遵约研究走上了错误轨道吗?

Is the Research of Compliance Misled?

制度绩效或制度的有效性是当前国际制度研究中的一个热点问题,一些学者从遵约的角度对此加以研究。在实际操作过程中,遵约研究遇到的一大困难在于内生性问题或选择偏差问题,即由于国家更倾向于对自己愿意遵守或有能力遵守的国际制度做出承诺,因而遵约并不代表制度对国家行为起到了制约作用。有学者由此出发,认为从遵约角度研究有效性是走上了错误轨道。作者提出,内生性的发生需要两个前提,即遵约意愿属于共同知识、遵约意愿具有时间一致性,但这些前提在制度实践中经常无法满足,因此内生性问题被夸大了。即使内生性确实存在,它也是可以被克服或缓解的。另外,所谓的"实质问题决策说"也不是否定遵约研究的理由。怀疑论者提出的替代性视角——对国家行为(改变)进行反事实推理——并不比现有的遵约研究更有利于判断制度的有效性。

The state’s compliance record seems to be a plausible indicator of institutional effectiveness or performance. However,during inquiry,researchers always encounter the so-called endogeneity or self-selection problem. Because endogeneity implies high compliance-rate in favor of institutional influence,some agues that it is misled to investigate institutional effectiveness via compliance approach. This article, while appreciating the critic’s insights and contributions,maintains that the two premises of endogeneity-common knowledge and time-consistency of state preference—are not invariably met in real-world practice; hence,the criticizers might overstate the complications that endogeneity brings about. Moreover,endogeneity problem could be overcome or controlled even if it existed. Meanwhile,the other criticism of decisions on substantive issues rather than on deference or defiance is also not suffice to denigrate or deny compliance research. The alternative solution that the critics proposed is no less sensitive to self-selection than the compliance approach.