Given this indeterminate balance of treaty effectiveness, different normative constraints guided the stances of different European governments: The more accommodating states were motivated by a commitment to transatlantic consensus, whereas the ‘hard liners’ sought to defend fairness and equity, reinforced by the moral pressure of a powerful NGO campaign. The chapter argues that a rational calculus of treaty effectiveness cannot fully explain this pattern of European responses, since neither accepting US proposals nor excluding it from the treaty could endanger its practical impact. While most of them were ready to make far-reaching concessions to the US, a small core group remained intransigent, resulting in a non-hegemonic agreement. In the negotiations leading up to its adoption, European advocates of a mine ban were faced with a choice of accommodating US demands for special exemptions or concluding an agreement without US support. The first empirical chapter deals with the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |