TABLE 1—

Impact of Different Areas of Laws on Any Outcome Measure

Area of Law	Negative Impact	No Impact	Positive Impact
International human rights law (n = 31)	69	68	71
	70	73,a	73,a
	72	74	78
	81,b	75	79
	84,a	76,b	80
	86,a	77	82
	87	83,b	84,a
	92,a	91	85
	97,a	93,a	86,a
		95,a	88
		96,a	89
		97,a	90,b
			92,a
			93,a
			95,a
			96,a
			98,b
			94
International humanitarian law (n = 7)	100	99,b	102,b
	104,a,b	101	103
			105,b
			104,a,b
International environmental law (n = 10)	106,a,b	107	106,a,b
	108,a	109,a,b	108,a
		111,b	109,a,b
		112	110,b
		114,a,b	113,b
			114,a,b
			115,b
International trade law (n = 9)	32,a	25	24
		26,a	26,a
		27,a	27,a
			28
			29
			30
			31
			32,a
International financial law (n = 33)	49,a	38	33,b
	50,a,b	39	34–36
	54	42	37
	55,a	45	40
	58,b	49,a	41
	65,a	51	43
		52	44
		55,a	46
		57,a	47,b
		59,a	48
		61,b	50,a,b
		62,a	53
			56
			57,a
			59,a
			60
			62,a
			63
			64
			65,a
			66
			67
No. of studies	20	34	59

Note. Except where indicated, numbers in each column refer to reference citations in this paper. The citations are listed in chronological order.

^aThese 23 studies are listed more than once, as they featured multiple conclusions about the impact of international law on measured outcomes.

^bThese 23 studies used time-series analysis (n = 3),^33,99,114 cross-sectional analysis (n = 6),^{33,61,76,90,102,111} Cox proportionate hazard models (n = 4),^{34–36,80,104,105} generalized method of moments analysis (n = 1),⁴⁷ quantile treatment effect distributional analysis (n = 1),⁵⁰ formal model analysis (n = 1),¹⁰⁹ descriptive statistics (n = 6),^{81,83,106,110,113,115} survey experiments (n = 1),⁹⁸ and difference-in-difference analysis (n = 1).⁵⁸ One of these studies used both time-series analysis and cross-sectional analysis.³³ The other 67 studies^{24–32,37–46,48,49,51–57,59,60,62–75,77–79,82,84–89,91–97,100,101,103,107,108,112} and 2 of the studies with Cox proportionate hazard modeling^34–36,80 used time-series cross-sectional analysis.