Edited by Christopher J. Coyne and Rachel L. Mathers
James Ashley Morrison and Avery F. White 18.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter analyses the relationship between international regimes and war. Following a new branch of scholarship that questions the traditional distinction between domestic and international order, we compare several of the most prominent theories of international regimes to the political theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Max Weber. We find that each of these theories of domestic political order provides new insight into the role international regimes can play in generating order – and minimizing war – in the international system. Based on this, we suggest that the sharpest division may not be between theories of domestic and international politics, as has been traditionally assumed. Instead theories of order may be better organized according to the assumptions they make about material circumstances – specifically the distribution of power – and the relative importance of actors’ understandings of those circumstances. This insight recasts the debate about the design and operation of international regimes. Scholars and policymakers must now grapple with the amount of hierarchy they would like to order the international system. The chapter proceeds as follows. We begin by defining our variables and presenting our argument. We go on to consider the parallels between the theories of John Locke and those of the neoliberal institutionalists. Next we highlight the similarities between the theories of Thomas Hobbes and those following in the tradition of hegemonic stability theory. Then we consider the similarities between the theories of Max Weber and those of the constructivists. Lastly we...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.