IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v33y2021i4p399-429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking

Author

Listed:
  • James D. Morrow
  • Kevin L. Cope

Abstract

States negotiate over the specific terms of multilateral treaties because those terms determine states’ willingness to ratify the treaty. In some cases, a state might decline to ratify a treaty it otherwise supports because specific terms are too far from those it prefers. States and inter-governmental organizations negotiating treaties would like to uncover the minimal terms needed to secure the ratification of key states, but under what circumstances will those states candidly reveal those terms? Using a spatial representation of the issues in a treaty negotiation, we use mechanism design to determine what information states will reveal in a treaty negotiation. We find that states are willing to reveal how they would like tradeoffs between different issues to be resolved but not the minimal terms they require for ratification. Further, negotiations cannot always separate types that need concessions to ratify from other types that would like concessions but would ratify the treaty even if they do not receive them. These findings provide insight into how treaty negotiations can succeed or fail, and they lay the theoretical groundwork for a new line of empirical research on how multilateral treaties are negotiated.

Suggested Citation

  • James D. Morrow & Kevin L. Cope, 2021. "The limits of information revelation in multilateral negotiations: A theory of treatymaking," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(4), pages 399-429, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:33:y:2021:i:4:p:399-429
    DOI: 10.1177/09516298211044092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09516298211044092
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/09516298211044092?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deitelhoff, Nicole, 2009. "The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 33-65, January.
    2. Fang, Songying & Stone, Randall W., 2012. "International Organizations as Policy Advisors," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(4), pages 537-569, October.
    3. Myerson, Roger B, 1979. "Incentive Compatibility and the Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(1), pages 61-73, January.
    4. Kalyan Chatterjee & Bhaskar Dutia & Debraj Ray & Kunal Sengupta, 2013. "A Noncooperative Theory of Coalitional Bargaining," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 5, pages 97-111, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Fearon, James D., 1998. "Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(2), pages 269-305, April.
    6. Jackman, Simon, 2001. "Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference, and Model Checking," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 227-241, January.
    7. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno, 1990. "Multilateral negotiations: a spatial analysis of the Arab–Israeli dispute," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 317-340, July.
    8. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    9. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    10. Gilligan, Michael J., 2004. "Is There a Broader-Deeper Trade-off in International Multilateral Agreements?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(3), pages 459-484, July.
    11. Blaydes, Lisa, 2004. "Rewarding Impatience: A Bargaining and Enforcement Model of OPEC," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 213-237, April.
    12. Roger B. Myerson, 1981. "Optimal Auction Design," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 58-73, February.
    13. Smith, Roger K., 1987. "Explaining the non-proliferation regime: anomalies for contemporary international relations theory," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 253-281, April.
    14. McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John, 1988. "Multidimensional incentive compatibility and mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 335-354, December.
    15. Morrow, James D., 1986. "A Spatial Model of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1131-1150, December.
    16. Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 379-414, July.
    17. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    18. Hopmann, P. Terrence, 1974. "Bargaining in Arms Control Negotiations: The Seabeds Denuclearization Treaty," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 313-343, July.
    19. Sandholtz, Wayne, 1993. "Choosing union: monetary politics and Maastricht," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 1-39, January.
    20. Nadelmann, Ethan A., 1990. "Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(4), pages 479-526, October.
    21. Koremenos, Barbara & Lipson, Charles & Snidal, Duncan, 2001. "The Rational Design of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(4), pages 761-799, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Early birds: Special interests and the strategic logic of international cooperation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 113-140, July.
    2. Leonardo Baccini, 2010. "Explaining formation and design of EU trade agreements: The role of transparency and flexibility," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 195-217, June.
    3. Pascal Courty & Li Hao, 2000. "Sequential Screening," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(4), pages 697-717.
    4. Kleine, Mareike, 2024. "Negotiating with your mouth full: intergovernmental negotiations between transparency and confidentiality," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 124152, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Johannes Hörner & Massimo Morelli & Francesco Squintani, 2015. "Mediation and Peace," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(4), pages 1483-1501.
    6. William Phelan, 2008. "Open International Markets without Exclusion: Encompassing Domestic Institutions, Excludable Goods, and International Public Goods," The Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series iiisdp245, IIIS.
    7. Manelli, Alejandro M. & Vincent, Daniel R., 2006. "Bundling as an optimal selling mechanism for a multiple-good monopolist," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 1-35, March.
    8. Diana Panke, 2017. "Speech is silver, silence is golden? Examining state activity in international negotiations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 121-146, March.
    9. Diana Panke & Gurur Polat & Franziska Hohlstein, 2021. "Satisfied or not? Exploring the interplay of individual, country and international organization characteristics for negotiation success," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 403-429, April.
    10. Mareike Kleine, 2013. "Knowing your limits: Informal governance and judgment in the EU," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 245-264, June.
    11. John S. Odell, 2003. "Making and Breaking Impasses in International Regimes. The WTO, Seattle and Doha," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 1, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    12. Bernhard Reinsberg & Oliver Westerwinter, 2021. "The global governance of international development: Documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 59-94, January.
    13. Mark Fey & Kristopher Ramsay, 2009. "Mechanism design goes to war: peaceful outcomes with interdependent and correlated types," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(3), pages 233-250, September.
    14. Tobias Böhmelt & Edita Butkutė, 2018. "The self-selection of democracies into treaty design: insights from international environmental agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 351-367, June.
    15. Christopher Hare & Keith T. Poole, 2015. "Measuring ideology in Congress," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 18, pages 327-346, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Arve, Malin & Zwart, Gijsbert, 2023. "Optimal procurement and investment in new technologies under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    17. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    18. Randall Stone, 2013. "Informal governance in international organizations: Introduction to the special issue," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 121-136, June.
    19. Klaus H. Goetz & Ronny Patz & Theresa Squatrito, 2017. "Resourcing Global Justice: The Resource Management Design of International Courts," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8, pages 62-74, August.
    20. Gabriele Spilker & Tobias Böhmelt, 2013. "The impact of preferential trade agreements on governmental repression revisited," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 343-361, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:33:y:2021:i:4:p:399-429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.