Social rule deserves obedience if it can contribute to the well-being of a community.1 The obligation of social rule to increase the utility of the community to which it is accountable finds expression in the development and implementation of international policies. Two different standards shall be applied for assessing whether regime policies contributed to the effective management of environmental problems: i) the study of goal-attainment focuses on exploring whether the goals established in international regimes have been achieved; ii) the study of problemsolving intends to assess the changes in the state of the problems managed by regimes. First, it will be measured whether goals have been fulfilled and whether the state of the problems has changed. Subsequently, it will be explored whether regimes and non-state actors contributed to the fulfillment of these goals and to changes in the state of problems. Analysis starts from the assumption that goal-attainment and problem-solving are the result of a complex causal chain. It can be expected that considerable improvements in the cognitive setting and in compliance behavior are preconditions for the attainment of environmental goals or for achieving considerable improvements in the state of environmental problems. In connection, it can be expected that impacts of institutions and of nonstate actors on the cognitive setting or on compliance could have similar effects.