ABSTRACT
International regimes have been defined as social institutions around which actor expectations converge in a given area of international relations (Young 1980; Krasner 1983). Accordingly, as is true of any social institution, international regimes limit the discretion of their constituent units to decide and act on issues that fall within the regime’s domain. And, as is also true of any social institution, ultimate expression in converging expectations and delimited discretion gives international regimes an intersubjective quality. To this extent, international regimes are akin to language; and language is inherently “dialogical,” in that it must be shared to be effective. The constituent units of a regime, like speakers of a common language, generally have little difficulty in determining what even an entirely new usage signifies. Should it be technically inappropriate or incorrect, they nevertheless may still “understand” it-in the dual sense of being able to comprehend it and willing to acquiesce in it (cf. Chomsky 1964: chap. 1).
