ABSTRACT
Oran R. Young and Gail Osherenko1 Introduction The preceding chapter discussed the traditional way of approaching regime formation. In that chapter I discussed the three primary schools of thought and briefly analyzed the ICC from these different perspectives. In my final analysis, I discovered that all of these perspectives, as autonomous entities, were clearly insufficient primarily due to their narrow scope. Hasenclever, Mayer and Rittberger also recognized this problem. In their concluding chapter they argue that an “inter-paradigmatic division of labor” is desirable, but they doubt its feasibility.2 Despite their reservations, the quest for a sufficient understanding of the ICC formation process must now turn to a more complex understanding of regime formation-an inter-paradigmatic theory that embodies all of the previous hypotheses and allows them the opportunity to interact. There is no need to construct such a model, for it already exists. It is a more complex model then the bivariate models discussed in the last chapter and its employment should assist my project in its attempt to understand the formation of the ICC. Oran Young and Gail Osherenko refer to the traditional approaches to regime formation as single-factor accounts or bivariate approaches.3 These types of analysis deal only with one hypothesis for the formation of regimes-either power, interests, or knowledge. The problem is that the formation of the ICC is not explainable or understandable by only one hypothesis. Scholars can only fully explain the formation process, as encapsulated in the PrepCom meetings and the Rome Conference, through the use of a much more complex, inter-paradigmatic model. In short, the need is for a multivariate model of regime formation. 1 Young and Osherenko, “Testing Theories,” 239.
