Key Points

• Regimes represent an important feature of globalization.

• There is a growing number of global regimes being formed.

• The term, and social science approach to, regimes is recent but fits into a long-standing tradition of thought about international law.

• The loss of hegemonic status by the US sensitized 'social scientists to the need for a theory of regimes.

• Liberal institutionalists and realists have devel­oped competing approaches to the analysis of regimes.

The Nature of Regimes

Before presenting the theoretical approaches to regimes developed by the liberal institutionalists and the realists, it is necessary to present their com­mon conceptualization of an international regime in more detail and illustrate the conceptualization with an examination of some of the major areas of world politics now regulated by regimes.

Conceptualizing Regimes

Although it may be helpful in the first instance to think of regimes as rule governed behaviour, a more complex conceptualization has been developed by theorists working in the field of international rela­tions. This conceptualization can be captured by a definition and typology of regimes.

Defining Regimes

Although there are many definitions of a regime, they all take a similar form and the one that has become most widely used was formulated in the early 1980s by Stephen Krasner. It very effectively encapulates the complexity of the phenomenon (Box 12.2).

Krasner's definition reveals that a regime is more than a set of rules; it presupposes quite a high level of institutionalization. Indeed, regime theorists have been criticized for doing no more than intro­ducing new terminology to characterize the famil­iar idea of an international organization. Regime theorists acknowledge that international organiza­tions can be embraced by regime theory, but they insist that their approach encompasses much more. The parameters of regime theory can be demonstrated by examining a simple typology of regimes.

Classifying Regimes

One simple but useful classification, establishes a typology of regimes along two dimensions (Levy 1995). The vertical dimension highlights the for­mality of a regime. A regime can be associated with a highly formalized agreement or even the emer­gence of an international organization. But, at the other extreme, a regime can come into existence in the absence of any formal agreements. Historically, informal agreements between states have been established on the basis of precedence. The hori­zontal axis then focuses on the extent to which states expect or anticipate that their behaviour will be constrained by their accession to an implicit or explicit set of agreements.

Box 12.2. Defining Regimes

Regimes are identified by Krasner (1983: 2) as 'sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision making procedures around which actors' expectations con­verge in a given area of international relations'.

An Example of a Regime

This is a complex definition and it needs to be unpacked. Krasner has done this, by drawing on the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) for illustrative purposes. The GATT was initially an agreement drawn up in 1947 and reflected the belief of its signatories that it was necessary to establish an organization which would be responsible for the regulation of international trade. In fact, it proved impossible to establish such an organ­ization at that time, and the GATT acted as a substitute. It was given a secretariat and a general director responsi­ble for carrying out the preparatory work for a series of conferences where the signatories of the GATT met and reached agreements intended to foster international trade. In 1994, after the Uruguay Round of negotiations, it was agreed that it was now time to move beyond GATT and establish a formal World Trade Organization as orig­inally intended. Krasner was writing before this develop­ment took place, but it does not affect the utility of the GATT as an illustration of what is meant by a regime.

The Four Defining Elements of a Regime

Principles are represented by coherent bodies of theoretical statements about how the world works. GATT operated on the basis of liberal principles which assert that global welfare will be maximized by free trade.

Norms specify general standards of behaviour, and identify the rights and obligations of states. So, in the case of the GATT, the basic norm is that tariffs and non-tariff barriers should be reduced and eventually eliminated. Together, norms and principles define the essential character of a regime and these cannot be changed without transforming the nature of the regime.

Rules operate at a lower level of generality to princi­ples and norms, and they are often designed to reconcile conflicts which may exist between the principles and norms. Third World states, for example, wanted rules which differentiated betweeajdesffilapedand underde­veloped countries.

Decision-making procedures identify specific prescriptions for behaviour, the system of voting, for example, which will regularly change as a regime is consolidated and extended. The rules and procedures governing the GATT, for example, underwent substantial modification during its history. Indeed, the purpose of the successive conferences was to change the rules and decision making procedures. (Krasner 1985: 4-5)

If there are no formal agreements, and no con­vergence in the expectation that rules will be adhered to, then it is clear that there is no regime in existence. On the other hand, even in the absence of formal rules, there can be an expectation that informal rules will be observed, suggesting the existence of a tacit regime. By contrast, it is also possible to identity situations where formal rules have been brought into existence, without any expectation that they will be observed, indicating the existence of the dead-letter regime. Finally, there are full-blown regimes, where there is a high expectation that formal rules will be observed (see Box 12.3). Examples of these different types of regimes will be given in the next section.

Box 12.3. A Typology of Regimes
Convergence of expectations
Low	High	Formality
No regimes	Tacit regimes	Low
Dead-letter regimes	Full-blown regimes	High
This is not the only way that regimes can be classified. It is possible, for example, to classify them on a geo­graphical basis: bilateral, regional and global.
Source: Adapted from Levy (1995).