IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

An Empirical Study of Review Mechanisms in Environmental Regimes

Listed author(s):
  • D.G. Victor
  • J. Lanchberry
  • O. Greene
Registered author(s):

    This report is part of a large scale comparison of how implementation review mechanisms (IRMs) are used in international environmental agreements. Broadly, IRMs are the means by which data is exchanged and gathered, reviewed and assessed in the context of an international agreement, and by which problems of compliance and inadequate performance are managed. Here we describe the data protocol that is being used in assembing a database of review mechanisms and explain the rationale behind all the major questions in the protocol. The protocol consists of questions about the general features of agreements as well as more focussed questions concerning: how information relating to national performance and compliance is gathered and disseminated; how that information is assessed; and the means by which the parties and the agreement respond to potential problems of noncompliance and inadequate performance. The database is useful in part because it organizes information about different international environmental agreements into a comparable format and thus aids in the selection of appropriate cases and comparisons for further research. It is also useful because it can aid in the testing of hypotheses about which aspects of international agreements and review mechanisms lead agreements to be more effective. We are now using it for both purposes, in addition to extending the number of cases in the database. To date, over fifty cases have been coded using the protocol. Here we also report some observations and hypotheses derived from working with the data from those cases. These include: 1) a hypothesis that review mechanisms tend to grow as needed to fulfill demand for specific functions; 2) a hypothesis that review mechanisms might help the parties to an agreement address various forms of complexity that arise in negotiating and managing international agreements; 3) a questions as to whether and how often institutions that are formally outside a particular agreement but with competence or power in the issue-area de facto provide the review mechanisms for the agreement; 4) a question as to whether review mechanisms make their largest contribution to effectiveness when the obligations of an agreement are precise or vague; 5) a question as to whether in practice some of the functions of review mechanisms are performed by dispute resolution mechanisms, which tend to be formally created in most international agreements (but appear to be rarely used in environmental agreements).

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in its series Working Papers with number wp94115.

    in new window

    Date of creation: Nov 1994
    Handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:wp94115
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    A-2361 Laxenburg

    Phone: +43-2236-807-0
    Fax: +43-2236-71313
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. D.G. Victor & O. Greene & J. Lanchberry & J.C. di Primio & A. Korula, 1994. "Review Mechanisms in the Effective Implementation of International Environmental Agreements," Working Papers wp94114, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    2. M.A. Levy & O.R. Young & M. Zuern, 1994. "The Study of International Regimes," Working Papers wp94113, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:iasawp:wp94115. 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: (Thomas Krichel)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.