IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/oplwec/qt04x8x174.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Consent Problem in International Law

Author

Listed:
  • Guzman, Andrew

Abstract

International law is built on the foundation of state consent. A state’s legal obligations are overwhelmingly – some would say exclusively – based on its consent to be bound. This focus on consent offers maximal protection to individual states. If a country feels that a proposed change to international law does not serve its interests, it can avoid that change by withholding its agreement. This commitment to consent preserves the power of states, but it also creates a serious problem for the international system. Because any state can object to any proposed rule of international law, only changes that benefit every single affected state can be adopted. This creates a cumbersome status quo bias. Though legal reforms that would lead to a loss of well-being are avoided, so are reforms that would increase well-being for most but not all states. This Article challenges the conventional view of consent. It argues that our existing commitment to consent is excessive and that better outcomes would result from greater use of non-consensual forms of international law. Though consent has an important role to play, we cannot address the world’s greatest problems unless we are prepared to overcome the problem it creates – the consent problem. International law has developed a variety of ways to live with the consent problem. These include the granting of concessions by supporters of change to opponents thereof, customary international law, and to the United Nations Security Council. None of these, however, provide a sufficient counterweight to the consent problem. There are also strategies employed to work around the consent problem, mostly through the use of soft law. In particular, the international system has developed a plethora of international organizations and international tribunals that generate soft law. As currently used and perceived by the international legal system, states, and commentators, these soft law strategies are helpful, but insufficiently so. We could achieve better results within the system by expanding our acceptance of the soft law promulgated by these bodies and raising the expectation of compliance placed on states. This move toward greater support for non-consensual soft law would help to overcome the consent problem, and represent a step in the right direction for the international system.

Suggested Citation

  • Guzman, Andrew, 2011. "The Consent Problem in International Law," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt04x8x174, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:oplwec:qt04x8x174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/04x8x174.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    2. Loewenstein, George, 2008. "Exotic Preferences: Behavioral Economics and Human Motivation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199257089.
    3. Neckermann, Susanne & Cueni, Reto & Frey, Bruno S., 2014. "Awards at work," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 205-217.
    4. Gary S. Becker, 1962. "Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 1-9.
    5. Elinor Ostrom, 2011. "Reflections on "Some Unsettled Problems of Irrigation"," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 49-63, February.
    6. Rabah Amir & Malgorzata Knauff, 2008. "Ranking Economics Departments Worldwide on the Basis of PhD Placement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(1), pages 185-190, August.
    7. David N. Laband & Robert D. Tollison, 2003. "Dry Holes in Economic Research," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 161-173, May.
    8. Richard Dusansky & Clayton J. Vernon, 1998. "Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 157-170, Winter.
    9. Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Problem of the Commons: Still Unsettled after 100 Years," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 81-108, February.
    10. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2009. "Research governance in academia: are there alternatives to academic rankings?," IEW - Working Papers 423, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    11. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    12. Kagann, Stephen & Leeson, Kenneth W, 1978. "Major Journals in Economics: A User Study," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 979-1003, September.
    13. Kenneth J. Arrow & B. Douglas Bernheim & Martin S. Feldstein & Daniel L. McFadden & James M. Poterba & Robert M. Solow, 2011. "100 Years of the American Economic Review : The Top 20 Articles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 1-8, February.
    14. Robin L. Bartlett, 1998. "CSWEP: 25 Years at a Time," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 177-183, Fall.
    15. Hollis, Aidan, 2001. "Co-authorship and the output of academic economists," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 503-530, September.
    16. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769, June.
    17. Scott, Loren C & Mitias, Peter M, 1996. "Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.: An Update," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(2), pages 378-400, April.
    18. Thomas Mayer, 2004. "Dry Holes in Economic Research: Comment," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 621-626, November.
    19. Siegfried, John J., 1994. "Trends in institutional affiliation of authors who publish in the three leading general interest economics journals," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 375-386.
    20. Coats, A W, 1971. "The Role of Scholarly Journals in the History of Economics: An Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 29-44, March.
    21. Laband, David N & Piette, Michael J, 1994. "Favoritism versus Search for Good Papers: Empirical Evidence Regarding the Behavior of Journal Editors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(1), pages 194-203, February.
    22. Coats, A W, 1969. "The American Economic Association's Publications: An Historical Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 57-68, March.
    23. Oster, Sharon, 1980. "The Optimal Order for Submitting Manuscripts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 444-448, June.
    24. Ann Mari May & Robert W. Dimand, 2009. "Retrospectives: Trouble in the Inaugural Issue of the American Economic Review: The Cross/Eaves Controversy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 189-204, Summer.
    25. Frank, Robert H, 1987. "If Homo Economicus Could Choose His Own Utility Function, Would He Want One with a Conscience?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 593-604, September.
    26. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    27. Bruno Frey, 2006. "How Influential is Economics?," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 295-311, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Law;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:oplwec:qt04x8x174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/lebrkus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.