Is there a ‚Depth versus Participation‘ Dilemma in International Cooperation?

Much of the International Relations literature assumes that there is a “depth versus participation” dilemma in international politics: shallower international agreements attract more countries and greater depth is associated with less participation. We argue that this conjecture is too simple and probably misleading because the depth of any given cooperative effort is in fact multidimensional. This multidimensionality manifests itself in the design characteristics of international agreements: in particular, the specificity of obligations, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, dispute settlement mechanisms, positive incentives (assistance), and organizational structures (secretariats). We theorize that the first three of these design characteristics have negative and the latter three have positive effects on participation in international cooperative efforts. Our empirical testing of these claims relies on a dataset that covers more than 200 global environmental treaties. We find a participation-limiting effect for the specificity of obligations, but not for monitoring and enforcement. In contrast, we observe that assistance provisions in treaties have a significant and substantial positive effect on participation. Similarly, dispute settlement mechanisms tend to promote treaty participation. The main implication of our study is that countries do not appear to stay away from agreements with monitoring and enforcement provisions, but that the inclusion of positive incentives and dispute settlement mechanisms can promote international cooperation. In other words, our findings suggest that policymakers do not necessarily need to water down global treaties in order to obtain more participation.

Transnational Migration and Cross-border Mobility in the Serbian-Hungarian Border Region

The study is aiming to present migrant groups in the Serbian-Hungarian border region which are playing a role in forming transnational migration, ransnational networks and transnational spaces. Transnational migrants are using material, cultural, social and symbolical capital in various forms. The everyday activities of the people as well as their mobility, emotional attachments, and economic relationships have contributed to a transnational region the cross-border contacts in the last century were always present, even in spite of political and historical changes, only their intensity, political charge and tension has been changing. The asymmetries defining the border region has been reflected in different directions, places, time and in different volume. In this specially built and constantly reorganising scope, people who were living their everyday life have tried to use the differences for their benefit, and to improve their possibilities. With their transnational lifestyles and cross-border networks, they substantially contribute to the stability and prosperity of the cross-border region.