Titlebook: Regime Consequences; Methodological Chall Arild Underdal,Oran R. Young Book 2004 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2004 Nation.democracy

粘

Research Strategies for the Future even universes of regimes. Most studies focus on consequences defined in terms of success in coping with the specific problem that a particular regime has been designed to solve or alleviate. But analysts as well as policy-makers have come to recognize that many international regimes have important

Absenteeism

Thomas Gehring,Sebastian Oberthürry conditions, and material response considerations. Readers of this book will be equipped with the ability to develop models of real-world problems using industry-standard finite element packages..978-3-319-88382-3978-3-319-67125-3Series ISSN 2195-9862 Series E-ISSN 2195-9870

BROW

商谈

Immunoglobulin

Methodological Challenges in the Study of Regime Effectivenessd operating the regime are usually left out of the equation. Effectiveness thus becomes a matter of gross rather than net achievement, and should not be confused with .. Finally, in evaluating a regime in terms of the extent to which it achieves its official purpose or solves the problem that motiva

干旱

Formal Theory and Regime Effectiveness: Rational Players, Irrational Regimes definite limitations. Regimes can raise awareness of issues, change perceptions of problems and nations’ interests in their solution, or act as a locus for institutionally-based learning about possible policy responses. Furthermore, they can act as the sites where normative discourses about what is

misanthrope

Does Regime Robustness Require a Fair Distribution of the Gains from Cooperation?cess by which order is produced.” Again, coercion alone is considered insufficient for the purpose of constructing durable and peaceful relations among political actors. This view is shared by Oran Young (1994: 134), who argues in regard to international institutions that “it is virtually impossible

采纳

promote

Into the Methodological Voidntal treaties and agreements has grown continuously since the beginning of the century. While up until the 1970s, in average every five years brought about five new treaties, this number has increased to about 25 from the 1980s onwards (see Beisheim et al. 1999: 351). A very similar pattern applies

背信

Book 2004on between what we describe in this book as simple effectiveness and broader consequences. Most analyses of the effectiveness of international regimes focus on individual cases and seek to assess the performance of regimes on a case-by-case basis. This is entirely understandable. Yet it is now clear