What Are IEAs?

With a modern academic trend toward convergence of different disciplines, there have been attempts to investigate the linkage between environmental agreements and agreements of different fields, such as the relationship between economic agreements and environmental agreements. Even though studies in this respect are in their infancy, they are expected to shed greater light on the problem of grasping the effectiveness of IEAs.

These are used to narrow the scope of the IEAs considered in this thesis.

First, Mitchell demonstrates that international includesoall agreements to which governments of two or more states have (or are allowed to) become parties but excludes instruments between single governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), between single governments and international organizations, and between or among corporations, NGOs, or international organizationsp(Mitchell, 2013, Definitions page).

However, this thesis focused only on the agreements that are validated by more than two states. The reason for this is that the impact evaluation method of this thesis is required to define the region of common support and balancing tests in the calculation of the propensity score. Therefore, for this process, the observed characteristics of research objects (nations, in this thesis) have to be set. Accordingly, IEAs by non-governmental organizations, such as NGOs, cannot be included in the analysis of this thesis.

+64@? 5 % :E496==VDIEAs database (Mitchell, 2013) covers a wide range of IEAs related to environment with six categories: nature-general environmental protection, species, pollution, habitat and oceans, freshwater resources, energy, nuclear issues, and conflict.

However, this thesis concentrates on IEAs that are directly related to the quality of environment with for the explicit aim of improvement. As a result, the category of energy production and conflict is far removed from this thesis. In addition, in chapters 3 and 4, it is necessary to estimate the effect of IEAs on pollutant reduction. Hence, IEAs that aim at

decreasing pollutants, are adopted for the research objects.

Finally,oagreementpis defined based on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of ,C62 E:6DV 567:? :E:@? , 9:DDE2E6DE92 E2 EC62 EJ:s defined asoan international agreement

concluded between states in written form and governed by international lawp(Mitchell, 2013).

The operationalized definition is as follows:

# instruments designated as convention, treaty, agreement, accord, or their non-English equivalents, and protocols and amendments to such instruments;

# instruments, regardless of designation, establishing intergovernmental commissions;

# instruments, regardless of designation, identified as binding by reliable sources (e.g., by a secretariat, UNEP, or published legal analysis); or

# instruments, regardless of designation, whose texts fit accepted terminologies of legally-binding agreements. (Definitions page)

More specifically, this database judges a scope of agreements based on terms in Table 2.5. As Table 2.5 demonstrates, many similar expressions offer the same definition of agreement.

This thesis covers all categories: agreement, amendment, other modification, and protocol.

IEAs and informal agreements are not considered. Therefore, the IRD used for the analysis in Chapter 5 covers from convention to amendment, as per the range in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5What Is Agreement?

Category Search terms used

Agreement Accord, Act-Agreement, Act-Commission, Act-Treaty, Acuerdo, Adjustment, Agreement, Arrangement-Agreement, Articles of Association, Charter-Agreement, Constitution, Convencion, Convenio, Convention, Convenzione, Covenant,

Exchange of Letters Constituting An Agreement, Exchange of Notes Constituting An Agreement, Grant Agreement, Instrument, Interim Agreement, Interim Arrangement, Interim Convention, Loan Agreement, Provisional Understanding, Statute,

Statute-Commission, Supplementary Treaty, Tratado, Treaty

Amendment Agreement-Amendment, Amendment, Arrangement-Amendment, Extension Other

modification

Denunciation, Exchange of Letters Modifying an Agreement, Exchange of Notes Modifying an Agreement, Proces-Verbal

Protocol Optional Protocol, Protocol, Protocole, Protocolo, Supplemental Agreement, Supplementary Agreement, Supplementary Arrangement, Supplementary Protocol Source: Mitchell (2013).

Nevertheless, the protocol level, such as the Helsinki Protocol of LRTAP and the Kyoto Protocol, are mainly focused as the research objects in chapters 3 and 4. The reason for this is that the specific context, which can be quantified in the numerical database, is usually produced in the protocol level, not in the convention level. For instance, Chapter 3

investigates the effectiveness of IEAs by analyzing four protocols, since each protocol contains a clear goal of emission reductions and a target year.

2.3.2 Principles of IEAs. This section focuses on the principles of IEAs for grasping th6@C:8:? @76DE23=:D9:? 8" D SCommon responsibilitypandocommon but differentiated responsibilitypare two of the basic IEA principles that are related to the cases of this thesis.

Most IEAs are based on the notion ofocommon responsibilityp. Common

responsibility is rooted in the principle of co-operation. This posits that states are obliged to cooperate and that such cooperation is in the spirit of solidarity underpinning prevent transboundary pollution (Rajamani, 2000). From the notion ofocommon concernp, the default option in international negotiations seems to be the principle that all parties should have equal obligations. For example, the Conventions on Biological Diversity and the Convention on LRTAP make participating countries responsible for emission reductions (Rajamani, 2000; Ringus et al., 2002).

On the other hand, from an equality perspective, imposing equal reduction obligation, regardless of the socioeconomic situation of each country, is blamed for preventing active participation and lowering the effectiveness of IEAs. To encourage participation and enhance the effectiveness of IEAs, the notion ofocommon but differentiated responsibilityphas been recently adopted in the provision of IEAs. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development met at Rio de Janeiro from the third to 14 June 1992, to establish a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among states, key sectors of societies and people. According to Rajamani (2000), the notion of common but differentiated responsibility has been specified in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN, 1992) as follows:

States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore

the health and integrity of the Earthrs ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the

responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. (Principle 7)

The notion of differentiated responsibility derives from both the differing

contributions of states to climate change and the differing capacities of states to take remedial measure (Rajamani, 2000). Therefore, differential treatment for developing countries is imposed. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the representative examples that contain the notion of common but differentiated responsibility. It adopts market-based mechanisms in

consideration of mitigating the economic burden by differentiated responsibility.

With this in mind, this thesis adopts the LRTAP regime and the Kyoto Protocol, representative examples of the notion of common responsibility and common but

differentiated responsibility as the research objects of chapters 3 and 4. It is expected that the academic curiosity that shows how IEAs with different pollutants affect emission reductions and economic burdens of member countries can be revealed.