ABSTRACT
Nonregimes are puzzling only when theories create expectations of regime creation. A case is relevant only if the potential for mutual gains and conducive conditions are present. In 2014, the case could have been labelled a nonregime and even today scholars disagree on the strength of the outcome and whether weak policy accords constitute regimes. It is reasonable to regard ineffective regimes as regimes nonetheless but the matter is open to debate. The task is less challenging than it appears since all nonregimes feature sociopolitical processes involving public discourse, national decision-making, multilateral consultations, and occasionally formal negotiations. A fundamental question for nonregimes research pertains to the potential symmetry between theories of success and failure. The increasing prevalence of private governance may offer governments rationale for eschewing interstate regimes. Beyond theoretical consideration, nonregime research has added value for practical reasons. It can help identify obstacles to negotiations and produce policy recommendations where progress is urgently needed.
