Abbott and Snidal (2000) argue that international actors often deliberately choose softer forms of legalization as superior institutional arrangements.

Please label each question being answered (e.g., Q-1A). Please do not copy questions. Copied questions will not count towards the word count, but will count towards exceeding the maximum length.

Q- 1A. Abbott and Snidal (2000) argue that international actors often deliberately choose softer forms of legalization as superior institutional arrangements. However, the authors also highlight the importance of hard-law, especially when the likelihood of opportunism and its costs are high and non-compliance is hard to detect. Assessing the benefits and costs of both hard-law and soft-law, which one would you think would be more appropriate for international environmental regime? Do you think hard law is more suitable in environmental regimes due to the problems of externalities? Do you think soft law is a better choice because of its dynamic nature and potential to learn and accommodate change with time? Elaborate on your answer with examples and theoretical arguments.

Q- 1B. CITES concluding statement: “Of all the reasons for the relative success of CITES, it is its administrative system which stands out. The existence of a permanent Secretariat and the numerous administrative obligations imposed on the Parties – to set up at least two bodies to enforce the Convention, to communicate regularly with other Parties, to communicate regularly with the Secretariat and to meet regularly to review implementation of the Convention – are all critical factors.” Do you think a strong administrative system is critical to international environmental regimes, or do you think the specificity (and precision) of the issue helped establish strong institutional arrangement? Do you think such strong administrative system is possible in a complex and dynamic issue such as climate change?

lyster chapter 12

Q- 2A. Week 6 readings focus on the relationship between trade and the environment. Do you think environmental issues can be separated from trade and the global economy? Is it possible? Do you think it should be separated and resolved in its own right?

Reference options:

Housman, Robert and Durwood Zaelke. 1992. “The Collision of the Environment and Trade: The GATT Tuna/Dolphin Decision.Preview the document” Environmental Law Reporter 22: 10268.

Daly, Herman E. 2005. “Economics in a Full World (Links to an external site.),” Scientific American, September 2005, Vol. 293, Issue 3

Bhagwati, Jagdish. 1993. “The Case for Free Trade.Preview the document” Scientific American, November: 42-49.

Please read all questions carefully and answer all of them completely. Be sure to provide an adequate explanation and supporting arguments for all of your answers. Don’t forget to back up your arguments with concrete examples from the assigned readings or other sources you may have consulted, and please remember to provide adequate citations for any references used. Your answers must demonstrate that you have read and understood the assigned readings.

You must use APA style citation format for all citations and references, and don’t forget to include a list of references in the appropriate format. If you are unfamiliar with APA formatting, please see link below for guidelines.

  • attachment

  • attachment

  • attachment

  • attachment