, The Social Control of Technology, p. 19.
25 Gregory C. Unruh, ‘Understanding carbon lock-in’, Energy Policy, 28:12 (2000), pp. 817–30; Gregory Trencher, Adrian Rinscheid, Mert, Duygan, Nhi Truong, and Jusen Asuka, ‘Revisiting carbon lock-in in energy systems: Explaining the perpetuation of coal power in Japan’, Energy Research & Social Science, 69 (2020), p. 101770.
26 Abbott et al., ‘The concept of legalization’.
27 Thomas Bernauer, Anna Kalbhenn, Vally Koubi, and Gabriele Spilker, ‘Is there a “depth versus participation” dilemma in international cooperation?’, The Review of International Organizations, 8:4 (2013), pp. 477–97; Deborah Farias and Charles Roger, ‘Differentiation in environmental treaty making: Measuring provisions and how they reshape the depth-participation dilemma’, Global Environmental Politics, 23:1 (2022), pp. 117–32.
28 See James Mahoney, ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’, Theory and Society, 29:4 (2000), pp. 507–48.
29 Geels, ‘From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems’, p. 900; see also Schot and Geels, ‘Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change’; Markard and Truffer, ‘Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective’; Lea Fuenfschilling and Christian Binz, ‘Global socio-technical regimes’, Research Policy, 47:4 (2018), pp. 735–49.
30 Unruh, ‘Understanding carbon lock-in’, pp. 825–6.
31 Bernward Joerges, ‘Large technical systems: Concepts and issues’, in Renate Mayntz and Thomas P. Hughes (eds), The Development of Large Technical Systems (Frankfurt: Campus, 1988), pp. 9–36; Thomas P. Hughes, ‘The evolution of large technical systems’, in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012), pp. 45–76.
32 Geoffrey L. Herrera, Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change (New York: SUNY Press, 2006), pp. 35–6.
33 See Geels, ‘From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems’, p. 904.
34 Franco Malerba, ‘Sectoral systems of innovation and production’, Research Policy, 31:2 (2002), pp. 247–64.
35 Bo Carlsson and Rikard Stankiewicz, ‘On the nature, function and composition of technological systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1 (1991), pp. 93–118.
36 E.g. Fuenfschilling and Binz, ‘Global socio-technical regimes’.
37 Giovanni Dosi, ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change’, Research Policy, 11:3 (1982), pp. 147–62.
38 Richard R. Nelson, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 258.
39 Frank W. Geels and Rene Kemp, ‘Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies’, Technology in Society, 29:4 (2007), pp. 441–55 (p. 443).
40 See Mahoney, ‘Path dependence in historical sociology’; Jürgen Beyer, ‘The same or not the same: On the variety of mechanisms of path dependence’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4:3 (2010), pp. 186–96.
41 See Thomas Rixen and Lora Viola, ‘Putting path dependence in its place: Toward a taxonomy of institutional change’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 27:2 (2015), pp. 301–23.
42 Paul Pierson, ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’, American Political Science Review, 94:2 (2000), pp. 251–67.
43 See Johannes Gerschewski, ‘Explanations of institutional change: Reflecting on a “missing diagonal”’, American Political Science Review, 115:1 (2021), pp. 218–33.
44 See McCarthy, ‘Technology and ‘the international”’.
45 Herrera, Technology and International Transformation, p. 36.
46 See Rose Cairns, ‘Climate geoengineering: Issues of path‐dependence and socio‐technical lock‐in’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5:5 (2014), pp. 649–61 (p. 650).
47 Glenn R. Carroll and J. Richard Harrison, ‘On the historical efficiency of competition between organizational populations’, American Journal of Sociology, 100:3 (1993), pp. 720–49.
48 E.g. Unruh, ‘Understanding carbon lock-in’, Antje Klitkou, Simon Bolwig, Teis Hansen, and Nina Wessberg, ‘The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes: The case of energy for road transport’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16 (2015), pp. 22–37; Karen C. Seto, Steven J. Davis, Ronald B. Mitchell, et al., ‘Carbon lock-in: Types, causes and policy implications’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41:1 (2016), pp. 425–52.
49 Douglass C. North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
50 James Fearon and Alexander Wendt, ‘Rationalism v. constructivism: A skeptical view’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 52–72.
51 Dosi, ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories’; Nelson, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
52 Pierson, ‘Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics’.
53 Unruh, ‘Understanding carbon lock-in’; Cairns, ‘Climate geoengineering’.
54 Klitkou et al., ‘The role of lock-in mechanisms in transition processes’.
55 Trencher et al., ‘Revisiting carbon lock-in in energy systems’.
56 Cairns, ‘Climate geoengineering’.
57 Fearon and Wendt, ‘Rationalism v. constructivism’.
58 Machteld Simoens, Lea Fuenfschilling, and Sina Leipold, ‘Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in socio-technical systems: An overview and a way forward’, Sustainability Science, 17:5 (2022), pp. 1841–53.
59 See Jeroen Van der Heijden, ‘Institutional layering: A review of the use of the concept’, Politics, 31:1 (2011), pp. 9–18.
60 Christian Bueger, Tobias Liebetrau, and Jan Stockbruegger, ‘Theorizing infrastructures in global politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 67:4 (2023), pp. 1–10.
61 Unruh, ‘Understanding carbon lock-in’.
62 See Barrett, Why Cooperate?
63 Rebecca D. Gibbons, ‘The humanitarian turn in nuclear disarmament and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons’, The Nonproliferation Review, 25:1–2 (2018), pp. 11–36.
64 Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, ‘Why the world needs an international cyberwar convention’, p. 404.
65 Rossana Deplano, ‘The Artemis Accords: Evolution or revolution in international space law?’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 70:3 (2021), pp. 799–819.
66 Pollack and Shaffer, When Cooperation Fails; Robert Falkner, ‘The political economy of “normative power” Europe: EU environmental leadership in international biotechnology regulation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14:4 (2007), pp. 507–26.
67 See Richard R. Nelson and Nathan Rosenberg, ‘Technical innovation and national systems’, in Richard R. Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 3–21; Marian Beise, ‘Lead markets: Country-specific drivers of the global diffusion of innovations’, Research Policy, 33:6–7 (2004), pp. 997–1018.
68 Duncan Snidal, ‘The limits of hegemonic stability theory’, International Organization, 39:4 (1985), pp. 579–614.
69 See Brian C. Rathbun, ‘Uncertain about uncertainty: Understanding the multiple meanings of a crucial concept in International Relations theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 51:3 (2007), pp. 533–57.
70 Keisuke Iida, ‘Analytic uncertainty and international cooperation: Theory and application to international economic policy coordination’, International Studies Quarterly, 37:4 (1993), pp. 431–57.
71 Helm, ‘International cooperation behind the veil of uncertainty’.
72 Barbara Koremenos, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal, ‘The rational design of international institutions’, International Organization, 55:4 (2001), pp. 761–99.
73 Alexander Thompson, ‘Rational design in motion: Uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010), pp. 269–96 (p. 272).
74 Radoslav S. Dimitrov, ‘Knowledge, power and interests in environmental regime formation’, International Studies Quarterly, 47:1 (2003), pp. 123–50.
75 Jeffrey A. Frankel and Katharine E. Rockett, ‘International macroeconomic policy coordination when policymakers do not agree on the true model’, American Economic Review, 78:3 (1988), pp. 318–40.
76 See James Fearon, ‘Rationalist explanations for war’, International Organization, 49:3 (1995), pp. 379–414 (p. 392).
77 Andreas Hasenclever, Peter Mayer, and Volker Rittberger, ‘Integrating theories of international regimes’, Review of International Studies, 26:1 (2000), pp. 3–33 (p. 26).
78 Iida, ‘Analytic uncertainty and international cooperation’; Koremenos et al., ‘The rational design of international institutions’.
79 Scott Barrett and Astrid Dannenberg, ‘Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:43 (2012), pp. 17372–6.
80 Helm, ‘International cooperation behind the veil of uncertainty’.
81 Dimitrov, ‘Knowledge, power and interests in environmental regime formation’.
82 Iida, ‘Analytic uncertainty and international cooperation’, p. 444.
83 Falkner and Jaspers, ‘Regulating nanotechnologies’.
84 Taeihagh, ‘Governance of artificial intelligence’.
85 Helm, ‘International cooperation behind the veil of uncertainty’; Frankel and Rockett, ‘International macroeconomic policy coordination’.
86 See Daniele Rotolo, Diana Hicks, and Ben R. Martin, ‘What is an emerging technology?’, Research Policy, 44:10 (2015), pp. 1827–43.
87 See Dimitrov, ‘Knowledge, power and interests in environmental regime formation’.
88 James D. Fearon, ‘Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science’, World Politics, 43:2 (1991), pp. 169–95; Richard N. Lebow, Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010).
89 See CBD, Synthetic Biology, CBD Technical Series No. 100, (2022).
90 George Church and Ed Regis, Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves (New York: Basic Books, 2014).
91 See Bruce L. Webber, S. Raghu, and Owain R. Edwards, ‘Is CRISPR-based gene drive a biocontrol silver bullet or global conservation threat?’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112:34 (2015), pp. 10565–7; Jonathan Symons, Thomas A. Dixon, Jacqueline Dalziell, et al., ‘Engineering biology and climate change mitigation: Policy considerations’, Nature Communications, 15:2669 (2024), pp. 1–9.
92 See Finja Bohle, Robin Schneider, Juliane Mundorf, et al., ‘Where does the EU-path on NTGs lead us?’, Frontiers in Genome Editing, 6 (2024), available at: {https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.1897.v1}.
93 Jesse L. Reynolds, ‘Governing new biotechnologies for biodiversity conservation: Gene drives, international law, and emerging politics’, Global Environmental Politics, 20:3 (2020), pp. 28–48; CBD, Synthetic Biology: Decision 15/31 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD/COP/DEC/15/31, (2022).
94 Rotolo et al., ‘What is an emerging technology?’.
95 See Tao Sun, Jie Song, Meng Wang, Chao Zhao, and Weiwen Zhang, ‘Challenges and recent progress in the governance of biosecurity risks in the era of synthetic biology’, Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, 4:1 (2022), pp. 59–67.
96 Reynolds, Governing New Biotechnologies for Biodiversity Conservation; CBD, Synthetic Biology, Decision 15/31.
97 Bohle et al., ‘Where does the EU-path on NTGs lead us?’.
98 Reynolds, Governing New Biotechnologies for Biodiversity Conservation.
99 See CBD, Synthetic Biology, Decision 15/31; Symons et al., ‘Engineering biology and climate change mitigation’.
100 Piselli, ‘International sharing of pathogens and genetic sequence data under a pandemic treaty’.
101 Philip Shapira, Seokbeom Kwon, and Jan Youtie, ‘Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology’, Scientometrics, 112 (2017), pp. 1439–69; CBD, Synthetic Biology. CBD Technical Series No. 100.
102 Shapira et al., ‘Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology’; Florian Rabitz, ‘The organizational structure of global gene drive research’, Global Environmental Change, 84 (2024), pp. 1–12.
103 See Reynolds, ‘Governing new biotechnologies for biodiversity conservation’.
104 See Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten, ‘Developing a framework for responsible innovation’, Research Policy, 42:9 (2013), pp. 1568–80; Nimisha Pandey, Heleen de Coninck, and Ambuj D. Sagar, ‘Beyond technology transfer: Innovation cooperation to advance sustainable development in developing countries’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 11:2 (2022), pp. 1–25.
105 Aarti Gupta and Robert Falkner, ‘The influence of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: Comparing Mexico, China and South Africa’, Global Environmental Politics, 6:4 (2006), pp. 23–55; Falkner and Jaspers, ‘Regulating nanotechnologies’.
106 See Steven M. Cohn, Too Cheap to Meter: An Economic and Philosophical Analysis of the Nuclear Dream (New York: SUNY Press, 1997).
107 Sonja D. Schmid, Producing Power: The Pre-Chernobyl History of the Soviet Nuclear Industry (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015); Arne Kaijser, Markku Lehtonen, Jan-Henrik Meyer, and Mar Rubio-Varas, ‘Introduction: Nuclear energy and society in postwar Europe’, in Arne Kaijser, Markku Lehtonen, Jan-Henrik Meyer, and Mar Rubio-Varas (eds), Engaging the Atom: The History of Nuclear Energy and Society in Europe from the 1950s to the Present (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2021), pp. 1–24.
108 IAEA, World Statistics: Power Reactor Information System (2024), https://pris.iaea.org.
109 IAEA, World Statistics; see also Robert J. Budnitz, H. Holger Rogner, and Adnan Shihab-Eldin, ‘Expansion of nuclear power technology to new countries: SMRs, safety culture issues and the need for an improved international safety regime’, Energy Policy, 119 (2018), pp. 535–44.
110 Alley and Alley, Too Hot to Touch, p. 23.
111 Lucas W. Davis, ‘Prospects for nuclear power’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26:1 (2012), pp. 49–66.
112 See Perrow, Normal Accidents.
113 Vanda Lamm, ‘Reflections on the development of international nuclear law’, Nuclear Law Bulletin, 99 (2017), pp. 31–44.
114 See Mohamed Elbaradei, Edwin Nwogugu, and John Rames, ‘International law and nuclear energy: Overview of the legal framework’, IAEA Bulletin, 37:3 (1995), pp. 16–25.
115 Nathan E. Hultman, ‘The political economy of nuclear energy’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2:3 (2011), pp. 397–411 (p. 397).
116 Hultman, ‘The political economy of nuclear energy’.
117 See Lamm, ‘Reflections on the development of international nuclear law’.
118 E.g. Jeff D. Colgan, Robert O. Keohane, and Thijs van de Graaf, ‘Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex’, The Review of International Organizations, 7 (2012), pp. 117–43.
119 Menno T. Kamminga, ‘The IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 44:4 (1995), pp. 872–82 (p. 873).
120 Selma Kus, ‘International nuclear law in the 25 years between Chernobyl and Fukushima and beyond’, Nuclear Law Bulletin, 87 (2011), pp. 7–26 (p. 9).
121 Kus, ‘International nuclear law’, p. 9; see also Aleksandra Čavoški, ‘Revisiting the Convention on Nuclear Safety: Lessons learned from the Fukushima accident’, Asian Journal of International Law, 3:2 (2013), pp. 365–91 (p. 368); Kamminga, ‘The IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety’, p. 881.
122 Lamm, ‘Reflections on the development of international nuclear law’, p. 41.
123 Kamminga, ‘The IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety’, p. 877; Kus, ‘International nuclear law’.
124 Kus, ‘International nuclear law’; Čavoški, ‘Revisiting the Convention on Nuclear Safety’; Budnitz et al., ‘Expansion of nuclear power technology to new countries’, p. 541.
125 Behnam Taebi and Maximilian Mayer, ‘By accident or by design? Pushing global governance of nuclear safety’, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 99 (2017), pp. 19–25.
126 Kamminga, ‘The IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety’.
127 Čavoški, ‘Revisiting the Convention on Nuclear Safety’, p. 391.
128 Budnitz et al., ‘Expansion of nuclear power technology to new countries’.
129 See Dimitrov, ‘Knowledge, power and interests in environmental regime formation’.
130 E.g. Snidal, ‘The limits of hegemonic stability theory’.
131 Unruh, ‘Explaining carbon lock-in’; Seto et al., ‘Carbon lock-in’; Simoens et al., ‘Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in socio-technical systems’.
132 Cairns, ‘Climate geoengineering’.
133 Ronald B. Mitchell, ‘Problem structure, institutional design and the relative effectiveness of international environmental agreements’, Global Environmental Politics, 6:3 (2006), pp. 72–89.
134 Mitchell, ‘Problem structure, institutional design and the relative effectiveness of international environmental agreements’; Bernauer et al., ‘Is there a “depth versus participation” dilemma in international cooperation?’.