Advertisement

International Regimes

  • David Armstrong
Chapter
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the The Making of the 20th Century book series (MACE)

Abstract

The process of international organisation is concerned with the development by states of ways of regulating their conflicts, jointly managing for their collective benefit various specific areas of activity and, most ambitiously, planning for peaceful change towards agreed goals. Frequently this involves the creation of large, multi-purpose institutions like the League or the UN, or of structures with more limited functions, like the Postal Union. However, the essential core of international organisation is not the various administrative or judicial bodies as such but the rules, regulations and agreed procedures for which the institutions assume responsibility. In this sense the main thrust of international organisation is the development of ‘international regimes’: sets of rules which aim to regulate some specific activity of international interest. Thus defined, regimes encompass not only formal institutions but many informal, decentralised arrangements amongst states.’ Although international regimes have existed for many years, scholarly attention has only recently come to focus on the regimes as a separate analytical category from the institutional frameworks which sometimes accompany them. This increasing interest stems from three factors. Firstly, international regimes have proliferated in recent years. Secondly, they have enjoyed more success than some of the larger institutions, partly because they have invariably been founded upon an international consensus and to date allocated narrow, specific and modest objectives.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cf. O. R. Young, ‘International Regimes: Problems of Concept Formation’, World Politics (April 1978) 331–56.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See D. M. Leive, International Regulatory Regimes (Lexington Books, 1976) especially Introduction and vol. I, pp. 3–70.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For details of the proposed regime for the moon, see UN Chronicle vol. XVII, no. 2 (March 1980).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    UN Conference on the Law of the Sea: Official Records (UN Publications, 1958).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For the American position, see the 17 March 1981 statement by the new head of the US delegation to UNCLOS III, J. L. Malone, International Communications Agency, US Embassy, London, 19 March 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Buzan, ‘From the Fire to the Frying Pan? Innovations in Large-scale Negotiating Techniques at UNCLOS III’ (Paper at the British International Studies Association Conference, 1979).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Times (30 August 1980).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Economic Implications of Seabed Mineral Development in the International Area Report of Secretary-General (May 1974).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Third United Nations Conference on Law of Sea to Meet in New York United Nations Information Centre, BR/80/9 (March 1980) pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. S. McDougal et al., Human Rights and World Public Order (New Haven and London, 1980) pp. 238–46.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    In the Preamble and Articles 1, 13, 55, 62, 68, and 76. See also F. Newman, ‘Interpreting the Human Rights Clause of the UN Charter’, Human Rights Journal, vol. V, no. 2 (1972).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For the text of the Covenants, see E. Luard (ed.), The International Protection of Human Rights (London, 1967) pp. 333–63.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Human Rights, 1948–73: UN Action in the Field of Human Rights (UN Publications, 1974) pp. 193–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    General Assembly Document, A/10235 (7 October 1975) pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibid., pp. 14–18, and S. Bailey ‘UN Fact Finding and Human Rights Complaints’, International Affairs (April 1972) 266.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See, for example, E. Zvoodgo, ‘A Third World View’, in D. Kommers and G. Loesher (eds), American Foreign Policy and Human Rights (Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 1979) ch. 5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Commission of Jurists, Uganda and Human Rights (Geneva, 1977).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See V. Chkhikvadze, ‘Human Rights and Non-interference in the Internal Affairs of States’,:.ternativnal Affairs, no. 2 (Moscow, 1978).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    For a detailed discussion of the American human rights system, see L. J. Le Blanc The OAS and the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (The Hague, 1977).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ibid., pp. 116–22.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. I. Dominguez et al., Enhancing Global Human Rights (New York, 1979) p. 174.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. G. Townsend, ‘A Latin American Perspective’, in F. E. Dowrick (ed.), Human Rights (Westmead, 1979) pp. 107–24.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    For a discussion of the Commission’s procedure for examining admissibility, see F. G. Jacobs, The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford, 1975) pp. 218–51.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    On the problem of definition, see W. H. Smith, ‘International Terrorism: A Political Analysis’, The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1977 (London 1977) pp. 138–41; and N. N. Kittrie, ‘Reconciling the Irreconcilable: the Quest for International Agreement over Political Crime and Terrorism’, The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1978 (London. 1978) pp. 208–36.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    N. D. Joyner, Aerial Hijacking as an International Crime (New York, 1974) pp. 131–4.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    By 1977, 87 states were bound by the Tokyo Convention, 80 by the Hague Convention and 73 by the Montreal Convention. A. E. Evans and J. F. Murphy, Legal Aspects of International Terrorism (Lexington, 1978) p. 20.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    For a recent discussion of Western European co-operation against terrorism, see J. Lodge (ed.), Terrorism: A Challenge to the State (Oxford, 1981) especially pp. 164–217.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Evans and Murphy, Legal Aspects of International Terrorism p. 30.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Times (18 July 1978) p. 1.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    P. Wilkinson, Terrorism and the Liberal State (London, 1977) pp. 222–3.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    I have benefited in writing this section from several discussions with Professor D. R. Wightman of Birmingham University’s School of International Studies.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. B. Gwin, ‘The Seventh Special Session: Toward a New Phase of Relations between the Developed and the Developing States’, in K. P. Sauvant and H. Hasenpflug (eds), The New International Economic Order (London, 1977) p. 98.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    L. Anell and B. Nygren, The Developing Countries and World Economic Order (London, 1980) p. 88.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid., pp. 187–91 for text of Declaration.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    For the text of this ‘Dakar Declaration’, see G. F. Erb and V. Kallab (eds), Beyond Dependency (New York, 1975) pp. 213–28.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    For details, see E. Lazlo et al., The Objectives of the New International Economic Order, UNITAR publication (New York, 1978) pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. E. Spero, The Politics of International Economic Relations (London, 1977) esp. pp. 21–61.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    C. F. Bergsten, ‘Access to Supplies and the New International Economic Order’, in J. N. Bhagwati (ed.), The New International Economic Order: The North-South Debate (Cambridge, Mass., 1977) esp. pp. 199–203.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Lazlo et al., The Obstacles to the New International Economic Order, UNITAR publication (New York, 1980) pp. 41–2.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
    Sauvant and Hasenpflug (eds), The NIEO p. 76.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    For a discussion of this and other objections to the NIEO, see C. Ries, ‘The “New International Economic Order”: The Skeptic’s View’, in Sauvant and Hasenpflug (eds), The NIEO ch. 4.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    E. Rothschild, ‘Food Politics’, Foreign Affairs (January 1976).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    The Guardian (15 September 1981) p. 18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Armstrong 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Armstrong

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations