ABSTRACT
Foundations of Regime Theory Regime theory has been a part of the international relations landscape for over two decades. This analytical perspective first emerged in the 1970s, but the first major contribution to this perspective came in the 1982 special issue of International Organization. In this issue, several esteemed international relations scholars, under the editorial guidance of Stephen Krasner, set out to define the concept of international regimes and assess their impact on global politics. Many scholars in the field scoffed at such an endeavor. They believed that the study of regimes was fruitless and lacking staying power. One of those critics, Susan Strange, characterized the study of international regimes in the following manner: “the study of regimes is, for the most part a fad, one of those shifts of fashion not too difficult to explain as a temporary reaction to events in the real world but in itself making little in the way of long-term contribution to knowledge.”2 It is now over twenty years later and regime theory has not vanished from the pages of global politics scholarship. In fact, one could assert that over the past decade or so regime theory has enjoyed a sort of renaissance in the literature.3 The current scholarly interest in both inter-governmental organizations and the idea of global governance has rejuvenated the field’s interest in regimes. Thus, regime
1 Robert M.A. Crawford, Regime Theory in the Post-Cold War World: Rethinking Neoliberal Approaches to International Relations (Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1996), 2. 2 Susan Strange, “Cave! Hic Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” in International Regimes, ed. Stephen D. Krasner (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983), 337. 3 A few examples of this renaissance are: Hasenclever, Mayer and Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes; Stokke, “Regimes as Governance Systems”; Oran R. Young, Governance in World Affairs (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999); Andrew
theory, contrary to Strange’s assessment, continues to play an important role in international relations scholarship. Robert Crawford’s assessment of this analytical perspective, cited at the outset of this chapter, seems to hold the truth-regime theory is not a fad or some transitory interest; instead, it is an analytical perspective that can assist international relations scholars in their endeavor to better understand global politics. For the purpose of this text, regime theory may prove specifically useful in understanding the formation of the International Criminal Court and the evolving regime that is constituted by the success at and beyond the Rome Conference. In order to understand how this analytical perspective is useful to an analysis of the ICC, we must first understand the construct of the perspective itself. This endeavor will not be an easy one. The primary problem is that regime theory is not a parsimonious theory. It has many different schools of thought and models of interpretation. The goal of this chapter is to examine these divergent schools of thought in an attempt to discover which one will best assist in this analysis of the ICC. However, prior to embarking on this quest, it is necessary to first define “international regimes” as a concept. Avoiding Imprecision Much like the non-parsimonious nature of the theory itself, a coherent definition of international regimes tends to elude international relations scholars.4 Since the 1970s, international relations scholars have proposed several definitions of regimes. Keohane and Nye defined regimes as, “sets of governing arrangements that effect relationships of interdependence.”5 Oran Young defined them as, “recognized patterns of practice around which expectations converge…regimes are social structures.”6 In his more recent work, John Gerard Ruggie defined regimes as, “a set of mutual expectations, rules and regulations, organizational plans, energies, and financial commitments that have been accepted by a group of states.”7 Nevertheless, Stephen Krasner’s 1982 definition captured the field’s attention and remains the most widely accepted definition of this concept. Krasner defines international regimes as, “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms,
4 Hasenclever, Mayer, and Rittberger, Theories of International Regimes, 8-14, exemplify this statement best by discussing the positive attributes of both a complex and a lean definition of international regimes. 5 Keohane and Nye, Power and Interdependence, 19. 6 Oran Young, “International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation,” World Politics 32 (1980): 332.
