Advertisement

Evolutionary and Disciplinary Characteristics of Regime Theorization

  • Nik HynekEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the significance of regime theory, or theory of regimes, for the field of International Relations. Specifically, it tries to reflect on theoretical affinities between the two, namely to recast regime theory as IR theory. The chapter proceeds as follows. First, it discusses existing IR theorization of regimes which has coalesced around three specific “waves” of regimes theorization: the neo-neo-convergence regime theory; cognitivism; and radical constructivism/post-structuralism. Second, it assesses heuristic utility of the three waves of regime theorization in relation to possible domains of empirical application. Finally, more general trends in relation to heuristics are discerned and flagged in the conclusion.

Keywords

Regime theory Regimes Theorization Neo-realism Neo-Liberal institutionalism Cognitivism Constructivism Post-structuralism Heuristics 

References

  1. Aceves, W. J. (1997). Institutionalist Theory and International Legal Scholarship. American University International Law Review, 12(2), 227–266.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, E., & Greve, P. (2009). When Security Community Meets Balance of Power: Overlapping Regional Mechanisms of Security Governance. Review of International Studies, 35(S1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alker, H. R., & Greenberg, W. J. (1977). On Simulating Collective Security Regime Alternatives. In G. M. Bonham & M. J. Shapiro (Eds.), Thought and Action in Foreign Policy (pp. 263–305). Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreatta, F., & Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2010). Which Synthesis? Strategies of Theoretical Integration and the Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate. International Political Science Review, 31(2), 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arts, B. (2000). Regimes, Non-state Actors and the State System: A ‘Structurational’ Regime Model. European Journal of International Relations, 6(4), 513–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin, D. A. (Ed.). (1993). Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global Environmental Governance: Taking Stock, Moving Forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourne, M. (2007). Arming Conflict: The Proliferation of Small Arms. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Breitmeier, H., Young, O., & Zürn, M. (2006). Analyzing International Environmental Regimes: From Case Study to Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimitrov, R. S., Sprinz, D. F., DiGiusto, G. M., & Kelle, A. (2007). International Nonregimes: A Research Agenda. International Studies Review, 9(2), 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drezner, D. W. (2009). The Power and Peril of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duffield, J. S. (1994). Explaining the Long Peace in Europe: The Contribution of Regional Security Regimes. Review of International Studies, 20(4), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunne, T., Hansen, L., & Wight, C. (2013). The End of International Relations Theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Efrat, A. (2010). Toward Internationally Regulated Goods: Controlling the Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons. International Organization, 64(1), 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, S. (2011). Disarmament Diplomacy and Human Security: Regimes, Norms and Moral Progress in International Relations. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Getz, K. A. (2006). The Effectiveness of Global Prohibition Regimes: Corruption and the Antibribery Convention. Business and Society, 45(3), 254–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goldsmith, J. (2000). Review: Sovereignty, International Relations Theory, and International Law. Stanford Law Review, 52(4), 959–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gómez-Mera, L. (2015, September 24). Regime Complexity and Global Governance: The Case of Trafficking in Persons. European Journal of International Relations.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115600226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grieco, J. (1988). Anarchy and Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organization, 42(3), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haas, E. B. (1983). Regime Decay: Conflict Management and International Organizations, 1945–1981. International Organization, 37(2), 189–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haas, P. M. (1989). Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control. International Organization, 43(3), 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haggard, S., & Simmons, B. A. (1987). Theories of International Regimes. International Organization, 41(3), 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V. (1997). Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hynek, N., & Teti, A. (2010). Saving Identity from Postmodernism? The Normalization of Constructivism in International Relations. Contemporary Political Theory, 9(2), 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). A Strategic Theory of Regime Integration and Separation. International Organization, 66(4), 645–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jervis, R. (1982). Security Regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keeley, J. F. (1990). Toward a Foucauldian Analysis of International Regimes. International Organization, 44(1), 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Keohane, R. O. (Ed.). (1986). Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Keohane, R. O. (1989). Neoliberal Institutionalism: A Perspective on World Politics. In R. Keohane (Ed.), International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (pp. 1–20). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  34. Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. (1995). The Promise of Institutional Theory. International Security, 20(1), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  36. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2010, January). The Regime Complex for Climate Change (Discussion Paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Keohane_Victor_Final_2.pdf.
  37. Klotz, A. (1995). Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Krasner, S. D. (2003, March 31). Harry Kreisler’s Conversation with Stephen D. Krasner. IIS: Conversations with History. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Krasner/krasner-con0.html.
  41. Kratochwil, F. (1993). Contract and Regimes: Do Issue Specificity and Variations of Formality Matter? In V. Rittberger (Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (pp. 73–93). Oxford: Clanderon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kratochwil, F., & Ruggie, J. G. (1986). International Organizations: A State of the Art on an Art of the State. International Organization, 40(4), 753–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krause, K. (1990). Constructing Regional Security Regimes and the Control of Arms Transfers. International Journal, 45(2), 386–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krause, K., & Latham, A. (1998). Constructing Non-proliferation and Arms Control: The Norms of Western Practice. Contemporary Security Policy, 19(1), 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lake, D. A. (2013). Theory Is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 567–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lapid, Y. (1989). The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levy, M. A., Young, O. R., & Zürn, M. (1995). The Study of International Regimes. European Journal of International Relations, 1(3), 267–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G. (2002). The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of LRTAP. European Journal of International Relations, 8(1), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lipson, M. (2005–2006). Transgovernmental Networks and Non-proliferation: International Security and the Future of Global Governance. International Journal, 61(1), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1998). The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization, 52(4), 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miron, J. A. (2001). Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44(S2), 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Müller, H. (1993). The Internationalization of Principles, Norms and Rules by Governments: The Case of Security Regimes. In V. Rittberger (Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (pp. 361–390). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Müller, H. (1995). Regime Robustness, Regime Attractivity and Arms Control Regimes in Europe. Cooperation and Conflict, 30(3), 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.). (2013). Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts and Justice. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  56. Muzaka, V. (2011). Linkages, Contests and Overlaps in the Global Intellectual Property Rights Regime. European Journal of International Relations, 17(4), 755–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nadelmann, E. (1990). Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society. International Organization, 44(4), 479–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nye, J. S., Jr. (1987). Nuclear Learning and U.S.–Soviet Security Regimes. International Organization, 41(3), 371–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nye, J. S., Jr. (1988). Neorealism and Neoliberalism. World Politics, 40(2), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Oye, K. A. (Ed.). (1986). Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Price, R. M. (1995). A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo. International Organization, 49(1), 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Price, R. M. (1997). The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Price, R. M., & Tannenwald, N. (1996). Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (pp. 114–152). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Puchala, D. J., & Hopkins, R. F. (1982). International Regimes: Lessons from Inductive Analysis. International Organization, 36(2), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Beyond Metatheory? European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenau, J. N. (1986). Before Cooperation: Hegemons, Regimes and Habit-Driven Actors in World Politics. International Organization, 40(4), 849–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rublee, M. R. (2009). Non-proliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  69. Ruggie, J. G. (1975). International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends. International Organization, 29(3), 557–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ruggie, J. G. (1983). Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis. World Politics, 35(2), 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sayyid, B., & Zac, L. (1998). Political Analysis in a World Without Foundations. In E. Scarbrough & E. Tanenbaum (Eds.), Research Strategies in the Social Sciences: A Guide to New Approaches (pp. 247–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Sismondo, S. (1996). Science Without Myth: On Construction, Reality, and Social Knowledge. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sitaraman, S. (2009). State Participation in International Treaty Regimes. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, R. K. (1987). Explaining the Non-proliferation Regime: Anomalies for Contemporary International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(2), 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stokke, O. (2003). Trade Measures, WTO, and Climate Compliance: The Interplay of International Regimes (FNI Report 5/2003). Lysaker and Oslo: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
  77. Stokke, O. S. (2012). Disaggregating International Regimes: A New Approach to Evaluation and Comparison. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Strange, S. (1982). Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis. International Organization, 36(2), 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tannenwald, N. (1999). The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-use. International Organization, 53(3), 433–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tannenwald, N. (2007). The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tannenwald, N. (2013). Justice and Fairness in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Regime. Ethics and International Affairs, 27(3), 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Taylor, C. (1985). Neutrality in Political Science. Philosophical Papers (pp. 58–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Waever, O. (1996). The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate. In S. Smith, et al. (Eds.), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 149–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wendt, A. E. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wendt, A. E., & Friedheim, D. (1995). Hierarchy Under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the East German State. International Organization, 49(4), 689–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Young, O. R. (1980). International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation. World Politics, 32(3), 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Young, O. R. (1982). Regime Dynamics: The Rise and Fall of International Regimes. International Organization, 36(2), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Young, O. R. (1991). Political Leadership in Regime Formation: On the Development of Institutions in International Society. International Organization, 45(3), 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Young, O. R. (2000). Institutional Interplay: The Environmental Consequences of Cross-Scale Interactions (NAS Project Working Paper). http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/519/youngo041300.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Metropolitan University PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations