The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American “unfair” trade laws
Abstract
While scholars have written much about the role played by international institutions in cooperative behavior among nations, they have not examined the domestic political motives that may lie behind nations' decisions to join such organizations. Two-level games analysis provides a framework for studying domestic politics not as a constraint upon nations that enter into international agreements but as a catalyst for nations to enter into agreements. The dispute settlement procedures of the North American Free Trade Agreement and its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, offer an empirical illustration of this point.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games
Putnam, R. D. (1988) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300027697 · Cited by 7,475
Cited by
The Political Economy of the World Trading System: WTO and Beyond
Hoekman, B., & Kostecki, M. (2001) · doi:10.1093/019829431x.001.0001 · Cited by 544
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldstein, J.
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 541-564
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2167167103
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American “unfair” trade laws. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0020818300033506
- The paper
- Goldstein, J. (1996). International law and domestic institutions: reconciling North American “unfair” trade laws. International Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300033506
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
