Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO
Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO
Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
204 Notes to pp. 46–51<br />
31. For example, an official from the Jamaican Ministry of Foreign Affairs has<br />
noted th<strong>at</strong> “in developing countries, the conflicts [“between any oblig<strong>at</strong>ion to prevent<br />
pollution of the marine environment and the effects of implementing th<strong>at</strong> oblig<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
on economic development”] are far more intense because the options open<br />
for economic development are limited” (Kirton 1977, p. 280).<br />
32. Grieco (1990, p. 10) has emphasized th<strong>at</strong> st<strong>at</strong>es are primarily concerned about<br />
their physical survival and their political independence. Snidal (1991) has challenged<br />
the realist claim th<strong>at</strong> st<strong>at</strong>es worry about how well they fare compared to other st<strong>at</strong>es<br />
(rel<strong>at</strong>ive gains), and not simply how well they fare themselves (absolute gains).<br />
33. For example, in April of 1977 the Carter administr<strong>at</strong>ion decided to defer commercial<br />
reprocessing of nuclear waste indefinitely because of the feared risk of prolifer<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
of nuclear weapons. See Power 1979.<br />
34. See Keohane 1980, pp. 131–162.<br />
35. On benevolent and coercive hegemonic leaders, see Hasenclever et al. 1997,<br />
pp. 90–95.<br />
36. Grieco (1990, p. 10) has emphasized the Waltzian view on cooper<strong>at</strong>ion claiming<br />
th<strong>at</strong> such bargains would not take place: “. . . a rel<strong>at</strong>ive-gains problem for cooper<strong>at</strong>ion<br />
[exists]: a st<strong>at</strong>e will decline to join, will leave, or will sharply limit its<br />
commitment to a cooper<strong>at</strong>ive arrangement if it believes th<strong>at</strong> gaps in otherwise mutually<br />
positive gains favor partners.” For a recent discussion, see Snidal 1991 and<br />
Powell 1991. For a critical discussion of Grieco’s view, see Milner 1992.<br />
37. For the definition of mixed-motive games, see Schelling 1960, p. 89.<br />
38. See, e.g., Keohane’s discussion of bounded r<strong>at</strong>ionality and incomplete and partially<br />
available inform<strong>at</strong>ion (1984, pp. 110–116).<br />
39. On the games Prisoners’ Dilemma, Stag Hunt, and Chicken, see Oye 1986, pp.<br />
1–24. See also Axelrod and Keohane 1986, pp. 228–232.<br />
40. Realists, however, doubt th<strong>at</strong> the “shadow of the future” necessarily makes<br />
cooper<strong>at</strong>ion more likely. See Grieco 1990, p. 227.<br />
41. On N-person games, see Snidal 1986, pp. 52–55. On the significance of the<br />
number of actors, see Snidal 1995.<br />
42. On the benevolent effects of institutions’ transforming N-person games into<br />
collections of two-person games, see Axelrod and Keohane 1986, pp. 237–239.<br />
43. On issue density, see Keohane 1984, pp. 79–80.<br />
44. See, e.g., Keohane 1984, pp. 78–80. Those who stress th<strong>at</strong> hegemons act on<br />
selfish reasons when they provide public goods build upon Olson’s (1965, pp.<br />
33–34) argument about “privileged groups.”<br />
45. Keohane’s (1984) functional theory of intern<strong>at</strong>ional regimes explains regimes<br />
as means <strong>at</strong> the disposal of st<strong>at</strong>es wanting to cooper<strong>at</strong>e. On functional explan<strong>at</strong>ions,<br />
see Elster 1983, pp. 49–68.<br />
46. On focal points, see Schelling 1960, p. 70.<br />
47. See Young 1991.<br />
48. See Young 1989, pp. 373–374; Young 1991, pp. 302–305.