The increasing number of International Environmental Agreements (PLIs) has prompted the development of various efforts to assess the effectiveness of global environmental governance. Most research focuses on measuring agreement success through indicators of performance, compliance, and observable environmental achievements. However, academic attention to evaluation strategies used to define and measure effectiveness is still relatively limited. As a result, the epistemological assumptions and political implications inherent in evaluation practice often go unnoticed. This article aims to critically analyze the various strategies for assessing the effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements and examine how different evaluation paradigms result in different understandings of effectiveness. The research uses a qualitative approach with a meta-methodological analysis design supported by document analysis of evaluation reports, policy documents, and academic publications, with the Montreal Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) used as illustrative cases. The results of the study identified three main paradigms in effectiveness evaluation, namely rationalist-positivistic, constructivist-processual, and critical-reflective. Each paradigm prioritizes different forms of evidence, indicators of success, and governance priorities, resulting in an effectiveness narrative that is not always in line. These findings suggest that effectiveness cannot be understood as a fully objective and neutral condition, but rather as a construct formed through methodological choices, epistemological assumptions, and power relations inherent in evaluation practice. As a conceptual contribution, this article offers a Reflexive Evaluation Framework that integrates the dimensions of environmental outcomes, institutional learning, and justice and transformation to produce an evaluation approach that is more reflective, multidimensional, and sensitive to the complexities of global environmental governance.