Regime complexes, critical actors and institutional layering

  • Florian Rabitz
Original Article


While regime complexes, sets of overlapping institutions governing a common issue area, are frequently characterised by stable interinstitutional divisions of labour and incremental change, actor-centred approaches emphasise potentially disruptive cross-institutional strategies. I propose a conceptual framework highlighting the constraints under which states operate within regime complexes, focusing on the role of critical actors that cannot effectively be excluded from cooperation because of their contributions to international public goods and/or negative externalities that their non-participation would generate for cooperating states. Where such actors pursue conservative policy objectives, reformist actors have limited scope for employing cross-institutional strategies and cooperating through alternative club settings. This leads to incremental institutional change as those latter actors attempt to elaborate and develop pre-existing rules instead of creating new ones. I demonstrate the explanatory power of this approach for the formation of three Access and Benefit-sharing regimes within the Genetic Resources regime complex.


forum shopping genetic resources institutional change institutional interaction public goods regime complexes 



For critical comments and suggestions, the author would like to thank Cristiane Carneiro, Claudio Chiarolla, Benjamin Faude and two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Alter, Karen J. and Sophie Meunier (2006) ‘Nested and Overlapping Regimes in the Transatlantic Banana Trade Dispute’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(3): 362–82.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, Karen J. and Sophie Meunier (2009) ‘The Politics of International Regime Complexity’, Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 13–24.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, Regine (2008) Governing Agrobiodiversity: Plant Genetics and Developing Countries, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, Mark (2011) ‘Savings Clauses and the ‘Chilling Effect’: Regime Interplay as Constraints on International Governance’, in Sebastian Oberthür and Olav S. Stokke eds, Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change, 87–114, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, Scott (2007) Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, Alexander (2010) ‘The Refugee Regime Complex’, Refugee Survey Quarterly 29(1): 12–37.Google Scholar
  7. Biermann, Frank, Philipp Pattberg, Harro van Asselt and Fariborz Zelli (2009) ‘The Fragmentation of Global Governance Architectures: A Framework for Analysis’, Global Environmental Politics 9(4): 14–40.Google Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, John and Peter Drahos (2000) Global Business Regulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brand, Ulrich, Christoph Görg, Joachim Hirsch and Markus Wissen (2008) Conflicts in Environmental Regulation and the Internationalisation of the State: Contested Terrains, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, James M. (1999) The Demand and Supply of Public Goods, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  11. Buck, Matthias and Claire Hamilton (2011) ‘The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity’, Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 20(1): 47–61.Google Scholar
  12. Busch, Marc L. (2007) ‘Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade’, International Organization 61(4): 735–61.Google Scholar
  13. Carr, Jonathan (2008) ‘Agreements that Divide: TRIPS vs. CBD and Proposals for Mandatory Disclosure of Source and Origin of Genetic Resources in Patent Applications’, Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 18(1): 131–54.Google Scholar
  14. CGRFA (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization) (1997) Revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. CGRFA/IUND/4 Rev. 1.Google Scholar
  15. CGRFA (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization) (2000) Texts for Article 13, Facilitated Access, Article 14.2(d), The Sharing of Monetary Benefits on Commercialization, and Article 16, Financial Resources. CGRFA/CG-2/00/TXT.Google Scholar
  16. Clapp, Jennifer (1994) ‘The Toxic Waste Trade with Less-industrialised Countries: Economic Linkages and Political Alliances’, Third World Quarterly 15(3): 505–18.Google Scholar
  17. Colgan, Jeff D., Robert O. Keohane and Thijs van de Graaf (2012) ‘Punctuated Equilibrium in the Energy Regime Complex’, Review of International Organizations 7(2): 117–43.Google Scholar
  18. Elbe, Stefan (2014) ‘The Pharmaceuticalisation of Security: Molecular Biomedicine, Antiviral Stockpiles, and Global Health Security’, Review of International Studies 40(5): 919–38.Google Scholar
  19. ENB (1998) Fifth Extraordinary Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: 8–12 June, Earth Negotiation Bulletin 9(97): 1–10.Google Scholar
  20. ENB (2009) Summary of the Seventh Meeting of the Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing of the Convention on Biological Diversity: 2–8 April 2009, Earth Negotiation Bulletin 9(465): 1–14.Google Scholar
  21. ENB (2010) Summary of the Resumed Ninth Meeting of the Working Group on Access and Benefit-Sharing of the Convention on Biological Diversity: 10–16 July 2010, Earth Negotiation Bulletin 9(527): 1–16.Google Scholar
  22. ETC Group (2013) Putting the Cartel before the Horse. Who Will Control Agricultural Inputs, 2013?, Montreal: Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration.Google Scholar
  23. FAO (2010) The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  24. Fearon, James D. (1991) ‘Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science’, World Politics 43(2): 169–95.Google Scholar
  25. Gehring, Thomas (2011) ‘The Institutional Complex of Trade and Environment: Toward an Interlocking Governance Structure and a Division of Labor’, in Sebastian Oberthür and Olav S. Stokke eds, Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change, 227–54, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gehring, Thomas and Benjamin Faude (2013) ‘The Dynamics of Regime Complexes: Microfoundations and Systemic Effects’, Global Governance 19(1): 119–30.Google Scholar
  27. Gehring, Thomas and Benjamin Faude (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
  28. Gerstetter, Christiane, Benjamin Görlach, Kirsten Neumann and Dora Schaffrin (2007) ‘The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture within the Current Legal Regime Complex on Plant Genetic Resources’, Journal of World Intellectual Property 10(3–4): 259–83.Google Scholar
  29. GRAIN (2009) Indonesia Fights to Change WHO Rules on Flu Vaccines, Seedling April.Google Scholar
  30. Hameiri, Shahar (2014) ‘Avian Influenza, ‘Viral Sovereignty’, and the Politics of Health Security in Indonesia’, Pacific Review 27(3): 333–56.Google Scholar
  31. Helfer, Laurence R. (2009) ‘Regime Shifting in the International Intellectual Property System’, Perspectives on Politics 7(1): 39–44.Google Scholar
  32. Hoare, Alison L. and Richard G. Tarasofsky (2007) ‘Asking and Telling: Can ‘Disclosure of Origin’ Requirements in Patent Applications Make a Difference?’ Journal of World Intellectual Property 10(2): 149–69.Google Scholar
  33. Hugget, Brady, John Hodgson and Riku Lähteenmäki (2009) ‘Public Biotech 2008 — The Numbers’, Nature Biotechnology 27(8): 710–21.Google Scholar
  34. Kamradt-Scott, Adam and Kelley Lee (2011) ‘The 2011 Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework: Global Health Secured or a Missed Opportunity?’ Political Studies 59(4): 831–47.Google Scholar
  35. Keohane, Robert O. and David G. Victor (2011) ‘The Regime Complex for Climate Change’, Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 7–23.Google Scholar
  36. Kleidon, Axel and Harold A. Mooney (2000) ‘A Global Distribution of Biodiversity Inferred from Climatic Constraints: Results from a Process-based Modelling Study’, Global Change Biology 6(5): 507–23.Google Scholar
  37. Krasner, Stephen D. (1982) ‘Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables’, International Organization 36(2): 185–05.Google Scholar
  38. Mahoney, James and Kathleen Thelen (2010) ‘A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change’, in James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen eds, Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power, 1–37, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Margulis, Matias E. (2013) ‘The Regime Complex for Food Security: Implications for the Global Hunger Challenge’, Global Governance 19(1): 53–67.Google Scholar
  40. Meunier, Sophie (2000) ‘What Single Voice? European Institutions and EU-U.S. Trade Negotiations’, International Organization 54(1): 103–35.Google Scholar
  41. Moeller, Nina Isabella and Clive Stannard (2013) Identifying Benefit Flows. Studies on the Potential Monetary and Non-Monetary Benefits Arising from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  42. Morin, Jean-Frédéric and Amandine Orsini (2014) ‘Policy Coherency and Regime Complexes: The Case of Genetic Resources’, Review of International Studies 40(2): 303–24.Google Scholar
  43. Murphy, Hannah and Aynsley Kellow (2013) ‘Forum Shopping in Global Governance: Understanding States, Business and NGOs in Multiple Arenas’, Global Policy 4(2): 139–49.Google Scholar
  44. Muzaka, Valbona (2011) The Politics of Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicines, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Oberthür, Sebastian and Thomas Gehring (2006) ‘Institutional Interaction in Global Environmental Governance: The Case of the Cartagena Protocol and the World Trade Organization’, Global Environmental Politics 6(2): 1–30.Google Scholar
  46. Oberthür, Sebastian and Justyna Pozarowska (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
  47. Oberthür, Sebastian and Olav S. Stokke eds (2011) ‘Conclusions: Decentralized Interplay Management in an Evolving Interinstitutional Order’, in, Managing Institutional Complexity. Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change, 313–42, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Orsini, Amandine, Jean-Frédéric Morin and Oran R. Young (2013) ‘Regime Complexes: A Buzz, a Boom, or a Boost for Global Governance?’ Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 19(1): 27–39.Google Scholar
  49. PHRMA (2013) Vaccine Fact Book 2013, Washington DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.Google Scholar
  50. Pierson, Paul (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Price-Smith, Andrew T. (2009) Contagion and Chaos. Disease, Ecology, and National Security in the Era of Globalization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rabitz, Florian (2014) ‘Explaining Institutional Change in International Patent Politics’, Third World Quarterly 35(9): 1582–97.Google Scholar
  53. Rabitz, Florian (2015) ‘Biopiracy after the Nagoya Protocol: Problem Structure, Regime Design and Implementation Challenges’, Brazilian Political Science Review 9(2): 30–53.Google Scholar
  54. Raustiala, Kal and David G. Victor (2004) ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’, International Organization 58(2): 277–309.Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, Daniel F. (2010) Confronting Biopiracy: Challenges, Cases and International Debates, London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  56. Samuelson, Paul A. (1954) ‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure’, Review of Economic Statistics 36(4): 387–89.Google Scholar
  57. Schelling, Thomas (1973) ‘Hockey Helmets, Concealed Weapons, and Daylight Saving. A Study of Binary Choices with Externalities’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 17(3): 381–28.Google Scholar
  58. Sebenius, James K. (1983) ‘Negotiation Arithmetic: Adding and Subtracting Issues and Parties’, International Organization 37(2): 281–316.Google Scholar
  59. Snidal, Duncan (1985) ‘The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory’, International Organization 39(4): 579–614.Google Scholar
  60. Steinberg, Richard H. (2002) ‘In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO’, International Organization 56(2): 339–74.Google Scholar
  61. Streeck, Wolfgang and Kathleen Thelen (2005) ‘Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies’, in Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen eds, Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, 1–39, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Struett, Michael J., Mark T. Nance and Diane Armstrong (2013) ‘Navigating the Maritime Piracy Regime Complex’, Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 19(1): 93–104.Google Scholar
  63. SUNS (2011) ‘Milestone’ Virus/Benefit-sharing Agreement with Shortcomings, South-North Development Monitor #7136 London, 26 April 2011. Third World Network.Google Scholar
  64. Thelen, Kathleen (2009) ‘Institutional change in advanced political economies’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 47(3): 471–98.Google Scholar
  65. Tvedt, Morten W. and Ane E. Jørem (2013) ‘Bioprospecting in the High Seas: Regulatory Options for Benefit Sharing’, Journal of World Intellectual Property 16(3-4): 150–67.Google Scholar
  66. Urpelainen, Johannes and Thijs van de Graaf (2015) ‘Your Place or Mine? Institutional Capture and the Creation of Overlapping International Institutions’, British Journal of Political Science 45(4): 799–827.Google Scholar
  67. Van Beuzekom, Brigitte and Anthony Arundel (2009) OECD Biotechnology Statistics 2009, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  68. Van der Heijden, Jeroen (2011) ‘Institutional Layering: A Review of the Use of the Concept’, Politics 31(1): 9–18.Google Scholar
  69. Wallbott, Linda, Franziska Wolff and Justyna Pozarowska (2014) ‘The Negotiations of the Nagoya Protocol: Issues, Coalitions, and Process’, in Sebastian Oberthür and Kristin G. Rosendal eds, Global Governance of Genetic Resources. Access and Benefit Sharing after the Nagoya Protocol, 33–59, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Weischer, Lutz, Jennifer Morgan and Milap Patel (2012) ‘Climate Clubs: Can Small Groups of Countries Make a Big Difference in Addressing Climate Change?’ Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 21(3): 177–92.Google Scholar
  71. WHO (2008) Standard Terms and Conditions for the Transfer and Use of Influenza Biological Materials and Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing, Proposal from the African Region for the Intergovernmental Meeting on Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (IGM-PIP), 20–23 November, 2007, A/PIP/IGM/7: Annex.Google Scholar
  72. Wilke, Marie (2013) ‘The World Health Organization’s Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework as a public health resources pool’, in Evanson C Kamau and Gerd Winter eds, Common Pools of Genetic Resources: Equity and Innovation in International Biodiversity Law, 315–42, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. WIPO (2012a) World Intellectual Property Indicators 2012, Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
  74. WIPO (2012b) Patent Landscape Report on Vaccines for Selected Infectious Diseases, Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
  75. WTO (1999) Communication from Kenya on Behalf of the African Group, 29 July , WT/GC/W/302.Google Scholar
  76. WTO (2003) Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, and the Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. A Concept Paper, IP/C/W/383.Google Scholar
  77. WTO (2004) Article 27.3(b), Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Communication from the United States, IP/C/W/434.Google Scholar
  78. WTO (2008) Draft Modalities for TRIPS Related Issues, TN/C/W/52.Google Scholar
  79. Young, Oran R. (1996) ‘Institutional Linkages in International Society: Polar Perspectives’, Global Governance 2(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  80. Zelli, Fariborz and Harro van Asselt (2013) ‘Introduction: The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses’, Global Environmental Politics 13(3): 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Rabitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for International Relations, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations