| In this dissertation, I have examined and tested an array of compliance theories---theories positing why states act in accordance with international law. These theories can be loosely grouped into the following categories: realism, rationalism, liberalism, constructivism, and positivism. I have considered the various theories' assumptions, methodologies, and prescriptions. I then empirically tested various theories' predictions or claims against three International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) regimes: the New York Convention (1958); the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal; and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty (AD/CVD) law panels. I noted instances where theories were empirically supported, not supported, and where one could develop a constructive synthesis of otherwise competing theories. |
