International regimes are platforms for the complex interaction of ideas, principles, and interests at a global level, which work towards the achievement of common goals. They include “specialized arrangements about well-defined activities, resources, or geographical areas and often involving only some subset of the members of the international society” (Burkitt, 13). They comprise of states co-operating with each other to bring about changes whose effects are of common interest. In this sense, the summit on global warming is an international regime in that it seeks to address issues of concern to almost every nation of the world.
A lot of literature has been written about the emergence and working of international regimes. Most of them, however, take theoretical approaches in defining the nature of kind of inter-state cooperation. The realist school of thought posits that international regimes exist because nations get concerned about their position about others on a given front. On military issues, for instance, states may decide to co-operate when division threatens their very existence or security agenda. The International Atomic Agency fits in this perspective, as it aims to prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons. The position of Iran and North Korea in their unwillingness to cooperate with the nuclear regulatory body reflects the circumstances under which an international regime is impossible. Tehran and Pyongyang contend that any cooperation aimed at limiting their weaponization ambitions is against their military agenda. On December 5, 2009, Reuters reported that Iran had resolved to divulge little information about their nuclear projects. The West, on the other hand, believes that the nuclear armament drive by these nations is a threat to the rest of the world, hence their collective efforts to avert such a crisis. The war in Iraqi is perhaps the most recent form of an international regime of a military nature. The states that offered their soldiers into the US-led invasion must have projected individual gains in terms of power or diplomatic relations from the adventure. Similarly, the NATO allies have pledged to send more troops into Afghanistan in another US-led war. It is not that these nations are directly threatened by Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, but bound by the rules of the international regime that is NATO.
The neo-liberal approach argues that regimes are formed when states see a gain in such cooperation. Their primary concern, as it were, is not a common goal, but rather a specific benefit that is targeted. We have witnessed the maneuvers the Kyoto Protocol elicited from international players. As much as the fight against global warming is desirable, it is not that welcome to all economies of the world. If carbon emissions were to be reduced to the levels of the 1980s, then it would mean a serious loss of business to General Motors, Boeing, Airbus, Toyota, and their kind. Accordingly, the US, Germany, and Japan would not endorse it fervently as would, say, Trinidad and Tobago, whose loss would be minimal. Thus, Africa will jump in since the gain therein for them and the rest of the third world is immense, in terms of clean air and pollution-free environment. The individual nations in the developed and industrialized world, on their part, participate for various reasons. Japan is a champion for the protocol since her cars are famed for being environmentally friendly, hence would reap hugely in sales. The US, being a superpower, would want to be seen as the one that drives major international policies. Despite the loss to GM, there is a small matter of image and influence to consider. Consequently, everybody becomes a willing participant for a host of different reasons.
Cognitivism attributes the emergence of international regimes to ideas of societal value. Within this perspective, co-operation becomes a necessity since it achieves a broader interest acceptable to society. The International Atomic Agency then becomes a regime formed to safeguard people’s lives, and the environmental agencies a forum to create a healthy environment for people. Next week, all key players throng into Copenhagen for what has come to be known as the COP15, to formulate ways of reducing pollution and the resultant effects of global warming by 2015. Whatever the costs, from a cognitivist point of view, clean air and a friendly climate are what society desires. In accordance, even the likely losers will play along.
Nonetheless, the dynamics of international relations and globalization have blurred the line of distinction between regimes, institutions, and organizations. Since the late 20th century, the latter two have been transformed to perform the role of the former. Traditionally, institutions were limited to specific concerns and periods, e.g. the Bretton Woods Institutions after WWII to reconstruct destroyed nations and regulate economic relations among countries. The descendant of IMF and World Bank went beyond the war, and contribute to other humanitarian causes. Presently, international non-governmental organizations such as Red Cross and International Human Rights Organization are significantly similar to regimes in terms of their activities, organization, and geographical jurisdiction. Additionally, regimes are being formed that are either “purely private or public-private combinations such as the Bank of International Settlements” (Patricia, 113). Consequently, there is a need to redefine international regimes to reflect their unique essence. Needless to say, it seems that international regimes are formed the moment ideas and norms extend beyond national borders, and become an inter-state or global concern. Whether conceptualized from the realist, neo-liberal or cognitivist points of view, the baseline is that international regimes work at an international level, and participants co-operate for reasons that are either common or individual. At the present moment, Afghanistan and Copenhagen are the places to watch.
Works Cited
Baylis, John, Steve, Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.
Purkitt, Helen E. World Politics 09/10. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009.