The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources

Abstract

This article examines the implications of the rising density of international institutions+ Despite the rapid proliferation of institutions, scholars continue to embrace the assumption that individual regimes are decomposable from others+ We contend that an increasingly common phenomenon is the "regime complex:" a collective of partially overlapping and nonhierarchical regimes+ The evolution of regime complexes reflects the influence of legalization on world politics+ Regime complexes are laden with legal inconsistencies because the rules in one regime are rarely coordinated closely with overlapping rules in related regimes+ Negotiators often attempt to avoid glaring inconsistencies by adopting broad rules that allow for multiple interpretations+ In turn, solutions refined through implementation of these rules focus later rounds of negotiation and legalization+ We explore these processes using the issue of plant genetic resources~PGR!+ Over the last century, states have created property rights in these resources in a Demsetzian process: as new technologies and ideas have made PGR far more valuable, actors have mobilized and clashed over the creation of property rights that allow the appropriation of that value+ International institutions have proliferated rapidly in the postwar period+ As new problems have risen on the international agenda, the demand for international regimes has followed+ 1 At the same time, international norms have become more demanding and intrusive-new rules on human rights, intellectual property, and food safety, for example, exert influence on national policies far "behind the bor-der+" 2 The growing density of international institutions, coupled to their newfound intrusiveness, has also been accompanied by a shift in political processes+ Governance systems dominated by elites have given way to more participatory We are grateful for comments on early drafts presented at Stanford Law School,

Special issue: managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance

“…These questions speak to a broader programme of research in international relations concerning the characterization, causes and consequences of complex governance systems. This research has been framed in a number of different ways, ranging from governance architectures (Biermann 2014) to regime complexes (Raustiala and Victor 2004) and complex adaptive systems (Kim and Mackey 2014). For present purposes, we need not privilege one conceptual framework over another but note their common interest in systemic behavior.…”

The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies

“…Complexity emerges because such institutions exert influence over one another, with consequences for governance outcomes (Oberthür and Stokke 2011). The strategic management of institutional interactions (or interplay) has thus also received growing attention from environmental governance scholars (see Young 1996;Raustiala and Victor 2004;Oberthür and Gehring 2006;Biermann et al 2009;Gupta et al 2015;Visseren-Hamakers 2015) and in policy circles (see Soria 2014).…”

Emergent Global Land Governance

“…Scholars have described the present state of global governance as thick and dense because of the proliferation of public and private global governance instruments (Raustalia and Victor 2004). increasing density of global governance is important in two ways.…”

“…This is evident in various fields, such as efforts to fill the gaps in governance when it comes to trade and the environment or security and migration. Multiple instruments that cut across issues area also arise when states and non-state actors engage in strat and tactical approaches to global governance that assemble existing and new instruments into configurations (Young 2002;Raustalia and Victor 2004). The motives for this can vary highly, ranging from a re weaker actors.…”