Osmani D, Tol RSJ (2007) Towards stable international environmental agreements with foresight: part one. Hamburg University Working Papers, FNU-140 Barrett S (1997a) The strategy of trade sanctions in international environmental agreements. Resour Energy Econ 19 (1): 345-361. doi:10.1016/S0928-7655 (97)00016-X Oberthur S (1998) The International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling: From Overexploitation to Total Ban. Directory of international cooperation on the environment and development. Earthscan Publishers, London Hoel M, Schneider K (1997) Inciting participation in an international environmental treaty. About Resour Econ 9 (2): 153-170 Chandler P, Tulkens H (1995) A fundamental solution for the development of cooperation agreements on cross-border pollution. Int Tax Public Finance 2 (2): 279-293. doi:10.1007/BF00877502 Barrett S (1998a) On the theory and diplomacy of setting up an environmental treaty. About Resour Econ 11 (1): 317-333.
doi:10.1023/A:1008243528330 Swanson T, Johnston S (1999) Global environmental problems and international environmental agreements: the economy of international institution building. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA Macho-Stadler I, Perez-Castrillo D (2006) Best Enforcement and Emissions Policy and Compliance with Environmental Taxes. J About Econ Manage 51 (1): 110-131. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2005.06.001 Barrett S (2003) Environment and public arts: the strategy for developing environmental contracts. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York Botteon M, Carraro C (1998) Strategies for environmental negotiations: issue linkage with heterogenous countries. In: Hanley N, Folmer H (eds) Game Theory and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA Abstract: Effective management of international environmental resources requires cooperation and, in practice, cooperation is generally codified in international environmental agreements (IEAs). The essential feature of IE A is that they cannot be imposed by third parties. This article examines the properties of self-coercatory IEAs using two models. One jointly defines the number of signatories, the terms of the agreement and the actions of non-signatories. In the other, the IEA is modeled as an infinitely repetitive game, but one that is again negotiation-proof. Both models suggest that IEAs cannot do much to improve the uncooperative outcome if the number of countries using the common resource is significant.
Copyright 1994 by The Royal Economic Society. Carraro C, Marchiori C, Oreffice S (2003) Minimum endogenous participation in international environmental contracts. Nota Di Lavaro 113.2003. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper Folmer H, van Mouche P, Ragland S (1993) Games and international environmental problems. About Resour Econ 3 (4): 313-335. doi:10.1007/BF004188115 Barrett S (1997b) Heterogeneous international environmental agreements. In: Carraro Carlo (eds) International Environmental Negotiations. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA In the basic model of the literature on international environmental agreements (IEA) (Barrett, 1994, Rubio and Ulph, 2006), the number of signatories to self-coercant IEAS does not exceed, unless positive emissions are excluded. We are expanding this model by introducing a consumer and fossil fuel good that is produced and consumed in each country and marketed on world markets.