Article: Conceptualizing interstate cooperation

AuthorL Moritz S graefrath and Marcel Jahn

In this article discuss about the conceptual framework by exploring the nature of understanding
different type and theoretical role of cooperation in international relations. The author draw
attention on three destine types of cooperation state interaction such as cooperation through:
1. tacit policy coordination (Minimal cooperation)
2. explicit policy coordination (thin cooperation)
3. Join action (thick cooperation)
In the discussion of these three types of cooperation, the author argued that the three
coorperation can be interstate into common conceptual framework by reference two criteria, first
whether they involve a tacit or explicit process of policy cooperation and second, whether they
involve the pursuit of individual or share goal?
So, let see what does three type of cooperation refers to?
1. tacit policy coordination (Minimal cooperation) refers to policy adjustments emerge out
of a tacit coordination process, that is, they are the result of each side's unilateral policy
adjustments that are dictated by their individual calculus in a context of strategic
interdependence. each of the actors involved is independently ‘acting in pursuit of those
things she wants or values in part in light of what she believes the other is doing, and
where the other's actions depend in part on what the other thinks she will do.
2. explicit policy coordination (thin cooperation) refer to coorperation that the actors
involved explicitly coordinate their policies, seeking to adjust them in such a way that
mutual benefits are realized. What makes the coordination process explicit is that it
involves direct communication and negotiation that aims at producing beneficial policy
adjustments.
3. Join action (thick cooperation): refers to kind of cooperation that involvement actors who
jointly work toward the attainment of a shared goal. In short, all states engage in the joint
pursuit of sharing common goal.
Elements
- Actors need to intentionally created share goal that they subsequent jointly
- Actors hold intention to not obstruct the other actors efforts in achieving the respective
shared goal
- Joint pursuit shared goal and not entail benefits for actor individual goal
 Conclusion
In conclusion, authors argued that the IR literature on interstate cooperation has implicitly
come to identify three distinct, plausible senses of interstate cooperation – ‘minimal’,
‘thin’, and ‘thick’ cooperation – for all three of which we provided an explicit definition
and illustrated their unique character through reference to a series of real-world
examples.

Thesis:
Introduction
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was signed into law on August 24, 1966. It is the only Federal
law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, teaching, testing,
exhibition, transport, and by dealers. The topic of this thesis is the animal rights movement in
the United States. The concept of animal rights must be understood as the belief that the use of
animals for food, clothing, entertainment, etc., causes unnecessary harm to animals. The animal
rights position holds that animal use itself is morally indefensible and should therefore be
abolished. While many animal rights advocates have a shared goal of ending animal exploitation,
there is significant disagreement when it comes to how to achieve such an end.
Research methodology
• Dependent variable
• welfare law ranking 50 states in USA (The animal legal defense fund ALDF)
• grouped into three tiers: top, middle, and bottom. (The top tier includes the states that
earned the highest animal welfare law ranking within the given calendar year; the bottom
includes states with the lowest rankings for that year)
• Rankings from 2009 to 2018 are included in this analysis
• Data sample: collected from within several metropolitan (or Urban) areas in region.
• Three to four cities were chosen from within the U.S. Labor Statistics data to be used as
evidence representing their respective states in a given region.
Result
• This study has revealed that the empirical claim made by certain animal rights
advocates—that animal welfare is an effective means for reducing the demand for
animal products—is unfounded.
• Moreover, the data have shown that general wealth, especially the possession of
assets, holds a stronger association with animal welfare than do the rates of consumer
expenditures on animal-based food products.
• States in which animal welfare laws are more plentiful and strictly enforced have not
presented significantly different rates of animal product consumption than have states
with less animal welfare laws and enforcement.