国际保护监督和执行机制的语法:对四个条约制度的比较制度分析

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environmental Policy and Governance Pub Date : 2023-02-02 DOI:10.1002/eet.2045
Ute Brady
{"title":"国际保护监督和执行机制的语法:对四个条约制度的比较制度分析","authors":"Ute Brady","doi":"10.1002/eet.2045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Of enduring interest to social scientists is better understanding institutional design. Formal institutions (e.g., treaties and regulations) convey salient governance information, including actors' required, allowed, or prohibited actions, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to foster institutional compliance with those actions. Yet, few studies have compared these features in international instruments. Addressing this gap, this study utilizes the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework's rule typology and the Institutional Grammar (IG) to compare the stringency and robustness of the formal monitoring and enforcement mechanisms outlined in four conservation treaties: The International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Convention on Migratory Species, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Doing so revealed the mechanisms' theoretical ability to manage species' appropriation levels and treaty opt-outs (e.g. reservations/objections), thwart biodiversity losses, and meet their conservation objectives. Findings include (1) identification of verbs and semantic constraints that dilute legally mandated actions to recommended outcomes; (2) a divide among treaty regimes by specificity of the required/permitted/recommended actions assigned to actors; and (3) enforcement mechanisms that require member states to take punitive action against non-compliant national actors vis-a-vis regimes with minimal to no enforcement requirements. This study complements existing institutional design, international relations, and legal scholarship by illustrating the IG's and IAD's utility to describe the treaties' formal monitoring and enforcement design features. It also provides a better understanding of formal international conservation governance which may be useful to policy designers and conservation practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"33 5","pages":"489-503"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The grammar of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in international conservation: A comparative institutional analysis of four treaty regimes\",\"authors\":\"Ute Brady\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eet.2045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Of enduring interest to social scientists is better understanding institutional design. Formal institutions (e.g., treaties and regulations) convey salient governance information, including actors' required, allowed, or prohibited actions, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to foster institutional compliance with those actions. Yet, few studies have compared these features in international instruments. Addressing this gap, this study utilizes the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework's rule typology and the Institutional Grammar (IG) to compare the stringency and robustness of the formal monitoring and enforcement mechanisms outlined in four conservation treaties: The International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Convention on Migratory Species, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Doing so revealed the mechanisms' theoretical ability to manage species' appropriation levels and treaty opt-outs (e.g. reservations/objections), thwart biodiversity losses, and meet their conservation objectives. Findings include (1) identification of verbs and semantic constraints that dilute legally mandated actions to recommended outcomes; (2) a divide among treaty regimes by specificity of the required/permitted/recommended actions assigned to actors; and (3) enforcement mechanisms that require member states to take punitive action against non-compliant national actors vis-a-vis regimes with minimal to no enforcement requirements. This study complements existing institutional design, international relations, and legal scholarship by illustrating the IG's and IAD's utility to describe the treaties' formal monitoring and enforcement design features. It also provides a better understanding of formal international conservation governance which may be useful to policy designers and conservation practitioners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"volume\":\"33 5\",\"pages\":\"489-503\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Policy and Governance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2045\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

社会科学家持久感兴趣的是更好地理解制度设计。正式机构(如条约和条例)传达重要的治理信息,包括行为者要求、允许或禁止的行动,以及促进机构遵守这些行动的监测和执行机制。然而,很少有研究比较国际文书中的这些特征。针对这一差距,本研究利用制度分析与发展(IAD)框架的规则类型和制度语法(IG)来比较四项保护条约中概述的正式监测和执行机制的严格性和稳健性:《国际捕鲸管理公约》;《濒危物种国际贸易公约》、《移栖物种公约》和《生物多样性公约》。这样做揭示了这些机制管理物种分配水平和条约选择退出(如保留/反对)、阻止生物多样性丧失和实现其保护目标的理论能力。研究结果包括(1)识别动词和语义约束,将法律规定的行动淡化为建议的结果;(2) 条约制度之间因指定给行为者的所需/允许/建议行动的具体性而存在分歧;以及(3)强制执行机制,要求成员国对不遵守规定的国家行为者采取惩罚行动,而对制度的强制执行要求最低甚至没有。本研究通过说明IG和IAD在描述条约的正式监督和执行设计特征方面的效用,补充了现有的制度设计、国际关系和法律学术。它还提供了对正式国际保护治理的更好理解,这可能对政策设计者和保护从业者有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The grammar of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in international conservation: A comparative institutional analysis of four treaty regimes

Of enduring interest to social scientists is better understanding institutional design. Formal institutions (e.g., treaties and regulations) convey salient governance information, including actors' required, allowed, or prohibited actions, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to foster institutional compliance with those actions. Yet, few studies have compared these features in international instruments. Addressing this gap, this study utilizes the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework's rule typology and the Institutional Grammar (IG) to compare the stringency and robustness of the formal monitoring and enforcement mechanisms outlined in four conservation treaties: The International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Convention on Migratory Species, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Doing so revealed the mechanisms' theoretical ability to manage species' appropriation levels and treaty opt-outs (e.g. reservations/objections), thwart biodiversity losses, and meet their conservation objectives. Findings include (1) identification of verbs and semantic constraints that dilute legally mandated actions to recommended outcomes; (2) a divide among treaty regimes by specificity of the required/permitted/recommended actions assigned to actors; and (3) enforcement mechanisms that require member states to take punitive action against non-compliant national actors vis-a-vis regimes with minimal to no enforcement requirements. This study complements existing institutional design, international relations, and legal scholarship by illustrating the IG's and IAD's utility to describe the treaties' formal monitoring and enforcement design features. It also provides a better understanding of formal international conservation governance which may be useful to policy designers and conservation practitioners.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Between science, authority, and responsibility: Exploring institutional logics to rethink climate governance Playing the CITES game: Lessons on global conservation governance from African megafauna Illuminating the collective learning continuum in the Colorado River Basin Science‐Policy Forums Achieving economy‐wide gains from residential energy efficiency improvements: The importance of timing and funding approach in driving the transition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1