IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v68y2024i4p703-729.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Reactions to Secret Negotiations in International Politics

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Myrick

Abstract

Many international agreements, from routine trade deals to high-stakes nuclear agreements, are negotiated in secret. However, we have a limited understanding of how secrecy in a negotiation shapes attitudes towards the agreement. Public opinion matters because it informs government decisions about when to conceal or reveal information during a negotiation. In a survey experiment of U.S. adults, I first examine overall attitudes towards secrecy in security and economic agreements. I then randomize government justifications for negotiating in secret: improved success, protection of sensitive information, and anticipation of criticism from domestic and international opponents. I find that respondents are generally averse to secrecy in international negotiations, but there are justifications for its use that they perceive as more legitimate. Secrecy is more permissible when negotiations contain sensitive information or when it improves the likelihood that agreements are reached. It is less permissible when governments negotiate in secret to avoid domestic criticism.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Myrick, 2024. "Public Reactions to Secret Negotiations in International Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 68(4), pages 703-729, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:68:y:2024:i:4:p:703-729
    DOI: 10.1177/00220027231177592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027231177592
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00220027231177592?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stasavage, David, 2004. "Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(4), pages 667-703, October.
    2. Keren Yarhi-Milo & David T. Ribar, 2023. "Who Punishes Leaders for Lying About the Use of Force? Evaluating The Microfoundations of Domestic Deception Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 67(4), pages 559-586, April.
    3. Mill, John Stuart, 2015. "On Liberty, Utilitarianism and Other Essays," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199670802 edited by Philp, Mark & Rosen, Frederick.
    4. Juhl, Sebastian & Hilpert, David, 2021. "Wheeling and dealing behind closed doors: estimating the causal effect of transparency on policy evaluations using a survey experiment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 36-52, January.
    5. Michael M. Bechtel & Kenneth F. Scheve & Elisabeth Lieshout, 2020. "Constant carbon pricing increases support for climate action compared to ramping up costs over time," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(11), pages 1004-1009, November.
    6. Michael Colaresi, 2012. "A Boom with Review: How Retrospective Oversight Increases the Foreign Policy Ability of Democracies," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 671-689, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Groot Ruiz, Adrian & Ramer, Roald & Schram, Arthur, 2016. "Formal versus informal legislative bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 1-17.
    2. Arzu Kıbrıs & Özgür Kıbrıs & Mehmet Yiğit Gürdal, 2022. "Protectionist demands in globalization," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 345-365, September.
    3. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.
    4. Bullock, David S., 2017. "Political-Economic Models of Misinformation: An Application to the Transparency of the TTIP Negotiations," Working Papers 252444, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    5. Wolfe, Robert, 2013. "Letting the sun shine in at the WTO: How transparency brings the trading system to life," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2013-03, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    6. Sherrie Steiner, 2011. "Religious Soft Power as Accountability Mechanism for Power in World Politics," SAGE Open, , vol. 1(3), pages 21582440114, October.
    7. Daniel Finke, 2017. "Underneath the culture of consensus: Transparency, credible commitments and voting in the Council of Ministers," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 339-361, September.
    8. Cyril Hédoin, 2024. "Public reason, democracy, and the ideal two-tier social choice model of politics," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 388-410, September.
    9. Daniel Hansen, 2023. "The democratic (dis)advantage: The conditional impact of democracy on credit risk and sovereign default," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 356-410, March.
    10. Smart, Michael & Sturm, Daniel M., 2013. "Term limits and electoral accountability," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 93-102.
    11. Thiemo Fetzer & Carlo Schwarz, 2021. "Tariffs and Politics: Evidence from Trump’s Trade Wars," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(636), pages 1717-1741.
    12. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Early birds: Special interests and the strategic logic of international cooperation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 113-140, July.
    13. Brian Kogelmann, 2023. "In defense of knavish constitutions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 141-156, July.
    14. Ivar Kolstad & Arne Wiig, 2016. "How do voters respond to information on self-serving elite behaviour? Evidence from a randomized survey experiment in Tanzania," CMI Working Papers 9, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway.
    15. Robert Falkner, 2015. "A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits and international legitimacy," GRI Working Papers 197, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    16. Naghmeh Nasiritousi & Björn-Ola Linnér, 2016. "Open or closed meetings? Explaining nonstate actor involvement in the international climate change negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 127-144, February.
    17. Michael M. Bechtel & Kenneth F. Scheve & Elisabeth Lieshout, 2022. "Improving public support for climate action through multilateralism," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Thomas Winzen, 2013. "European integration and national parliamentary oversight institutions," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(2), pages 297-323, June.
    19. Manfred Elsig, 2010. "The World Trade Organization at work: Performance in a member-driven milieu," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 345-363, September.
    20. Vibeke Wøien Hansen, 2014. "Incomplete information and bargaining in the EU: An explanation of first-reading non-agreements," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(4), pages 472-495, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:68:y:2024:i:4:p:703-729. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.