Thematic Review of Studies on International Environmental Agreements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Section 1, Lines 117-121 , the manuscript would benefit from more clearly articulating how its thematic classification approach differs from or improves upon previous literature reviews such as Barrett (2016) or Mitchell et al. (2020). This would help clarify the novelty and contribution of the paper in the context of existing syntheses of international environmental agreement (IEA) studies.
2. At the end of the introduction or beginning of Section 2, consider including a conceptual diagram or summary table that outlines the four main thematic categories: player attributes, cooperation mechanisms, cooperation structures, and alternatives to IEAs. This would help readers visually grasp the logical structure and enhance the overall clarity of the classification.
3. Section 2, it would be helpful to add a synthesis table listing representative studies, including information such as author/year, modeling approach, policy relevance, and key findings. Such a table would serve as a quick reference tool and strengthen the paper’s utility for both scholars and practitioners.
4. Section 2.1-2.4, while many models are well explained, their connection to real-world policy instruments could be made more explicit. For example, the IPRS model could be linked to institutions like the Green Climate Fund.
5. In the discussion of mechanisms and model outcomes, the paper could be further improved by briefly reviewing existing literature on how IEA performance is empirically evaluated—e.g., in terms of compliance rates, emission reductions, or cost-effectiveness. Including this dimension would give readers a fuller picture of how theoretical expectations align with observed outcomes.
6. Sections 2 and 3, it would be valuable to mention that while game-theoretic models dominate the literature, relatively few have been empirically validated. Acknowledging this gap would help position the paper to encourage more empirical-modeling integration in future research.
7. Lines 146 ,165 , 185-186, 209, 219 ,251-252, 293,and 311-312..., the manuscript includes several mathematical expressions that are central to the arguments. It is recommended to number key equations (e.g., Eq. (1), Eq. (2), etc.) to facilitate reference and clarity in later discussions.
8. Lines 33, 143 and 551 , some phrases such as “we calculate” or “we use” could be replaced with more neutral academic expressions to align with standard scholarly tone. Additionally, minimizing the use of first-person pronouns in favor of passive or impersonal constructions would improve stylistic consistency.
9. Section 2.4, on alternative solutions beyond IEAs, the review would benefit from incorporating more recent literature from 2023–2025. In particular, recent advances on carbon clubs, blended carbon pricing instruments, and supply-side climate policy could help ensure that the section reflects the latest developments and remains topically current.
10. Section 3, the manuscript could be strengthened by including two to three concrete and operational future research questions. For example: How might trade sanctions be designed to be WTO-compliant? What hybrid institutional frameworks could effectively integrate equity and enforcement in IEAs?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am very glad to review this manuscript titled “Thematic Review of Studies on International Environmental Agreements”. This paper comprehensively reviews the recent research trends and classical theoretical models of international environmental agreements, and provides research clues for the study of transboundary pollution. Nevertheless, there are several areas that may need to be further improved to improve the quality of the article.
1. The part can be added to review the negotiation process of international environmental agreements, and analyze the effects of their implementation and the reasons for these different effects.
2. In the sub topic analysis , can you add some specific cases to explain？
3. Add relevant research literature of the EU-ETS.
4. Add relevant research on EU-CBAM.
5. Further clarify the future research direction in this field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper reviews the current research status of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs), focuses on the latest research trends and classical theoretical models of transnational pollution governance, and classifies and summarizes the existing literature in four aspects: country attributes, cooperation mechanisms, cooperation structures and alternatives. However, this paper still needs a lot of revisions in the refining of scientific issues, further improvement of research data analysis and other aspects of the paper. The comments are as follows:
1.What is the scientific question of this paper? What are the research methods and scientific data?
2.How have International Environmental Agreements been implemented in different countries? And what are the local or even global impacts or benefits?
3.What is the impact of IEAs on national or global technological progress or socio-economics?
4.The paper as a whole relies on theoretical analysis and model derivation. Is it possible to provide some empirical cases for validation?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- In Part “2 ”, how does the large number of formulas listed in the revised manuscript to the division of IEAs into four categories mentioned in the revised version of this paper?
- Although a literature review does not require raw experimental data, it is possible to obtain very detailed data based on case studies, literature analysis, and a series of bibliometrics and other analyses of these data, so why not use this analysis in this paper？
- Overall, this article is a lot of text, so why not turn some of the text into diagrams, in a way that increases readability?
- How have International Environmental Agreements been implemented in different countries? And what are the local or even global impacts or benefits? It is recommended to analyze in detail so as to reflect the core meaning of this study. It also illustrates, in the form of readable graphs, the implementation of different types of IEAs in different countries and the impact on economic efficiency.
- What is the impact of each of the four categories of IEAs on national or global technological progress or socio-economics? It is recommended to analyze in detail and add practical examples to be more convincing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- What is the impact of each of the four categories of IEAs on national or global technological progress or socio-economics? It is recommended to analyze and summary in detail, rather than simply listing literature.
- What are the future trends of IEAs? Suggest adding this section for discussion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
