The Hidden World of Multilateralism: Treaty Commitments of Newly Democratized States in Europe

Abstract

Why do new EU democracies engage in multilateralism?The dominant explanation proposes that new democracies use international treaties to lock in domestic reforms. This article offers a novel explanation as to why new EU democracies participate in multilateral treaties. We argue that ratifying a treaty serves three external signaling purposes (addressing recognition concerns; increasing strategic autonomy, and pleasing the EU). We test our argument through a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. First, we apply event history analysis. Drawing on a new ratification data set comprising 76 multilateral treaties, we illustrate the prominent role of new EU democracies in multilateralism as compared to other new democracies. Second, to assess the importance of external signaling in the decision to ratify multilateral treaties, we examine parliamentary ratification debates in selected Central and Eastern European countries. Third, we compare parliamentary discussions across European and non-European new democracies to demonstrate the different motives driving their approaches toward multilateralism.Recent empirical studies confirm the conventional wisdom that European states are at the forefront of multilateralism in the post-Cold war era. What is particularly noteworthy is the high commitment level of new European democracies to multilateral treaties (Elsig, Milewicz, and Stürchler 2011). These countries are much more likely to ratify multilateral treaties than other new democracies. Yet, the democratization literature is short on theoretical explanations to account for the observed variation in ratification patterns. The leadingThe Hidden World of Multilateralism 2 explanation refers to new democracies' use of international law as a "lock-in" instrument (Moravcsik 2000). The argument suggests that governments join multilateral institutions in order to cement domestic reforms and policies. But no explanation is offered for the variation among newly democratized states in terms of their engagement with the multilateral system. This article tackles this puzzle and offers a novel explanation for why newly democratized states in Europe are among the top ratifiers of post-Cold War multilateral treaties. We suggest that these states use treaties not as an internal lock-in signal, but as an external signal communicating specific foreign policy objectives. These signals are intended to strengthen their international reputation, to increase strategic autonomy, and to please the European Union (EU) as the key sponsor of multilateralism. The Conventional Argument: New Democracies, Credibility and Lock InAn important body of literature addresses the role of new democracies in international relations and in international law, and shows that newly democratized states are more likely to join international organizations and ratify international treaties than are other states. One important reason for the active use of international law is related to the governments' need to address concerns of (domestic) credibility. New democr...

The self-selection of democracies into treaty design: insights from international environmental agreements

“…Second, there are domestic-level characteristics such as political regime type, institutional constraints, or countries' economic conditions. As summarized above, it is argued that democracies are more likely than non-democratic regimes to participate in international environmental agreements (e.g., Neumayer, 2002a,b;Fredriksson and Gaston, 2000;von Stein, 2008;Bernauer et al, 2010;Elsig, Milewicz and Stürchler, 2011;Milewicz and Elsig, 2014;Carbonell and Allison, 2015). Other research looks authoritarian states and finds that there is significant variation in the participation behavior among them (e.g., Leinaweaver, 2012;Mattes and Rodríguez, 2014).…”

“…Other research looks authoritarian states and finds that there is significant variation in the participation behavior among them (e.g., Leinaweaver, 2012;Mattes and Rodríguez, 2014). Further influences at the domestic level pertain to interest groups and veto players (e.g., Fredriksson and Gaston, 2000;Roberts, Parks and Vásquez, 2004;Bernhagen, 2008;Urpelainen, 2010;Bernauer, Böhmelt and Koubi, 2013;Hugh-Jones, Milewicz and Ward, 2016), electoral systems, election periods and constitutional institutions (e.g., Cazals and Sauquet, 2015;Kelley and Pevehouse, 2015;Kiesow Cortez and Gutmann, 2015), income levels (e.g., Bernauer et al, 2010;Haftel and Thompson, 2013), and military or economic power aspects (e.g., Elsig, Milewicz and Stürchler, 2011;Haftel and Thompson, 2013;Milewicz and Elsig, 2014).…”

“…The contingent behavior of states also incorporates dependencies between states and third-party countries, i.e., "power politics" (e.g., Schneider and Urpelainen, 2013;Milewicz and Snidal, 2016), linkages based on states' colonial past (e.g., Elsig, Milewicz and Stürchler, 2011;Milewicz and Elsig, 2014), or geographical distance and economic factors such as income size, joint trade agreements, and trade openness (e.g., Vogel, 2000;Neumayer, 2002b;Besedeš, Johnson and Tian, 2016). Similarly, economic globalization (see, e.g., Elsig, Milewicz and Stürchler, 2011;Milewicz and Elsig, 2014) or the involvement in international organizations are crucial factors (see, e.g., Bernauer et al, 2010;Spilker, 2013;Bernauer, Böhmelt and Koubi, 2013;Yamagata, Yang and Galaskiewicz, 2013;Böhmelt and Vollenweider, 2015;Böhmelt and Spilker, 2016).…”

Perceived to slack: secondary securitization and multilateral treaty ratification in Israel

“…However, we believe the results of this study are relevant to other countries with a professional bureaucracy, a major perceived security challenge, and perceived or real hostility from international organizations. Our study contributes to the literature that attempts to comprehensively estimate the relative effect of competing explanations for multilateral treaty ratification (Lupu 2016;Milewicz and Elsig 2014). It is the first to comprehensively apply Securitization theory to the study of Israeli foreign policy, and among the first to link Securitization with policy-making in Israel in general (Lupovici 2014…”

“…Alternatively, ratification can be used to signal willingness to enhance international economic cooperation and free trade (Lupu 2016). Treaty ratification can help new democracies achieve international recognition (Milewicz and Elsig 2014). Even without sincere implementation intentions or feasibility, ratification may be a useful short-term means to promote a state's global image (Grobe 2010).…”