Institutions

Institutions are persistent sets of rules and understandings that prescribe certain practices. Regimes are probably the most relevant type of institutions concerning environmental issues, defining roles, rules, and rights. The most cited definition of regimes is the one given by Stephen Krasner, in which regimes are sets of implicit or explicit principles (beliefs), norms (standards of behavior), rules (prescriptions for action), and decision-making procedures (existing practices for making and implementing collective choice). Regimes are a result of a convergence of actors' expectations in a given area. They may or may not include organizations. Unlike organizations, regimes do not exist as legal entities. Regimes [Page 238]are also distinct from international treaties. In some cases, international treaties have institutionalized principles and norms that were already in effect. In other cases, international treaties created the framework for certain practices to be adopted. The relevance of regimes/institutions for environmental studies is twofold: It has been the most preferred means of environmental governance, and their study allows for assessing their performance. To that effect, regimes have been classified according to their characteristics, their formation path, and the motivations underlying their creation.

As a consequence, and to better assess regimes' performance, they can be classified on the basis of the extent of their rules, on the degree of their institutionalization, on the nature of their goal, and on their overall coherence. The extent of a regime is related to the restrictiveness of its rules. Some regimes tend to pursue a “looser” approach to the issue in question, whereas others are “tighter,” defining in detail the rules members have to comply with. Regimes also vary according to their degree of institutionalization. Some regimes are laid out in formal agreements, conventions, or treaties, and even predict the creation of organizations. Others are just customary practices based on generally accepted principles. A regime's ultimate goal can also vary, ranging from a simple assertion of a common problem (e.g., Convention on Climate Change) to a specific plan of action (e.g., maritime pollution regime), or to a straightforward prohibition of some activity (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). As for regimes' coherence, prevention and precaution are the basic principles cross-cutting most environmental regimes. Often, however, regimes' rules and procedures denote a constant tension between a state's sovereignty and the international commitments agreed on. As a consequence, more coherent regimes are more easily and widely accepted and complied with than less coherent ones. One can trace these different characteristics, and especially the (in) coherence of the regime, to the path and motivations that led to their formation.

Most existing environmental regimes are a result of a negotiated process, resulting from the integrative nature of environmental issues and the impossibility of unilaterally solving most environmental problems. This negotiation process can follow different paths. There are regimes that are a result of “patchwork” (piecemeal track), others that are a consequence of an evolution of practices and behaviors (evolutionary track), and others still that were created on a more “constitutional” basis (contractarian track). Most environmental regimes emerged along a piecemeal (e.g., Law of the Seas) or evolutionary path (e.g., special economic zones principle), although more recent efforts have attempted to follow a contractarian track (e.g., Antarctica regime). Depending on the track followed, regimes will be more or less coherent, directly influencing their performance and effectiveness.

...