As soon as there is a commitment, if there is a neutral process that facilitates negotiation, the fact that there are gaps in the regulatory system, the fact that there are political inequalities, I have never seen that before, make it impossible to negotiate. Remember that we are trying to produce something better for both parties than no deal. They should want this agreement to be implemented because the alternative is not so attractive to both parties, that is the goal. A: In the United States, if we work in environmental justice disputes in the southeastern United States, and for example, you have a poor colored community that is going after a large Fortune Hundred company that disproportionately pollutes this neighborhood, and they come up with a good neighborhood agreement in principle through ad hoc negotiation. A: For example, we are going to a poor island community where the national government has decided to give up some mineral research rights on that island. They didn`t bother to consult with the population, and suddenly a company with huge machines appears from out of town to remove the place, looking for what they now claim to have a contract to exploit, and the community says no. The Community shall apply to an international body and request that an impact assessment be carried out. The government cannot refine it because it has too many other things at stake with this international body. The more contingencies you describe in the agreement, the more likely it is that the agreement will prevail on its own. Second, if I incorporate monitoring into the agreement so that there is a neutral monitor that calls the second page and says, “It`s their turn, they took the first step. You may not think they did the first step, but I`m saying they did the first step and now it`s your turn to do the second step. They build a neutral follow-up of the agreement to make probability a self-enforceable agreement.