1932

Abstract

The signature feature of twenty-first-century international cooperation is arguably not the regime but the regime complex. A regime complex is an array of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical institutions that includes more than one international agreement or authority. The institutions and agreements may be functional or territorial in nature. International regime complexity refers to international political systems of global governance that emerge because of the coexistence of rule density and regime complexes. This article highlights insights and questions that emerge from the last 15 years of scholarship on the politics of international regime complexity, explaining why regime complexes arise, what factors sustain them, and the range of political effects regime complexity creates. Our conclusion explains why, in a post-American world order, the trend of greater international regime complexity will likely accelerate.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830
2018-10-13
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abbott KW, Genschel P, Snidal D, Zangl B 2015. International Organizations as Orchestrators Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  2. Adler E, Pouliot V 2011. International practices. Int. Theory 3:1–36
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aggarwal VK 1985. Liberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  4. Aggarwal VK 1998. Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages and Nesting Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  5. Ahrne GR, Brunsson N, Kerwer D 2016. The paradox of organizing states: a meta-organization perspective on international organizations. J. Int. Organ. Stud. 7:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Alter KJ 2014. The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  7. Alter KJ 2018. The contested authority and legitimacy of international law. Beyond Anarchy: Rule and Authority in the International System C Daase, N Dietelhoff, A Witts. Manuscript forthcoming. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3204382
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Alter KJ, Helfer L, Madsen MR 2018. International Court Authority Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  9. Alter KJ, Meunier S 2006. Banana splits: nested and competing regimes in the transatlantic banana trade dispute. J. Eur. Public Policy 13:362–82
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Alter KJ, Meunier S 2009. The politics of international regime complexity. Perspect. Politics 7:13–24
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Arenas-García N 2012. 21st century regionalism in South America: UNASUR and the search for development alternatives. eSharp 18:64–85
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Auld G, Green JF 2012. Unbundling the Regime Complex: The Effects of Private Authority Presented at Osgoode Hall Law School Research Paper Series, York University Tor., Can.:
  13. Benvenisti E, Downs GW 2007. The empire's new clothes: political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Rev 60:595–631
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Benvenisti E, Harel A 2017. Embracing the tension between national and international human rights law: the case for discordant parity. Int. J. Const. Law 15:36–59
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Berman A 2017. Industry, regulatory capture and transnational standard setting. AJIL Unbound 111:112–18
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Betts A 2013. Regime complexity and international organizations: UNHCR as a challenged institution. Global Gov 19:69–81
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Busch ML 2007. Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settlement in international trade. Int. Organ. 61:735–61
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Buzan B 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  19. De Búrca G 2010. The European court and the international legal order after Kadi. Harvard Int. Law J. 51:1–49
    [Google Scholar]
  20. De Búrca G, Keohane RO, Sabel C 2013. New modes of pluralist global governance. N.Y. Univ. J. Int. Law Politics 45:723–86
    [Google Scholar]
  21. De Búrca G, Keohane RO, Sabel C 2014. Global experimentalist governance. Br. J. Political Sci. 44:477–86
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dezalay Y, Garth BG 2011. Lawyers and the Rule of Law in an Era of Globalization Abingdon, UK: Routledge
  23. Drezner DW 2013. The tragedy of global institutional commons. Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World M Finnemore, J Goldstein 280–310 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gehring T, Faude B 2013. The dynamics of regime complexes: microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Gov 19:119–30
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodale M, Merry SE 2007. The Practice of Human Rights: Tracking Law Between the Global and the Local Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Hakimi M 2017. Constructing an international community. Am. J. Int. Law 111:317–56
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hale T 2013. Gridlock: Why Global Cooperation Is Failing When We Need It Most Cambridge, UK: Polity
  28. Halliday TC, Shaffer G 2015. Transnational Legal Orders Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  29. Hathaway O, Shapiro SJ 2017. The Internationalists New York: Simon & Shuster
  30. Held D 2003. Cosmopolitanism globalisation tamed. Rev. Int. Stud. 29:465–80
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Helfer LR 1999. Forum shopping for human rights. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 148:285–399
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Helfer LR 2004. Regime shifting: the TRIPS agreement and the new dynamics of international intellectual property making. Yale J. Int. Law 29:1–81
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hofmann SC 2011. Why institutional overlap matters: CSDP in the European security architecture. J. Common Mark. Stud. 49:101–20
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hsu S 2017. How China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank fared its first year. Forbes Jan. 14. https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/01/14/how-chinas-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank-fared-its-first-year/
  35. Huneeus A, Couso JA, Sieder R 2011. Cultures of Legality: Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  36. Huneeus A, Madsen MR 2018. Between universalism and regional law and politics: a comparative history of the American, European and African human rights systems. Int. J. Const. Law. 16:136–60
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ikenberry GJ, Lim DJ 2017. China's Emerging Institutional Statecraft: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Prospects for Counter-Hegemony Proj. Int. Order Strategy Washington, DC: Brookings Inst https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/chinas-emerging-institutional-statecraft.pdf
  38. Jervis R 1997. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  39. Johnson T 2014. Organizational Progeny: Why Governments Are Losing Control over the Proliferating Structures of Global Governance New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  40. Jupille J, Mattli W, Snidal D 2013. Institutional Choice and Global Commerce Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  41. Keohane R 1983. The demand for international regimes. International Regimes S Krasner 141–72 Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Keohane RO, Nye JS 1977. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition Boston: Little, Brown
  43. Keohane RO, Nye JS 1987. Power and Interdependence revisited. Int. Organ. 41:725–53
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Keohane RO, Victor DG 2011. The regime complex for climate change. Perspect. Politics 9:7–23
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Koremenos B 2016. The Continent of International Law Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  46. Koremenos B, Lipson C, Snidal D 2001. The rational design of international institutions. Int. Organ. 55:761–99
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Krasner S 1983. International Regimes Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  48. Kuyper JW 2014. Global democratization and international regime complexity. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 20:620–46
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lake DA 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  50. Lesage D, Van de Graaf T 2013. Thriving in complexity? The OECD system's role in energy and taxation. Global Gov 19:83–92
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Madsen MR 2011. Reflexivity and the construction of the international object: the case of human rights. Int. Political Sociol. 5:259–75
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mallard G 2014. Crafting the nuclear regime complex (1950–1975): dynamics of harmonization of opaque treaty rules. Eur. J. Int. Law 25:445–72
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Margulis ME 2013. The regime complex for food security: implications for the global hunger challenge. Global Gov 19:53–68
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Mondré A 2015. Forum Shopping in International Disputes Basingstoke, UK/New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  55. Morin J-F, Louafi S, Orsini A, Oubenal M 2016. Boundary organizations in regime complexes: a social network profile of IPBES. J. Int. Relat. Dev. 20:543–77
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Morin J-F, Orsini A 2014. Policy coherency and regime complexes: the case of genetic resources. Rev. Int. Stud. 40:303–24
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Morse J, Keohane R 2014. Contested multilateralism. Rev. Int. Organ. 9:385–412
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Murphy H, Kellow A 2013. Forum shopping in global governance: understanding states, business and NGOs in multiple arenas. Global Policy 4:139–49
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Orsini A 2013. Multi-forum non-state actors: navigating the regime complexes for forestry and genetic resources. Global Environ. Politics 13:34–55
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Orsini A, Morin J-F, Young O 2013. Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance. Global Gov 19:27–39
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Oye K 1986. Cooperation under Anarchy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  62. Paravantis JA 2016. From game theory to complexity, emergence and agent-based modeling in world politics. Stud. Comput. Intell. 627:39–85
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Pauwelyn J, Salles LE 2009. Forum shopping before international tribunals: (real) concerns, (im)possible solutions. Cornell Int. Law J. 42:77–117
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Peters A 2017. The refinement of international law: from fragmentation to regime interaction and politicization. Int. J. Const. Law 15:671–704
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Pogge TW 1992. Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics 103:48–75
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pollack MA, Shaffer GC 2009. When Cooperation Fails: The International Law and Politics of Genetically Modified Foods New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  67. Rachman G 2009. Kissinger never wanted to dial Europe. Financial Times July 22. https://www.ft.com/content/c4c1e0cd-f34a-3b49-985f-e708b247eb55
  68. Raustiala K 2000. Compliance and effectiveness in international regulatory cooperation. Case West. Reserve J. Int. Law 32:387–440
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Raustiala K 2002. The architecture for international cooperation: transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Va. J. Int. Law 43:1–92
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Raustiala K 2013. Institutional proliferation and the international legal order. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations J Dunoff, M Pollack 293–320 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Raustiala K 2016. Governing the Internet. Am. J. Int. Law 110:491–503
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Raustiala K, Victor D 2004. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. Int. Organ. 58:277–309
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Rosendal GK 2001. Impacts of overlapping international regimes: the case of biodiversity. Global Gov 7:95–117
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sanahuja JA 2012. Post-liberal regionalism in South America: the case of UNASUR Work. Pap., Eur. Univ. Inst. Fiesole, Italy:
  75. Sirleaf M 2017. The African justice cascade and the Malabo Protocol. Int. J. Transit. Justice 11:71–91
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Slaughter A-M 2004. A New World Order Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  77. Slaughter A-M 2017. The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  78. Stoddard E 2012. Capturing contestation in Caspian energy: regime complexity and Eurasian energy governance. Political Perspect 6:3–25
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Tallberg J, Sommerer T, Squatrito T, Jönsson C 2013. The Opening Up of International Organizations: Transnational Access in Global Governance Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  80. Tsepkalo VV 1998. The remaking of Eurasia (stabilizing Eurasia in the wake of the Former Soviet Union's collapse). Foreign Aff 77:107–26
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Urpelainen J, Graaf TVD 2015. Your place or mine? Institutional capture and the creation of overlapping international institutions. Br. J. Political Sci. 45:799–827
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Young O 1996. Institutional linkages in international society: polar perspectives. Global Gov 2:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Zürn M, Binder M, Ecker-Erhard M 2012. International authority and its politicization. Int. Theory 4:69–106
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Zürn M, Faude B 2013. On fragmentation, differentiation, and coordination. Global Environ. Politics 13:119–30
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030830
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error