International Regimes
John Baylis
Chapter – 17
Table of Contents
Introduction
- An important dimension of globalization has been the establishment of worldwide regimes, which regulate international relations through rule-governed activities.
- International rules existed before the modern state but became a global phenomenon in the 20th century, with statesincreasingly involved in complex systems of rules and institutions.
- Regimes now exist in every area of international intercourse, with states bound by mutually accepted sets of rules.
- Regimes are so embedded that they are almost taken for granted, such as in global mail delivery or aviation safety.
- International terrorism is particularly disturbing because terrorists disregard international regimes.
- The formation of regimes is often controversial and contentious, and attempts to create them can fail.
- Despite the apparent benefits of regimes (e.g., arms control, global economic welfare), securing them is difficult, with no agreed explanation.
- From the 1970s, theorists in International Relations focused on the rapid expansion of regimes, leading to an extensive literature (Levy et al. 1995; Rittberger 1993).
- Regime theorists are generally divided into two schools: Realism and Liberalism (Hasenclever, Mayer, and Rittberger 1997).
- Although Realists are often skeptical about international law, they developed important positions on regimes.
- Liberal Institutionalists, a branch of Liberalism, share some assumptions with neo-realists, moving beyond the traditional liberal framework (Ch.7).
- Liberal Institutionalists focus on how regimes help states overcome obstacles to collaboration in an anarchic international system.
- Realists focus on how states use power in coordination situations to influence the nature and benefits of regimes.
- Both Liberal Institutionalists and Realists see regimes as the product of rational self-interested actors.
- In contrast, Social Constructivists view the existence of rules as shaping how actors define their identity and interests, promoting shared views of the world (Ch.9 and Ch.15).
- Regimes that are difficult to explain by rationalist theory, such as the international protection of minority rights, are now a focus of critics (Cronin 2003).
- IR theorists began focusing on regime formation in the 1970s due to growing awareness of the U.S. role as a hegemonpost-World War II.
- The United States maintained its hegemonic position through a complex array of economic regimes in the West, contributing to post-WWII prosperity.
- In the 1970s, doubts arose about the U.S.’s capacity to maintain hegemonic status due to economic success in Europeand Japan and failures in Vietnam.
- Liberal Institutionalists were concerned that the loss of U.S. hegemony would make establishing new regimes more difficult.
- Realists argued that without U.S. hegemony, Third World states would push for new regimes based on different norms and principles.
- Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has regained hegemonic power but is criticized for pursuing an exceptionalistforeign policy and not supporting new international regimes.
- Example: President Bush withdrew support for the Kyoto Protocol (2004) despite its broad adoption by 120+ states.
- The key question is whether regimes can succeed without U.S. support.