Good day,
The literature (and the video) mentions two strategic interactions: coercion and compromise.
To what extent does coercion play a role in international agreements that are not determined by majority rule or parliamentary procedures? In the context of your work on climate agreements, I tend to think of the interactions as agree/cooperate vs. disagree/not cooperate.
Does coercion really play no role here at all or am I getting something wrong?
Best regards,
Lars Grunwald