Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:02:08.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Regime Complexes

from Part II - Core Structural Features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Laura Gómez-Mera ,
Jean-Frédéric Morin  and
Thijs Van de Graaf
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

This chapter traces the emergence and evolution of the concept of ‘regime complex’. Coined by Kal Raustiala and David Victor in their seminal 2004 article, the term calls anyone who aspires to understand the creation, evolution, implementation or effectiveness of a particular institution to take into account its broader institutional environment. A key innovation in the literature on international institutions, it spawned a rich body of work, rapidly becoming a central element of the theoretical repertoire of global governance. The chapter takes stock of this literature, discussing the main insights on causes, evolution and consequences, as well as the research methodologies that have been used to study regime complexes in various issue-areas of international politics. It also discusses avenues for future research, which may contribute to a deeper and theoretically informed understanding of regime complexity and its implications for global governance.

Keywords

Regime complexinternational regime complexityglobal governanceinstitutional embeddednessinternational institutionsregimesinstitutional interplay
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 137 - 157
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5 (3), 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2012). The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30 (4), 571–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3, 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, K. W., Green, J. F., & Keohane, R. O. (2016). Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. International Organization, 70 (2), 247–77.Google Scholar
Aggarwal, V. K. (1998). Reconciling multiple institution: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting. In Aggarwal, B (ed.), Institutional designs for a complex world: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting (pp. 1–31). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (2002). The time dimension in international regime interplay. Global Environmental Politics, 2 (3), 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Book.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., & Kuyper, J. W. (2017). The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: The UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance. Environmental Politics, 26 (4), 764–88.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E. D., & Downs, G. W. (2007). The empire’s new clothes: Political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Review, 60 (2), 595–632.Google Scholar
Betts, A. (2013). Regime complexity and international organizations: UNHCR as a challenged institution. Global Governance, 19 (1), 69–81.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2005). The rationale for a world environment organization. In Biermann, F, & Bauer, S (eds.), A world environment organization: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? (pp. 117–44). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J. et al. (2009a). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Bonn: Earth System Governance Project.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009b). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9, 14–40.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Böhmelt, T., & Spilker, G. (2016). The interaction of international institutions from a social network perspective. International Environmental Agreements, 16 (1), 67–89.Google Scholar
Borgen, C. J. (2012). Treaty conflicts and normative fragmentation. In Hollis, D. B. (ed.), The Oxford guide to treaties (pp. 448–71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown Weiss, E. (1993). International environmental law: Contemporary issues and the emergence of a new world order. Georgetown Law Journal, 81, 675–710.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. (2007). Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settlement in international trade. International Organization, 61 (4), 735–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. H. (2015). Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Climate Change, 5 (2), 114–18.Google Scholar
Colgan, J. D., Keohane, R. O., & Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Punctuated equilibrium in the energy regime complex. Review of International Organizations, 7 (2), 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colgan, J. D., & Van de Graaf, T. (2015). Mechanisms of informal governance: Evidence from the IEA. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18 (4), 455–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Búrca, G., Keohane, R. O., & Sabel, C. (2014). Global experimentalist governance. British Journal of Political Science, 44 (3), 477–86.Google Scholar
Diehl, P., & Ku, C. (2010). The dynamics of international law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drezner, D. W. (2009). The power and peril of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 65–70.Google Scholar
Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit between governance systems and environmental regimes. In Young, O. R., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H (eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications and research frontiers (pp. 147–86). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gallemore, C. (2017). Transaction costs in the evolution of transnational polycentric governance. International Environmental Agreements, 17, 639–54.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15 (1), 125–56.Google Scholar
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19 (1), 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2014). A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 471–98.Google Scholar
Goertz, G. (2003). International norms and decision making: A punctuated equilibrium model. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gomar, J. O. V., Stringer, L. C., & Paavola, J. (2014). Regime complexes and national policy coherence: Experiences in the biodiversity cluster. Global Governance, 20 (1), 119–45.Google Scholar
Gómez-Mera, L., & Molinari, A. (2014). Overlapping institutions, learning, and dispute initiation in regional trade agreements: Evidence from South America. International Studies Quarterly, 58 (2), 269–81.Google Scholar
Gómez-Mera, L. (2015). International regime complexity and regional governance: Evidence from the Americas. Global Governance, 21 (1), 19–42.Google Scholar
Gómez-Mera, L. (2016). Regime complexity and global governance: The case of trafficking in persons. European Journal of International Relations, 22 (3), 566–95.Google Scholar
Gómez-Mera, L. (2017). The emerging transnational regime complex for trafficking in persons. Journal of Human Trafficking, 3 (4), 303–26.Google Scholar
Green, J. F. (2013). Order out of chaos: Public and private rules for managing carbon. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (2), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. F., & Auld, G. (2017). Unbundling the regime complex: The effects of private authority. Transnational Environmental Law, 6 (2), 259–84.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2009). The power politics of regime complexity: Human rights trade conditionality in Europe. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 33–37.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. (2004). Regime shifting: The TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking. Yale Journal of International Law, 29 (1), 1–83.Google Scholar
Hickmann, T. (2015). Rethinking authority in global climate governance: How transnational climate initiatives relate to the international climate regime. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, B. L. (1998). Treaty congestion in international environmental law: The need for greater international coordination. University of Richmond Law Review, 32, 1643.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, S. C. (2009). Overlapping institutions in the realm of international security: The case of NATO and ESDP. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 45–52.Google Scholar
Hollway, J., & Koskinen, J. (2016). Multilevel embeddedness: The case of the global fisheries governance complex. Social Networks, 44, 281–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzscheiter, A., Bahr, T., & Pantzerhielm, L. (2016). Emerging governance architectures in global health: Do metagovernance norms explain inter-organisational convergence? Politics and Governance, 4 (3), 5–19.Google Scholar
International Law Commission (2006). Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law. UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. (1998). System effects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011a). Marketing linkages: Secretariat governance of the climate-biodiversity interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11 (3), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinnah, S. (2011b). Strategic linkages: The evolving role of trade agreements in global environmental governance. The Journal of Environment and Development, 20 (2), 191–215.Google Scholar
Johnson, T., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). A strategic theory of regime integration and separation. International Organization 66 (4), 645–77.Google Scholar
Johnson, T. (2014). Organizational progeny: Why governments are losing control over the proliferating structures of global governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jupille, J. H., Mattli, W., & Snidal, D. (2013). Institutional choice and global commerce. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelley, J. (2009). The more the merrier? The effects of having multiple international election monitoring organizations. Perspectives on Politics, 7 (1), 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellow, A. (2012). Multi-level and multi-arena governance: The limits of integration and the possibilities of forum shopping. International Environmental Agreements, 12 (4), 327–42.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9 (1), 7–23.Google Scholar
Kim, J. A. (2004). Regime interplay: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14 (4), 315–24.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), 980–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Mackey, B. (2014). International environmental law as a complex adaptive System. International Environmental Agreements, 14 (1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koops, J., & Biermann, R. (eds.) (2017). Palgrave handbook of inter-organizational relations in world politics. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., & Leino, P. (2002). Fragmentation of international law? Postmodern anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law, 15 (3), 553–79.Google Scholar
Krasner, S D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36 (2), 185–205.Google Scholar
Kuyper, J. W. (2014). Global democratization and international regime complexity. European Journal of International Relations, 20 (3), 620–46.Google Scholar
Kuyper, J. (2015). Deliberative capacity in the intellectual property rights regime complex. Critical Policy Studies, 9 (3), 317–38.Google Scholar
Leebron, D. W. (2002). Linkages. The American Journal of International Law, 96 (1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Margulis, M. E. (2013). The regime complex for food security: Implications for the global hunger challenge. Global Governance, 19 (1), 53–67.Google Scholar
Meunier, S., & Morin, J. F. (2015). No agreement is an island: Negotiating TTIP in a dense regime complex. In Morin, J. F., Novotna, T, Ponjaert, F, & Telo, M (eds.), The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in a multipolar world (pp. 173–86). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Michonski, K. E., & Levi, M. A. (2010). The regime complex for global climate change. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
Milewicz, K., Hollway, J., Peacock, C., & Snidal, D. (2017). Beyond trade: The expanding scope of the nontrade agenda in trade agreements. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54 (3), 1–31.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2013). Regime complexity and policy coherency: Introducing a co-adjustments model. Global Governance, 19 (1), 41–51.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., & Orsini, A. (2014). Policy coherency and regime complexes: The case of genetic resources. Review of International Studies, 40 (2), 303–24.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., Louafi, S., Orsini, A., & Oubenal, M. (2016). Boundary organizations in regime complexes: A social network profile of IPBES. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20 (3), 1–35.Google Scholar
Morin, J. F., Pauwelyn, J., & Hollway, J. (2017). The trade regime as a complex adaptive system: Exploration and exploitation of environmental norms in trade agreements. Journal of International Economic Law, 20 (2), 365–90.Google Scholar
Morrison, T. H. (2017). Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114 (15), E3013–E3021.Google Scholar
Morse, J. C., & Keohane, R. O. (2014). Contested multilateralism. Review of International Organizations, 9 (4), 385–412.Google Scholar
Muzaka, V. (2011). Linkages, contests and overlaps in the global intellectual property rights Regime. European Journal of International Relations, 17 (4), 755–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najam, A. (2003). The case against a new international environmental organization. Global Governance, 9, 367.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2002). Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: Potentials and limitations. International Environmental Agreements, 2 (4), 317–40.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. (2009). Interplay management: Enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements, 9 (4), 371–91.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance: The case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization. Global Environmental Politics, 6 (2), 1–31.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2004). Reforming international environmental governance: An institutionalist critique of the proposal for a world environment organisation. International Environmental Agreements, 4, 359–81.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Stokke, O. S. (2011). Managing institutional complexity: Regime interplay and global environmental change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S., & Pożarowska, J. (2013). Managing institutional complexity and fragmentation: The Nagoya Protocol and the global governance of genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 100–18.Google Scholar
Oh, C., & Matsuoka, S. (2017). The genesis and end of institutional fragmentation in global governance on climate change from a constructivist perspective. International Environmental Agreements, 17 (2), 143–59.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., & Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19 (1), 27–39.Google Scholar
Orsini, A. (2013). Multi-forum non-state actors: Navigating the regime complexes for forestry and genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 34–55.Google Scholar
Orsini, A. (2016). The negotiation burden of institutional interactions: Non-state organizations and the international negotiations on forests. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 29 (4), 1421–40.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20 (4), 550–7.Google Scholar
Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvánková‐Oravská, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19 (3), 148–58.Google Scholar
Papa, M. (2015). Sustainable global governance? Reduce, reuse, and recycle institutions. Global Environmental Politics, 15 (4), 1–20.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J., & Alschner, W. (2015). Forget about the WTO: The network of relations between preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and ‘Double PTAs’. In Dür, A, & Elsig, M (eds.), Trade cooperation: The purpose, design and effects of preferential trade agreements (pp. 497–532) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2014). At the edge of chaos? Foreign investment law as a complex adaptive system, how it emerged and how it can be reformed. ICSID Review, 29 (2), 372–418.Google Scholar
Pratt, T. (2018). Deference and hierarchy in international regime complexes. International Organization, 72 (3), 561–90.Google Scholar
Rabitz, F. (2016). Regime complexes, critical actors and institutional layering. Journal of International Relations and Development, 21 (2), 300–21.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58 (2), 277–309.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. (2012). Institutional proliferation and the international legal order. In Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art (pp. 239–320). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant proximities: Dynamics beyond globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosendal, G. K. (2001). Impacts of overlapping international regimes: The case of biodiversity. Global Governance, 7 (1), 95–117.Google Scholar
Scott, K. N. (2011). International environmental governance: Managing fragmentation through institutional connection. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 12, 177–216.Google Scholar
Sprinz, D. F. (2000). Research on the effectiveness of international environmental regimes: A review of the state of the art. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (1997). Regimes as governance systems. In Young, O (ed.), Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience (pp. 27–63). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Stokke, O. S. (2013). Regime interplay in Arctic shipping governance: Explaining regional niche selection. International Environmental Agreements, 13 (1), 65–85.Google Scholar
Struett, M. J., Nance, M. T., & Armstrong, D. (2013). Navigating the maritime piracy regime complex. Global Governance, 19 (1), 93–104.Google Scholar
Underdal, A., & Young, O. R. (2004). Research strategies for the future. In Underdal, A, & Young, O. R. (eds.), Regime consequences (pp. 361–80). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Urpelainen, J., & Van de Graaf, T. (2015). Your place or mine? Institutional capture and the creation of overlapping international institutions. British Journal of Political Science, 4 (4), 799–827.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T. and Sovacool, B. (2020). Global Energy Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T. (2013). Fragmentation in global energy governance: Explaining the creation of IRENA. Global Environmental Politics, 13 (3), 14–33.Google Scholar
Van de Graaf, T., & De Ville, F. (2013). Regime complexes and interplay management. International Studies Review, 15 (4), 568–71.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Von Moltke, K. (2001). On clustering international environmental agreements. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Ward, H. (2006). International linkages and environmental sustainability: The effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research, 43 (2), 149–66.Google Scholar
Whalley, J., & Zissimos, B. (2001). What could a world environmental organization do? Global Environmental Politics, 1 (1), 29–34.Google Scholar
Widerberg, O., & Stripple, J. (2016). The expanding field of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization: A review of five databases. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7 (4), 486–500.Google Scholar
Widerberg, O., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Accountability challenges in the transnational regime complex for climate change. Review of Policy Research, 34 (1), 68–87.Google Scholar
Young, M. A. (2012). Regime interaction in international law: Facing fragmentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (1996). Institutional linkages in international society: Polar perspectives. Global Governance, 2 (1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2008). Institutional interplay: Biosafety and trade. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2010). Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes. Global Environmental Change, 20 (3), 378–385.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2012). Building an international regime complex for the Arctic: Status and next steps. The Polar Journal, 2 (2), 291–407.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2017). Governing complex systems: Social capital for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Gupta, A., & van Asselt, H. (2013). Institutional interactions at the crossroads of trade and environment: The dominance of liberal environmentalism? Global Governance, 19 (1), 105–18.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., van Asselt, H., & Gupta, A. (2012). Horizontal institutional interlinkages. In Biermann, F, & Pattberg, P (eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 175–98.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., & Pattberg, P. (eds.) (2016). Environmental politics and governance in the Anthropocene: Institutions and legitimacy in a complex world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×