chapter  10
12 Pages

Concluding remarks

In this book, I have researched and written about seven issues related to international regimes. Some important findings follow. 1 Choosing a dialectical or non-dialectical approach and method is important, because applying a different approach and/or method(s) could yield a different interpretation on the same topic. A dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-dialectical/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, and cause-effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet half-way. This means that other academics and experts should try to apply different approaches and methods to study the same regimes, so as to see whether the findings and interpretations are, indeed, different. However, I believe that using the nondialectical deductive method is a mistake; an inclusive dialectical approach is better used because the formation, maintenance, and sustainment of an international regime is difficult. In other words, unless combining the normative and empirical dimensions, applying only the non-dialectical deductive method would be difficult, because a train of thought cannot be (easily) established. 2 Often we hear academics and experts say that there is no single definition for the term “governance.” Whether one’s approach is dialectical or nondialectical makes a difference, because again a dialectical/crab and frog motion remark is just the opposite of a non-dialectical/crab and frog motion (usually deductive, linear, or cause and effect) remark, or, at best, they must meet halfway. In sum, by applying my one-dot theory and my model, as elaborated in my not yet published manuscript, One-dot Theory Described, Explained, Inferred, and Justified: Converting and/or Reinventing Other Non-“dialectical” Theories and Models or Studies, there can be a single definition for governance (at least in terms of a spectrum). 3 Which should come first: international governance or international regimes? This question is not really a chicken and egg one1 because, if we use the term “international,” it strongly implies that we are referring to the Westphalian system, which was created in October 1648, although the adjective “international” was belatedly coined by Jeremy Bentham in a book published in 1789, Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation.2 The answer should be clear, if we associate governance with state and non-state sponsored dimensions. That is to say, regimes existed even before the creation of nation-states. It was not possible for international governance

to play an (important) role in October 1648, due to lack of a strong private sector, whereas a sort of diplomatic regime could have already existed as early as that time, so as to avoid, for example, mutual damaging outcomes. 4 The major weakness of the regimes theory is that one cannot discuss two or more regimes which are conflictual or at odds. Otherwise, the logic cannot flow smoothly. Due to this reason, regarding the first core element or positive nature, I do not have to put down anything under “[t]here were exceptions to the contrary.” When the book by Hilary F. French, Toward Treaties that Work: Improving the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements, was published, there were more than 170 environmental treaties.3 It would be interesting to conduct an in-depth study of all those environmental arrangements to see whether they can coexist. The same thing can be said of the relevant multilateral export control regimes, as the PRC said:

[i]t has formally joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group and has applied for its accession to the Missile Technology Control Regime. China has established a dialogue mechanism with the Wassenaar Arrangement and kept contact with the Australia Group. It has also strengthened information exchanges and law enforcement cooperation on non-proliferation with relevant countries.4