The Politics of Treaty Signature: The Role of Diplomats and Ties that Bind

2017-08-23T06:59:21Z (GMT) by Manfred Elsig Karolina Milewicz
<p>The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the world's most protracted and potentially dangerous conflicts. While the international community has strong interest in limiting violent conflagration between the two states; third party action aimed at amelioration has been very limited. This contrasts with overall global mediation efforts, which have increased in the post-Cold War period. Using archival research, this study explores the reasons for the Government of India's implacable opposition to any external intervention in the conflict. We argue that both strategic and ideational motivations have influenced its decisions. In particular, India's strict adherence to the principle of strategic autonomy precludes the possibility of accepting external mediation. By exploring how and why strategic and ideational motivations intersect to become a formidable barrier to third party intervention, this article contributes to our understanding of why certain countries develop resistance to mediation.</p><p>Table S1. Selected multilateral treaties; </p><p>Table S2. Top ten states’ (averaged) diplomatic missions to the United Nations and specific treaty negotiations; </p><p>Figure S1 Distribution of UN diplomatic representation and treaty-specific diplomatic representation variables representation; </p><p>TABLE S3. Explanatory variables in the signature and ratification models; </p><p>TABLE S4. Excerpt of the count data <em></em></p><p> <br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><em><br></em></p><p> <br></p><p><br></p><p><em> </em></p><p></p><p></p><em> </em>