Few observers at the outset expected NAFTA's parallel accords on labor and environment to have any significant influence in practice. After all, their most significant feature of citizen complaint mechanisms included no binding obligations on the parties. Why, then, would a government submit to the findings of a transnational review body where the behavioral changes sought are undesirable? In fact, the citizen complaint mechanisms have proven significant due to the sophisticated efforts of labor rights and environmental activists. Rather than treat the soft law complaints as stand-alone tools, activists have connected the filing of complaints with parallel political and legal strategies to bolster ongoing domestic struggles, such as union organizing and the decontaminating of polluted waters.; These results call the attention of the scholarly community to recognize the ability of nonbinding legal accords backed by supporting institutional mechanisms to affect domestic politics. Indeed, such soft law mechanisms have become increasingly popular, especially for value-oriented norms like human rights and the environment. Through engaging in focused case studies of NAFTA's citizen submissions, this dissertation presents a conceptual framework for explaining how such soft law can be mobilized for domestic political gain. Incorporating insights from studies on legal mobilization, transnational activism, and legal dynamics, I show how activists, in conjunction with supportive review bodies, utilize the power of legal discourse and process to mobilize added pressure on target governments and firms to change their behavior.
展开▼
