We study the effect of strategic voting on the success and stability of international environmental agreements (IEAs). We assume that voters elect the government that negotiates an IEA in a framework of two asymmetric countries without transfers. We find that when countries sign an agreement, voters have an incentive to elect their government strategically – voters elect a government that is ‘greener’ than the median voter in one country and a government that is ‘less green’ in the other. The resulting IEA improves in terms of abatement upon the case without cooperation. Finally, we find that strategic voting does not undermine the success of IEAs because voters elect ‘less green’ governments, but because strategic voting makes IEAs unstable.