Louis Bélanger

‘Legalization’ in international relations: A conceptual analysis

In 2000, International Organization published a special issue on the theme of ‘legalization in world politics’ which laid the foundation for a very influential research programme on international cooperation and the role of institutions in international affairs. The most enduring legacy of the special issue is the operationalization of the concept of ‘legalization’ itself, which is defined as a combination of three dimensions: obligation, precision and delegation. After deconstructing the initial concept, this research presents a systematic evaluation of the concept of legalization, taking stock of a decade-long history of empirical use. It then proposes a new concept structure by questioning the levels of substitutability and independence originally assigned to each of the three initial dimensions.

Ruling the North American Market: NAFTA and its Extensions

In 1994, the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the US created what was at that time a very modern free trade area by promulgating the entry into force of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was essentially an amended version of the then five-year-old Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA). The new agreement not only enlarged CUSTA by adding Mexico as a third party; it made economic integration stronger and deeper in the fields already opened to free trade and it covered new sectors and new trade-related issues.

Democratic Norms Remain Stronger than Ethnic Ties: Defending “Foreign Interventions and Secessionist Movements”

Abstract. This article is a response to Stephen Saidemans criticism of our research findings on third state intervention in secessionist crises, which was published in this journal in 2005. Here we defend our methodology and the validity of our results. We also explain why, in our view, Saidemans criticisms and the alternative research design that he offers are seriously questionable. More specifically, our reply focuses on his problematic case selection and on his measurement of ethnic ties, which is methodologically inconsistent and biased. Resume. Cet article constitue une reponse a la critique de Stephen Saideman concernant nos resultats de recherche, paru dans cette revue en 2005, sur les interventions des Etats tiers dans les crises secessionnistes. Nous defendons ici notre methode et la validite de nos resultats. Nous expliquons aussi pourquoi, selon nous, il est possible de remettre en question les critiques et le devis de recherche de Saideman. Plus precisement, notre reponse se concentre sur sa selection de cas douteuse et sa mesure des liens ethniques, puisque nous jugeons celle-ci methodologiquement incorrecte et biaisee.