Searching for a recipe for success: environmental citizen petitions under free trade agreements

References

• Bailey, K.M., 2004. Citizen participation in environmental enforcement in Mexico and the United States: a comparative study. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 16 (2), 323–358.
   Google Scholar
• Bastiaens, I. and Postnikov, E., 2017. Greening up: the effects of environmental standards in EU and US trade agreements. Environmental Politics, 26 (5), 1–23. doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1338213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauer, S., 2006. Promoting good governance through the implementation of the UNCCD. In: P.-M. Johnson, K. Mayrand, and M. Paquin, eds. Governing global desertification: linking environmental degradation, poverty and participation. Aldershot: Ashgate, 73–88.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer, S., 2009. The desertification secretariat: a castle made of sand. In: F. Biermann and B. Siebenhüner, eds. Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. Cambridge: MIT Press, 293–317.
   Google Scholar
• Baumgartner, M. and Thiem, A., 2020. Often trusted but never (properly) tested: evaluating qualitative comparative analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 49 (2), 279–311. doi:10.1177/0049124117701487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernauer, T. and Betzold, C., 2012. Civil society in global environmental governance. The Journal of Environment & Development, 21 (1), 62–66. doi:10.1177/1070496511435551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S., 2001. The compromise of liberal environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bonine, J.E., 2007. Barreras e incentivos para la participación ciudadana en la aplicación de la legislación ambiental. In: V. Durán Medina, et al., eds. Institucionalidad e instrumentos de gestión ambiental para Chile del bicentenario. 2nd ed. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile, 419–436. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1076786
   Google Scholar
• Brandi, C., et al., 2020. Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener? World Development, 129, 104899. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidian, G., 2015. Should citizens expect procedural justice in nonadversarial processes? Spotlighting the regression of the citizen submissions process from NAAEC to CAFTA–DR. In: H.L. Kong and L.K. Wroth, eds. NAFTA and sustainable development: history, experience, and prospects for reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–74. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316157763
   Google Scholar
• Delgado Gutiérrez, D., 2022. Trade agreements and environment in Latin America. Environmental Law Reporter, 52, 10311–10330.
   Google Scholar
• Depledge, J., 2007. A special relationship: chairpersons and the secretariat in the climate change negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 7 (1), 45–68. doi:10.1162/glep.2007.7.1.45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson, A., 2006. Ecological citizenship: a defence. Environmental Politics, 15 (3), 447–451. doi:10.1080/09644010600627766.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duşa, A., 2019. QCA with R. A comprehensive resource. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75668-4.
   Google Scholar
• Eckersley, R., 2004. The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/3364.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Garver, G., 2021. Trade and environment in NAFTA’s replacement: an old gas guzzler gets a paint job. Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 13 (1), 39–61.
   Google Scholar
• Gladstone, F., et al., 2021. NAFTA and environment after 25 years: a retrospective analysis of the US-Mexico border. Environmental Science & Policy, 119, 18–33. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayward, T., 2006. Ecological citizenship: justice, rights and the virtue of resourcefulness. Environmental Politics, 15 (3), 435–446. doi:10.1080/09644010600627741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hester, T.D., 2015. Designed for distrust: revitalizing NAFTA’s environmental submissions process. Georgetown Environmental Law Review, 28 (1), 29–74.
   Google Scholar
• Ide, T., et al., 2021. Pathways to water conflict during drought in the MENA region. Journal of Peace Research, 58 (3), 568–582. doi:10.1177/0022343320910777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jinnah, S., 2014. Post-treaty politics: secretariat influence in global environmental governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jinnah, S. and Morin, J.-F., 2020. Greening through trade: how American trade policy is linked to environmental protection abroad. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knox, J.H., 2001. A new approach to compliance with international environmental law: the submissions procedure of the NAFTA environmental commission. Ecology Law Quarterly, 28 (1), 1–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knox, J.H. and Markell, D.L., 2012. Evaluating citizen petition procedures: lessons from an analysis of the NAFTA environmental commission. Texas International Law Journal, 47 (3), 505–540.
   Google Scholar
• Kong, H.L., 2021. The submissions on enforcement matters process: changes in law and theory. Vermont Law Review, 46 (2), 268–293.
   Google Scholar
• Kravchenko, S., et al., 2011. Giving the public a voice in MEA compliance mechanisms. In: L. Paddock, ed. Compliance and enforcement in environmental law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 83–110.
   Google Scholar
• Laurens, N. and Morin, J.-F., 2019. Negotiating environmental protection in trade agreements: a regime shift or a tactical linkage? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19 (6), 533–556. doi:10.1007/s10784-019-09451-w.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurens, N., Winkler, C. and Dupont, C., 2024. Sweetening the liberalization pill: flanking measures to free trade agreements. Review of International Political Economy, 1–18. doi:10.1080/09692290.2024.2337193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legewie, N., 2013. An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14 (3), 1–45. doi:10.17169/fqs-14.3.1961.
   Google Scholar
• Le Prestre, P., 2020. Participation. In: J.-F. Morin and A. Orsini, eds. Essential concepts of global environmental governance. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 181–183. doi:10.4324/9780367816681
   Google Scholar
• Lieberson, S., 1985. Making it count: the improvement of social research and theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacGregor, S., 2014. Ecological citizenship. In: H.A. Van der Heijden, ed. Handbook of political citizenship and social movements. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 107–132.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P. and Jacobs, M., 1997. Public identification with sustainable development: investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change, 7 (1), 5–24. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(96)00023-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malone, L. and Pasternack, S., 2005. Defending the environment: civil society strategies to enforce international environmental law. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Markell, D., 2010. The role of spotlighting procedures in promoting citizen participation, transparency, and accountability. Wake Forest Law Review, 45 (2), 425–467.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh, D. and McConnell, A., 2010. Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public administration, 88 (2), 564–583. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01803.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marx, A. and Duşa, A., 2011. Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA), contradictions and consistency benchmarks for model specification. Methodological Innovations Online, 6 (2), 103–148. doi:10.4256/mio.2010.0037.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J., 2004. Privatizing conditions of production: trade agreements as neoliberal environmental governance. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 35 (3), 327–341. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R.E., 2006. Environmental actions of citizens: evaluating the submission process of the commission for environmental cooperation of NAFTA. The Journal of Environment and Development, 15 (3), 297–316. doi:10.1177/1070496506291152.
   Google Scholar
• Morin, J.F., Dür, A., and Lechner, L., 2018. Mapping the trade and environment nexus: insights from a new data set. Global Environmental Politics, 18 (1), 122–139. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mross, K., et al., 2022. Identifying pathways to peace: how international support can help prevent conflict recurrence. International Studies Quarterly, 66 (1), 1–14. doi:10.1093/isq/sqab091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, Q., 2022. The green backlash against economic globalization. International Studies Review, 24 (2), viac020. doi:10.1093/isr/viac020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oana, I.E. and Schneider, C.Q., 2018. SetMethods: an add-on R package for advanced QCA. The R Journal, 10 (1), 507–533. doi:10.32614/RJ-2018-031.
   Google Scholar
• Peña, P., 2023. Could a trade agreement strengthen the enforcement of domestic environmental laws? Envisioning the impacts of the US–Peru environmental submissions mechanism. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 32 (3), 1–8. doi:10.1111/reel.12500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ragin, C.C., 1987. The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ragin, C.C., 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Raustiala, K., 2003. Citizen submissions and treaty review in the NAAEC. In: D.L. Markell and J.H. Knox, eds. Greening NAFTA: the North American commission for environmental cooperation. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 256–273.
   Google Scholar
• Rihoux, B. and De Meur, G., 2009. Crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (csQCA). In: B. Rihoux and C.C. Ragin, eds. Configurational comparative methods: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks and London: Sage, 33–68. 10.4135/9781452226569
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C., 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: a guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139004244
   Google Scholar
• Siedenfeld, M. and Nugent, J.S., 2005. The friendship of the people: citizen participation in environmental enforcement. The George Washington Law Review, 73 (2), 269–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A., 1972. Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1 (1), 161–176.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G., 2003. Deliberative democracy and the environment. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tobin, P., 2017. Leaders and laggards: climate policy ambition in developed states. Global Environmental Politics, 17 (4), 28–47. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welts, L., 2015. Form over substance. Procedural hurdles to the NAAEC citizen submission process. In: H.L. Kong and L.K. Wroth, eds. NAFTA and sustainable development: history, experience, and prospects for reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 123–146. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316157763
   Google Scholar
• Wold, C., et al., 2004. The inadequacy of the citizen submission process of articles 14 & (and) 15 of the North American Agreement on environmental cooperation. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 26 (3), 415–444.
   Google Scholar