Hierarchy in Regime Complexes: Understanding Authority in Antarctic Governance

Many scholars argue that regime complexes are nonhierarchical. However, if that is true, then how does authority function? This article argues that the conceptualization of regime complexes as largely devoid of hierarchy is mistaken. Instead, it offers a new definition of regime complexes: emergent patterns of authority among state and non-state actors, which vary in their degree of hierarchy. Hierarchy in regime complexes looks different from political scientists’ traditional conceptualization. It is systemic, emergent, and positional. I present two dimensions of variation in hierarchy: deference and autonomy. These dimensions provide both a conceptual and an empirical strategy for understanding how authority relations are constituted. Conceptually, they allow us to “see” hierarchy in regime complexes. Empirically, they provide transparent, replicable and variable measures, which have eluded much of the work to date. I use topic modeling coupled with network analysis to detect hierarchy in the regime complex for Antarctica. I demonstrate that the inclusion of non-state actors and their governance activities changes our understanding of the Antarctic regime complex. This approach reveals a hierarchical regime complex, where some non-state actors have considerable authority and are governing issues not regulated by formal rules.

International Regime Complexity

A regime complex is an array of overlapping international institutions and agreements that interact to govern in a particular issue area of international relations. International regime complexity refers to the international political dynamics that emerge from the interaction among multiple overlapping institutions within regime complexes. Scholars have identified several factors explaining the emergence of regime complexes and the growing regime complexity in world politics. Some have emphasized the functional rationale for creating institutional linkages to contain negative spillovers across regimes. Others have focused instead on actors’ incentives, pointing to the various expected benefits of governing through regime complexes rather than through separate comprehensive institutions. Scholars have also disagreed about the consequences of regime complexes and, in particular, about the extent to which regime complexity facilitates or hinders international cooperation. The early literature tended to emphasize how institutional proliferation and fragmentation contributed to regulatory conflicts, thus undermining global governance outcomes. By contrast, other works provide a more nuanced account of the effects of regime overlaps, showing that under certain conditions regime complexity contributes to the effectiveness of cooperation. A rich body of empirical evidence drawn from the study of regime complexes in several issue areas, including environmental, trade, security, migration, and public health governance, suggests that what matters is not the fragmentation and overlaps per se but how they are managed. The increasing institutional density and overlaps in international politics in the 21st century has generated significant interest among scholars of international relations (IR). The literature on international regime complexity and regime complexes has evolved theoretically and empirically since the beginning of the 12st century. Three main questions have guided and informed theoretical debates and empirical research on regime complexes. First, what are regime complexes and how are they composed? What is meant by international regime complexity? Second, what causes regime complexity and how do regime complexes emerge? And third, what are the effects and consequences of regime complexity?

Análise do Regime Complex para mudanças climáticas: percepções sobre a vulnerabilidade social

Hoje, considera-se que as mudanças climáticas exigirão resposta ativa dos governos nacionais e subnacionais e das organizações internacionais. As mudanças climáticas também serão responsáveis por catapultar as fragilidades existentes em diversos grupos sociais. A ação ativa sobre o problema demandará que o Regime Climático seja incisivo e coordene as atividades e políticas que serão desenvolvidas. Todavia, devido à transversalidade das mudanças climáticas e seus efeitos, a sobreposição normativa poderá ser um contratempo, por tornar mais custosa a tomada de decisão, ou poderá trazer benefícios na gestão dos diversos problemas que se associam às mudanças climáticas, como destaca a literatura sobre Regime Complex. Mas, ainda assim, é importante investigar os gargalos enfrentados na plena execução da agenda climática. Dessa forma, este artigo, objetiva a análise dos elementos constitutivos do Regime Complex de mudanças climáticas, destacando a trajetória institucional e possíveis caminhos a serem seguidos, mapeando as diversas regras, normas e instituições que compõem o regime internacional de mudanças climáticas (main regime) e dos principais outros regimes que também incidem sobre o tema. Para tanto, procede-se uma revisão de literatura de cunho qualitativo, em bases de dados relevantes, com a intenção de criar um universo analítico capaz de aprofundar o tema e promover uma compreensão mais detalhada. Desse modo, observa-se que o regime climático precisa se empoderar de suas características particulares, como a fragmentação e sua transversalidade temática, o que permite concluir que a UNFCCC não pode ser um limitante das capacidades desse sistema. Além disso, há uma necessidade urgente para a criação de esforços que atenuem a exposição de grupos sociais aos eventos extremos oriundos da alteração no clima.

Aligned Sustainability Understandings? Global Inter-Institutional Arrangements and the Implementation of SDG 2

This article asks whether inter-institutional arrangements (IIAs) can facilitate norm understandings of sustainability in the global food regime complex to ensure the implementation of SDG 2. It refers to theories of norm implementation and regime complexes and focuses on two explanatory factors: non-material resources (authority and knowledge) and interplay management (participation and interaction). The article deals with three case studies: The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Sustainable Food Systems Programme, and the Standards and Trade Development Facility. Qualitative empirical analysis is based on documents and expert interviews. The article assumes that both explanatory factors are beneficial for the development of an aligned sustainability understanding. The findings indicate that IIAs serve as discursive fora for institutional exchange and can, thus, facilitate the development of aligned sustainability understandings in the global food regime complex. However, the article also identifies some structural factors that provide more scope for certain actors to enforce their normative views and interests, which ultimately hampers the implementation of SDG2.