Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

International Regime

International regimes are an outcome of the accommodation-seeking behavior of states that, while in pursuit of their own interests, engage in frameworks that coordinate these interests with those of other states. International regimes adopt institutional forms that bring nation-states together in line with the norms, principles, and rules that are particular to a regime. Trade, labor standards, human rights, and the environment are prominent examples of international regimes that structure behavior in an increasingly complex multilateralist world. Each constitutes a set of principles, norms, and rules that govern state behavior, frame international cooperation, and act as a reference point in galvanizing nongovernmental activity.

Regime Activity

The principles of regimes define the purposes that members of a regime are expected to pursue. The principle of social justice has underpinned International Labour Organization (ILO) activity and the international labor standards regime since 1919. Norms provide clearer directions to regime members on what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate behavior while defining responsibilities and obligations in relatively general terms. The norms of the international labor standards regime require that member countries recognize and protect the rights of labor. At the same time, there is a general recognition that the ability to ratify international labor standards mainly depends on the level achieved in economic development. Rules overlap with norms to a significant extent but are more specific in detailing the rights and obligations of regime members. Thus, although the norms of the international labor standards regime refer to the recognition and protection of labor rights, the rules set the specifics of how they may be achieved. Once a government agrees to ratify an international labor standard, it is obliged to introduce the standard into national legislation. Finally, a regime's decision-making procedures provide the mechanisms for implementing principles and changing rules.

How regimes operate is hotly debated. The autonomy of institutions within regimes is questioned as the role of hegemonic power in influencing regime behavior in, for example, international trade and investment, can be an important consideration in understanding the framework in which state interests can be promoted or constrained. A measure of institutional autonomy can be established through the activities of a regime's permanent executive. Here, the epistemic dimension of regimes is emphasized in arguing that international cooperation can be an outcome of the activities of executive leadership and related epistemic communities that inhabit international organizations. The accumulation and comprehension of knowledge in the international arena can be intensely political, and the epistemic community of international institutions can promote regime change by means of the information and ideas they mobilize. The control and use of knowledge can be important influences on regime decision making and aid the construction of institutional autonomy from the influence of constituent states.

Regime Change

Regimes undergo continuous transformations in response to their own internal dynamics, the activities of institutional leadership and knowledge-based experts, as well as their political, economic, and social environments. For example, Asia's regional financial turmoil in July 1997 resulted in crises for a number of global regimes—trade, financial, and social, in particular. Policy responses by the international agencies addressed both the social impact of the crisis on national economies and the global challenges thrown up by the crisis. Global regimes did not respond in a uniform manner, but their different emphases established interplay between prescriptions. The prescriptions of the ILO were, at least initially, at odds with those of the international financial institutions (IFIs), with the former stressing the importance of balance between financial and social responses. Eventually, the IFIs came much closer to the ILO perspective as the potential for long-term social instability in the Asian region became clearer. All regimes involved in the crisis shifted ground as a result of internal reassessment and external relations with other regimes and their institutions.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution