Why do international actors prefer different legal approaches in global governance? This paper examines the strategic choices made by international actors—states, firms, and activists—regarding “hard” versus “soft” legalization to address global challenges. It argues that while hard legalization offers benefits like precision and legal binding, actors often prefer softer forms (reduced precision, weaker obligations) due to ease of achievement, flexibility in uncertainty, reduced sovereignty infringement, and compromise facilitation. By incorporating both interest-based and normative elements, the study emphasizes the role of nonstate actors and illustrates the advantages of various international legal arrangements. This analysis provides valuable insights into the complexities of international law and governance.
As a leading journal in international relations, International Organization is devoted to publishing leading research within the field. This paper aligns with this mission, providing an important theoretical framework for understanding international law and governance, and offering practical insights into the strategic choices made by international actors.