Compliance with G8 Commitments:
Ascertaining the Degree of Compliance with Summit Debt
and International Trade Commitments
for Canada and the United States, 1996-1999

Diana Juricevic, G8 Research Group

Paper prepared for POL 495Y
Professor John J. Kirton
University of Toronto


The purpose of this article is to identify the patterns and processes and explain the causes of summit compliance. The impending analysis will examine the extent to which Canada and the United States have substantively implemented their most significant G7/8 debt relief and international trade commitments from 1996 to 1999. The argument advanced in this paper is that no single theory on international cooperation adequately accounts for either summit compliance in general or cross-country variations in particular. This paper will build models for identifying commitments, evaluating and ranking commitments according to their level of ambition and significance, and develop a framework for assessing compliance.


Empirical Analysis
1996 Lyon Summit
1997 Denver Summit
1998 Birmingham Summit
1999 Cologne Summit
Theoretical Assessment
Summary: Identifying Commitments: International Trade and Debt Relief:
Lyon 1996 | Denver 1997 | Birmingham 1998 | Koln 1999
Summary: Coding Manuel
Table 1. Levels of Ambition
Table 1.1: Lyon 1996
Table 1.2: Denver 1997
Table 1.3: Birmingham 1998
Table 1.4: Cologne 1999
Table 2. Levels of Significance
Table 2.1: Lyon 1996
Table 2.2: Denver 1997
Table 2.3: Birmingham 1998
Table 2.4: Cologne 1999
Table 3. Ambition and Significance Summary Comparisons
Table 3.1: Ambition and Significance scores by Summit
Table 3.2: Ambition and Significance scores by Issue
Table 4. Cross-Country and Cross-Issue Comparisons
Table 4.1: US and Canadian compliance with Debt commitments
Table 4.2: US and Canadian compliance with Trade commitments
Table 4.3: Summary Cross-Country comparison of Debt
Table 4.4: Summary Cross-Country comparison of Trade
Table 4.5: Summary comparison of compliance scores in percentage terms