![]() 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 |