Compliance with international climate agreements historically correlates with state interest alignment, not participatory legitimacy, as Mearsheimer's institutional critique demonstrates.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Institutional critique(as a theoretical approach to understanding why agreements may not function as intended): A criticism of the idea that formal organizations and agreements (like the UN or climate treaties) actually work the way they're supposed to; the critique suggests they often fail or serve hidden purposes.
Mearsheimer(as a theorist cited for his critique of institutions): John Mearsheimer is a political scientist who argues that countries act based on their own power and survival interests rather than following rules or ideals—a view called 'realism' in international relations.
Participatory legitimacy(as contrasted with what actually drives compliance): The idea that a rule or agreement is valid and fair because the people it affects had a real say in creating it; legitimacy comes from genuine participation.
State interest alignment(as the real reason countries comply with international agreements)

Based on where you are in your exploration