Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This article focuses on the institutionalization of conflict management in specific issue areas through international regimes. Regime analysis is usually carried out within a model of international relations emphasizing (i) the ubiquity of conflicts, i.e. incompatible differences in positions as regards an object of contention, (ii) the plurality of motivations driving international politics, and (iii) the varying role of norms guiding international behavior. Against this common background regime analysts have achieved consensus on some important issues but some weaknesses remain. One of them concerns the lack of integration of different hypotheses about regime formation stemming from different approaches. Thus, the explanatory power of the various approaches is examined by confronting them with the evidence from the case studies carried out in a multi-year project on "East-West Regimes". A focus on deviant cases suggests that using a conflict typology allows for the development of conditional hypotheses which provides first hints about an appropriate way of integrating hypotheses on regime formation. Another weakness of regime analysis concerns the lack of evidence supporting the claim that international regimes do matter. Yet, in this article it is shown that international regimes have fostered peace in Europe. This supports the "neo-institutional" interpretation of the stable OECD peace. Democracy may be a sufficient condition for the absence of war between liberal democracies. However, a really stable peace presupposes a web of regulated conflict management across issue areas. This conclusion is reached by arguing that East—West regimes have been resilient against deterioration in the overall relationship and facilitated conflict resolution to some extent.
Rittberger et al. (Fri,) studied this question.