Theories Of International Relations 2 Dersi 6. Ünite Sorularla Öğrenelim

According to Keohane, regime theory is a theory for explaining and understanding the international cooperation intending the coordination and harmonization of interest among nations.

An international regime can be defined as explicit or implicit norms, rules, principles and decision making processes related to certain issue areas/ subjects.

Conca stated that regime can be defined in narrow and broader meanings. According to broader definition, it is understood as patterns of behaviors in international relations, whereas in narrow meaning, it can be defined as conditioning the behaviors of states consciously to realize collective goals, and can be seen as a specific version of international institutions.

According to liberal institutionalizes regimes enable states to collaborate, promote the common good, flourish best when promoted and maintained by a benign hegemon and promote globalization and a liberal world order.

Regime theories are constructed on the theory of hegemony that refers to asymmetric relations among states.

The purpose of regimes is to form a frame for facilitating the solution of problems through treaties.

International regimes may be formed in every field of subjects of international relations such as human rights, environment, security issues, seas, outer space, straits, rivers as well as economic, financial, commercial subjects and diplomatic behaviour.

States, in many subjects, would face some limitations of international regimes which constrain their sovereign rights, so they are blurred to determine the subjects either domestic or global in character. For example, use of waters, use of natural resources, protection of wild life, animal rights, prevention of environmental pollution are the subjects that states are not willing to share their authority, in time some developments such as globalization, economic, social and cultural interactions have caused these subjects to be international.

The regulations and rules of the international regimes are in general adopted by public opinions and those states willing to violate rules are even objected by their own people.

Common assumptions of liberal and realist approaches to regimes are:

1. States operate in an anarchic international system.

2. States are rational and unitary actors.

3. States are the units responsible for establishing regimes.

4. Regimes are established on the basis of cooperation in the international system.

5. Regimes promote international order.

Because the background of efforts for regime formation goes back to old times. According to Haas, process in this subject followed a parallel development to the development of knowledge and consciousness of humankind.

Because in international markets, the states rarely have common interest. In contrast, unilateral initiatives of states don’t create any cost for them; even provide some flexibility. It would provide exporting or importing countries to differentiate the prices for different markets.

Regulations or regimes in areas like in open seas and international air spaces would eliminate the confusion of authority, and reduce the cost of air transportation. Therefore, these regimes, instead of limiting, increase the autonomy for states.

Even in the conditions of liberal foreign trade regimes, states try to eliminate difficulties which are imposed by some others to access to the internal markets through some unilateral measures related to invisible barriers because states have tendencies to apply such barriers and protectionist behaviours to close their domestic markets to foreign competition. Therefore, economic regimes aren’t as strong as regimes in security issues

• States wouldn’t need to form a regime, if they have opportunity to behave unilaterally without jeopardizing the interests of others.
• If states having common interest could behave in the same manner, they don’t need an international regime.
• If the best strategy of one state is the better of the worst strategy of the others, then states would not need to establish a regime to act in the same way.

Main purpose of adopting the broader definition is to indicate the regulations related to international topics, civil societies, social movements and global governance.

Puchala ve Hopkins state in their study that regime is a conceptual framework to understand the behaviors of states and to explain the situation which couldn’t be explained before. In this sense, regimes both regulate and constrain the behaviors of states. Therefore, regimes can be both reasons and results determining and influencing the behaviors.