ULUSLARARASI ÖRGÜTLENME VE KÜRESEL YÖNETİŞİM

Krasner, there are four defining components of international regimes: • Principles are beliefs of causation, fact, and rectitude. • Norms are standards of behavior, and they are defined in terms of rights and obligations. • Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action. • Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice (Krasner, 1983: 2).

Power-based (Structural) theories;

1. Hegemonic stability theory (Keohane, 1984)

2. Power-oriented research (Krasner, 1983)

3. Modern realist perspective (Grieco, 1988)

Interest-based (Institutional) theories;

1. Contractualist (Functional) theory (Keohane, 1984)

2. Situation-structural approach (Stein, 1990, Snidal, 1985,Oye, 1986)

3. Problem-structural approach (E‡nger et al., 1993, Rittberger, 1993)

4. Institutional bargaining (Young, 1989)

There are five models of internet governance:

• The spontaneous cyberspace model: The Internet is beyond the reach of government control, and it is a self-governing realm of individual liberty.

• The transnational institutions and organization model: It inherently transcends national borders. As a result, most suitable institutions are transnational and quasiprivate cooperatives or international organizations with treaty arrangements.

• The internet architecture and code model: Many regulatory decisions are made by communication protocols and other software about how the Internet operates.

• The national government and law model: Regulatory decisions about the Internet are made through legal regulations by national governments.

• The market regulation and economics model: Market forces are driving forces in shaping the nature of the Internet (Solum, 2009: 56-57).

There are several differences between policy networks and epistemic communities. The policy networks do not reflect the same degree of coherence as epistemic communities do. Policy networks are clusters and have larger groups, while epistemic communities are a subset of policy networks. Policy networks’ membership fluctuates. Although they have different values, they are tied together by their interdependency. Power and resources are distributed unequally in policy networks. However, epistemic communities are more stable, and they consist of a smaller number of members who share same values (Carayannis, et.al., 2012: 132-133).

Global commons are defined as natural resources and areas that are outside the national jurisdiction (Vogler, 2012: 61).

There are three types of international regimes: spontaneous, imposed, and negotiated. Spontaneous regimes are unplanned; they emerge out of common behaviors of actors. Imposed regimes are purposely constructed by a dominant actor. Negotiated regimes are those regimes “characterized by conscious efforts to agree on their major provisions, explicit consent on the part of individual participants, and formal expression of the results.

The spontaneous cyberspace model: The internet is beyond the reach of government control, and it is a self-governing realm of individual liberty.

There are several differences between policy networks and epistemic communities. The policy networks do not reflect the same degree of coherence as epistemic communities do. Policy networks are clusters and have larger groups, while epistemic communities are a subset of policy networks. Policy networks’ membership fluctuates. Although they have different values, they are tied together by their interdependency. Power and resources are distributed unequally in policy networks. However, epistemic communities are more stable, and they consist of a smaller number of members who share same values.

Liberal institutionalism is a version of liberalism that emphasizes the positive role of international institutions and global governance in promoting peace and cooperation. It holds that both domestic and international institutions are instrumental in ending wars, rivalry, and conflict between nation states. It rejects the idea that world politics is destined to be dominated by powerful states whereas international institutions and global governance are without any power that may effect change in the system. The correct answer is C.

The so-called ‘neo-neo’ debate between neorealism and neoliberalism forms one of the core discussions in the study of International Relations. Although they share some assumptions, neorealism and neoliberalism differ in several respects. First, both approaches assume that international system is “anarchic.” However, while neorealists claim that foreign policy is constrained by anarchy, neoliberals argue that international regimes, globalization, and international interdependence are important tools for managing the relations between international actors. Second, neorealists believe that international cooperation depends on the will and power of nation states; from this perspective, it is difficult to achieve and maintain international cooperation mainly because states strive to achieve their own interests. On the other hand, neoliberals hold that if states have mutual interests in a given issue area of international relations, international cooperation can be achieved in that issue area. Third, neorealists emphasize the importance of relative gains (zero-sum game) in international politics. Neoliberals, however, consider that international actors have common interests so that they can cooperate in a given issue area and maximize their absolute gains (non-zero-sum). Eventually all states can benefit from this cooperation. Fourth, neorealists claim that the primary objective of states is survival in the “anarchical international system,” where they are preoccupied with matters related to national security and relative power gains. On the other hand, neoliberals attach greater importance to sustainable development, economic welfare, and non-security issue areas such as international environmental problems. Fifth, neorealists argue that international institutions and regimes do not affect the state behavior. In a similar vein, regimes do not have a constraining impact on the anarchical nature of the system. Neoliberals, on the other hand, argue that international institutions and regimes are influential in shaping and structuring international relations, because they facilitate cooperation among states. The correct answer is B.

International regimes is defined as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations”. The correct answer is D.

Interest-based approaches to international relations give importance to institutional factors. Power-based approaches assert that symmetrical conditions are more helpful for the regime formation than asymmetric conditions and the knowledge-based approaches claim the existence of consensual knowledge and the epistemic community is conducive for the regime formation. The correct answer is A.

International regime theories are classified under power, interest and knowledge-based theories. 

Power-based (Structural) theories are:

1. Hegemonic stability theory, 2. Power-oriented research, 3. Modern realist perspective.

Interest-based (Institutional) theories are:

1. Contractualist (Functional) theory 2. Situation-structural approach 3. Problem-structural approach 4. Institutional bargaining

Knowledge-based (Cognitive) theories

1. Knowledge-oriented research program 2. Consensual knowledge and Epistemic communities, 3. International society approach (legitimacy) 4. Communicative action approach (arguments) (Kratochwil, 1989) 5. Constructivism 6. History-dialectical approach (history) 

The correct answer is E.

In the literature, there are five approaches to the study of regime effectiveness. The first is the problem-solving approach that defines effectiveness as the degree of regime contribution to the solutions of problem(s) in an issue area. Second, the legal approach assesses the degree to which contractual obligations are met. Third, the economic approach evaluates the cost efficiency of policies and regimes. Fourth, the normative approach examines whether normative principles such as justice and participation are promoted by a regime. Fifth, the political approach investigates whether regimes can contribute to the management of the targeted global problem by creating changes in the behavior of actors, altering the interests of actors, or launching changes in regime-related policies. It identifies the evaluation problem as “functions of specific constellations of actors, interests, and institutions”. The correct answer is B.

The term, epistemic community, was first introduced by Holzner as “knowledge-oriented communities in which cultural standards and social arrangements interpenetrate around a primary commitment to epistemic criteria in knowledge production and application” (1969:108). However, Peter M. Haas applied the concept to international policy-making processes. In this sense, epistemic communities are defined as networks of knowledge-based experts or groups with recognized expertise in a particular domain and “an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within the domain of their expertise” (Haas, 1992: 3; 2016: 5). The correct answer is A.

Theories of international regimes offer a better understanding of international institutions in world politics. First, international regime theories are based on the realist assumption that the international system is state-centric and anarchical. Therefore, international cooperation can arise from the self-interests of states. International institutions are necessary to reduce uncertainty about how other actors behave. Second, international regime theories focus on specific issue areas from climate change to peacekeeping, but it excludes complex international organizations. For example, the UN performs important functions in issue areas such as environmental regimes. However, the UN is less influential in security regimes. Therefore, international regimes do not look for links between unrelated issue areas in international politics. Third, international regime theories provide an analytical framework for examining how international regimes are formed, how they continue (or change), and how they restrain state behaviors (Dombroski, 2007: 13). The answer is D.

The characteristics of Liberal Institutionalism are:                                                              

The correct answer is C.

The knowledge-based (cognitive) school is divided into two main categories: (1) weak cognitivism: ideas, learning, consensual knowledge, epistemic community and (2) strong cognitivism: international society approach, communicative action approach (Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986), constructivism (the power of identity) (Wendt, 1987), and the historicaldialectical approach (the power of history) (Cox, 1986, 1992). Cognitivists argue that international regimes are basically social entities. Discourses, identities, beliefs, and values are crucial factors in their formation. In return, discourses, identities, beliefs, and values themselves are also influenced by international regimes. Weak cognitivists are more concerned with the impact of new knowledge on decision-makers’ perceptions of their interests. Ideas, learning, and epistemic communities play significant roles in agenda-setting and regime formation. They contribute to the mainstream regime analysis by supplying a theory of interest change. Strong cognitivists criticize the rationalist assumptions of realism and neoliberalism. For example, Wendt points out the “agent-structure problem” (Wendt, 1987) that refers to the question of how institutions shape the identities of their
members and define actors’ interests. Other strong cognitivists such as Kratochwil and Ruggie stress the importance of “intersubjective meanings and shared understandings” in the regime analysis (Krathocwil and Ruggie, 1986: 765). A rulegoverned international society leads to specific norms and rules that produce regimes. Robert Cox, on the other hand, states that historical and hegemonic structure shapes the formation of international regimes (1986). Finally, regimes are socially-constructed conceptual creations that can be analyzed through inter-subjectivity, discourses, and interpretative techniques rather than empirical methods (Young, 1998). The correct answer is A.