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

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
Common Pool Resources ◽  
Global Public Goods ◽  
Common Pool ◽  
Behavioral Aspects

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
Common Pool Resources ◽  
Global Public Goods ◽  
Common Pool ◽  
Public Goods Games ◽  
Collective Action Problems

AbstractCollective 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.

Public Goods, Common Pool Resources, and International Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Yuliya Rashchupkina
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Common Pool Resources ◽  
Common Pool

AbstractThe concept of public goods is often operationalized in the literature as anything that demands some form of international cooperation. While this may be politically useful in generating international cooperation, it is analytically problematic for designing international law with the purpose of enhancing international cooperation. Many of the issues characterized as public goods are in fact common pool resources, which pose distinct issues for international cooperation and demand different legal architectures than public goods for effective international cooperation.

The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods

2014 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Krisch
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Community ◽  
Global Public Goods ◽  
Community Values ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Face ◽  
Common Policies ◽  
The Cost

The consensual structure of the international legal order, with its strong emphasis on the sovereign equality of states, has always been somewhat precarious. In different waves over the centuries, it has been attacked for its incongruence with the realities of inequality in international politics, for its tension with ideals of democracy and human rights, and for standing in the way of more effective problem solving in the international community. While surprisingly resilient in the face of such challenges, the consensual structure has seen renewed attacks in recent years. In the 1990s, those attacks were mainly “moral” in character. They were related to the liberal turn in international law, and some of them, under the banner of human rights, aimed at weakening principles of nonintervention and immunity. Others, starting from the idea of an emerging “international community,” questioned the prevailing contractual models of international law and emphasized the rise of norms and processes reflecting community values rather than individual state interests. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the focus has shifted, and attacks are more often framed in terms of effectiveness or global public goods. Classical international law is regarded as increasingly incapable of providing much-needed solutions for the challenges of a globalized world; as countries become ever more interdependent and vulnerable to global challenges, an order that safeguards states’ freedoms at the cost of common policies is often seen as anachronistic. According to this view, what is needed—and what we are likely to see—is a turn to nonconsensual lawmaking mechanisms, especially through powerful international institutions with majoritarian voting rules.

Defending public goods and common-pool resources

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 143-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence R. De Geest ◽  
John K. Stranlund
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Common Pool Resources ◽  
Common Pool

The Protection of General Interests in Contemporary International Law

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Public Goods ◽  
Regional Organizations ◽  
Global Commons ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
Legal Foundation ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Fundamental Values ◽  
Multiple Actors

This book is aimed at analysing the notions of global public goods, global commons, and fundamental values as conceptual tools geared towards the protection of the general interests of the international community. After having provided the readers with a general overview of the abovementioned concepts, the book examines how international law has responded to what qualifies as global public goods, global commons, and fundamental values in a wide range of fields. Moreover, the work also investigates how global governance has improved (or worsened) this response. Authors have discussed which general interests have or have not been deemed to deserve the protection of international law in one or more of the categories under scrutiny, and why; they have also explored the legal foundation of such interests in international law. In addition, they have focused on whether and how it is appropriate that international law intervenes to regulate such interests, taking into account the interplay between the multiple actors of international law, ranging from states, international and regional organizations, and non-state actors. They have further explored how states and other actors have used international law to protect general interests, what lessons can be learned from these efforts, and what main challenges still need to be addressed. Looking at international law through the prism of global public goods, global commons, and fundamental values has also implied an in-depth examination of different substantive regimes, such as, e.g. those regulating human rights, the protection of the environment, and international economic law.

The Protection of General Interests in Contemporary International Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Massimo Iovane ◽  
Fulvio M. Palombino ◽  
Daniele Amoroso ◽  
Giovanni Zarra
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Community ◽  
Global Public Goods ◽  
Global Commons ◽  
Fundamental Values

This introductory chapter expounds on the characterization of the notions of global public goods (GPGs), global commons, and fundamental values (the objects of this book) as conceptual tools geared towards the protection of the general interests of the international community, with a view to providing a unifying perspective to read the contributions collected in this volume. In addition, this chapter explains why the notion of global governance is equally essential for the purposes of this inquiry.

scholarly journals Comment on Nico Krisch, “The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods”

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Eyal Benvenisti ◽  
George W. Downs
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
International Law ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Informal Institutions ◽  
Broad Consent ◽  
Global Level ◽  
Global Public Goods

In his recent article, Nico Krisch joins an increasing number of scholars who worry about the “turn toward nonconsensual structures” in international lawmaking. Although the article is primarily descriptive and does not set out to offer either a rigorous explanation or a normative assessment of this trend, Krisch does suggest that the trend “reflects the fact that the need for greater cooperation [at the global level] . . . is not always, or not even typically, satisfied by international law.” It also gives voice to the concern that the move to informal institutions “point[s] in the direction of more hierarchical forms of governance” that increasingly cater to a small number of powerful states, rather than to the traditional, broad, consent-based order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document