International agreements are essential for tackling global challenges, yet their success rates vary dramatically—some achieve remarkable results while others fall short. Currently, there's no systematic way to analyze why certain agreements work and others don’t, leading to inefficient diplomatic efforts and delayed solutions. A structured framework for evaluating and designing agreements could help policymakers craft more effective solutions.

Understanding What Makes Agreements Work

One approach could involve building a comprehensive database of historical agreements, categorizing their design features (like enforcement mechanisms and participation rules) and outcomes. By comparing case studies across domains—environment, security, trade—patterns of effectiveness might emerge. This could lead to evidence-based best practices for agreement design, along with predictive models to estimate how proposed structures might perform. The findings could be shared through academic papers, policy briefs, and an interactive platform where users explore data and simulate agreement designs.

Who Benefits and Why They’d Care

Diplomats, policymakers, international organizations, NGOs, and academics all stand to gain from such a framework. Governments want agreements that work without overstepping sovereignty, while NGOs and businesses prefer practical solutions over bureaucratic formalities. By focusing on measurable effectiveness rather than ideology, this approach aligns diverse stakeholder incentives.

Turning Theory into Action

An initial phase could involve reviewing existing research and creating a taxonomy of agreement features, followed by deep case studies and prototype development. Testing the framework on recent agreements and refining it with policymaker feedback could ensure real-world applicability. A simpler MVP might start with a focused database of high-impact agreements before expanding to broader domains.

While challenges like isolating treaty effects from external factors exist, combining multiple analytical methods could help. The end goal? A tool that doesn’t just describe past agreements but actively helps design better ones.