Theoretical Foundations of International and Regional Organizations PDF

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS International and regional organizations are grounded in a range of theoretical perspectives, each offering different explanations for why states and other actors cooperate within these institutional frameworks. The theoretical fo...

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS International and regional organizations are grounded in a range of theoretical perspectives, each offering different explanations for why states and other actors cooperate within these institutional frameworks. The theoretical foundations of international and regional organizations are deeply rooted in various schools of thought within international relations (IR) theory. These theories explain why such organizations emerge, how they function, and what roles they play in international politics. The most prominent theoretical perspectives include realism, liberalism, constructivism, and other critical theories. Here\'s an overview of how each perspective views international and regional organizations: **1. Realism** - In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, **realism** emerged as a dominant theory in international relations. Thinkers like **Hans Morgenthau** and **E.H. Carr** argued that international organizations like the League of Nations failed because they ignored the realities of power politics. Realists saw states as the primary actors, with cooperation being difficult due to the anarchic nature of the international system. International organizations were viewed as weak, serving primarily the interests of powerful states. - **Core Ideas**: Realism views the international system as anarchic, meaning there is no overarching authority above states. States are the primary actors and are motivated by the pursuit of power and survival. Realists are **skeptical about the significance of international organizations** because they believe that states will only engage in cooperation when it serves their national interest. - **View on International Organizations**: According to realists, international and regional organizations are tools that powerful states use to pursue their own interests. These institutions are not independent actors but reflect the balance of power in the international system. They function as platforms for states to coordinate policies but have limited influence over state behavior in high-stakes areas like security and military power. - Realism views international organizations (IOs) and regional organizations (ROs) as tools for states to pursue their national interests. In this view, states are primarily concerned with power and security in an anarchic international system where no central authority exists above states. International organizations are seen as weak and often ineffective since powerful states dominate their agendas. According to realists, IOs are either used by great powers to maintain influence or are irrelevant to core issues of state security. - **Criticism**: Realism underestimates the capacity of international organizations to shape state behavior and foster cooperation beyond narrow self-interest. - **Tucydides, Hobbes, Machiavelli** - **How come the realist believed the Leaggue of Natios is a failure?** - **Hans Morgenthau**: A foundational realist thinker, Morgenthau argued that **international politics is a struggle for power**, with international organizations often reflecting the interests of dominant states. - **John Mearsheimer**: Mearsheimer is a contemporary realist who critiques the effectiveness of international organizations, arguing that they have limited influence on state behavior and are often used by powerful states to pursue their interests. - **Kenneth Waltz**: As a structural realist (or neorealist), Waltz argued that international organizations have minimal independent impact since the international system is anarchic, and state behavior is driven by the need to ensure survival. - **2. Liberalism** - The earliest ideas about international cooperation emerged from classical liberalism in the Enlightenment period. Thinkers like **Immanuel Kant** advocated for perpetual peace through cooperation among states and the formation of international organizations to reduce conflict. Kant's vision of a federation of free states laid the intellectual groundwork for modern organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations. - **Core Ideas**: Liberalism offers a more **optimistic view** of international organizations. It argues that states are not only concerned with power but also with **economic growth, stability, and cooperation**. Liberal institutionalists, a key branch of liberal thought, believe that international organizations play a vital role in facilitating cooperation among states by reducing transaction costs, providing information, and creating norms and rules. - **View on International Organizations**: Liberal institutionalists argue that **international and regional organizations are essential for managing interdependence in the global system**. Organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO), and regional bodies like the European Union (EU) help to establish rules, resolve conflicts, and promote peace and prosperity through collective action. International organizations are seen as **arenas for dialogue and cooperation** where states can work together on common issues. - Liberalism offers a more optimistic perspective on international cooperation, emphasizing the role of international and regional organizations in reducing conflict and fostering peace through rule-based cooperation. Liberal theorists argue that organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, and ASEAN help states solve collective problems by promoting norms of diplomacy, negotiation, and peaceful resolution of conflicts. The theory of **neoliberal institutionalism**, a strand of liberalism, argues that even in an anarchic world, institutions help states cooperate by reducing transaction costs, increasing transparency, and providing mechanisms for resolving disputes. - **Criticism**: Liberals are often critiqued for overestimating the willingness of states to cede sovereignty and follow international norms, particularly in areas like security where vital interests are involved. - **John Locke**, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith - **Immanuel Kant**: A classical liberal thinker, Kant advocated for perpetual peace through cooperation among states and the establishment of international organizations to foster peace and order. - **Robert Keohane**: A prominent figure in neoliberal institutionalism, Keohane argues that international institutions reduce uncertainty and facilitate cooperation by providing information and creating norms for state interaction. - **Joseph Nye**: Nye, co-author with Keohane, helped develop the theory of complex interdependence, which emphasizes the role of international organizations in fostering cooperation and minimizing conflict in a world of interconnected economies. - What do you mean with the "Morally righteous" advocacy of Liberals in IRO? **3. Constructivism** - By the 1980s, **constructivism** emerged as a challenge to both realism and neoliberalism. Scholars like **Alexander Wendt** and **Martha Finnemore** emphasized the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping state behavior. Constructivists argued that international organizations were not just arenas for state competition but also spaces for the creation and dissemination of shared norms, such as human rights, democracy, and environmental protection. - **Core Ideas**: Constructivism focuses on the **role of ideas, norms, and identities** in shaping international relations. Unlike realists and liberals, constructivists argue that the **international system is socially constructed and shaped by shared values, beliefs, and social practices.** State behavior is influenced by these factors rather than merely by material power or self-interest. - **View on International Organizations**: Constructivists see international and regional organizations as **spaces where norms and identities are shaped and disseminated**. Organizations like the UN or the EU are not just arenas for cooperation but are also **platforms where international norms** (e.g., human rights, democracy, environmental sustainability) are created and reinforced. They believe that these **organizations help to socialize states into certain ways of behaving and thinking** about international issues. - Constructivism focuses on the role of ideas, norms, and identities in shaping international relations. In this view, international and regional organizations are not merely instruments of state interests but also platforms where norms are developed and spread. Constructivist scholars argue that IOs help socialize states and actors into adopting shared values, norms of cooperation, human rights, democracy, or environmental standards. Over time, these norms become internalized, influencing state behavior and creating a more cooperative international system. - **Criticism**: Constructivism is sometimes criticized for its lack of focus on material factors such as power and economic interests, which are often seen as primary drivers of state behavior. - Nicolas Onuf, Alexander Wendt, Peter Katzentein, - **Alexander Wendt**: One of the most influential constructivists, Wendt argued that international organizations are sites where states develop shared norms and identities, which shape their actions. His famous phrase, \"anarchy is what states make of it,\" reflects this view. - **Martha Finnemore**: Finnemore has contributed significantly to the understanding of how international organizations spread norms such as human rights and humanitarian intervention, shaping state behavior over time. - **Peter Katzenstein**: Katzenstein emphasizes the importance of norms and culture in shaping regional and international institutions, with a focus on how identities and interests are constructed in different contexts. - **What are examples of international norms or cultures**? **4. Marxist and Critical Theories** - In the 1970s and 1980s, **critical theories** such as **Marxism**, **world-systems theory**, and **dependency theory** emerged, critiquing international organizations for perpetuating global inequality. Scholars like **Immanuel Wallerstein** and **Robert Cox** argued that organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank served the interests of wealthy, capitalist nations and contributed to the underdevelopment of the Global South. - **Core Ideas**: Marxist and critical theories focus on the **role of economic structures and inequalities in shaping global politics**. These perspectives argue that **international organizations are shaped by global capitalism** and often serve the interests of wealthy and powerful states or multinational corporations at the expense of developing countries and marginalized groups. - **View on International Organizations**: From a Marxist or critical perspective, international and regional organizations **often reinforce global economic inequalities and perpetuate the dominance of the capitalist system**. Organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank are often seen as instruments of neoliberal globalization, promoting policies like structural adjustment programs that benefit wealthy nations while harming poorer ones. Critical theorists also **highlight issues of power and inequality within regional organizations**, such as the EU, where powerful member states exert disproportionate influence. - Critical approaches, including **Marxism** and **postcolonialism**, view international and regional organizations as mechanisms that reinforce global inequality. Marxist scholars argue that IOs and ROs serve the interests of capitalist states and global elites by maintaining structures of economic dependence and exploitation. Postcolonial theorists focus on how international organizations often reflect the dominance of Western powers, marginalizing voices from the Global South. - Each of these theoretical foundations provides a distinct lens for understanding the origins, evolution, and effectiveness of international and regional organizations in the global system. - **Criticism**: Critics of Marxist approaches argue that they focus too much on economic factors and **overlook the role that international organizations can play in promoting positive change, such as advancing human rights or environmental protections**. - **Herbert Marcuse, Louis al Thusser, Georg lucacs** - **Immanuel Wallerstein**: Wallerstein, a key advocate of the **world-systems theory**, viewed international organizations as mechanisms for maintaining the **dominance of core capitalist countries over the peripheral and semi-peripheral countries**. - **Robert Cox**: Cox's approach to **critical theory** in international relations emphasizes how international organizations are shaped by **power structures** and serve to reinforce the interests of dominant social forces. - **Samir Amin**: A prominent advocate of **dependency theory**, Amin critiqued international organizations like the **IMF and World Bank for perpetuating global inequalities and maintaining the economic dependence of developing countries**. - **How do the IMF and WB promote economic disparity** **5. Functionalism** - Functionalism, developed by scholars like David Mitrany, suggests that IOs and ROs arise because they can effectively manage common, practical problems that cross national boundaries. These issues may include trade, health, environmental protection, and security concerns. Functionalist **theorists argue that cooperation begins in limited, technical areas where states have mutual interests and, over time, expands to broader areas, leading to more complex integration, as seen in the European Union.** - **Core Ideas**: Neofunctionalism is a theory that explains the **process of regional integration**, particularly in the context of the European Union. **It argues that integration in one sector (e.g., economics) creates a \"spillover effect\" that leads to integration in other sectors (e.g., political or social policies).** Regional organizations form as a result of the increasing interdependence of states within a specific geographical region. - **Functionalism** as a theoretical foundation for international and regional organizations emerged primarily in the 20th century, particularly in the context of efforts to prevent future global conflicts and promote international cooperation after World War II. It sought to address the limitations of more state-centric theories like realism by **focusing on practical, issue-based cooperation** rather than power politics. - **Origins (Early 20th Century)** - Functionalism\'s intellectual roots can be traced back to early 20th-century liberal internationalism. Thinkers like **Leonard Woolf** and **David Mitrany** developed the core ideas of functionalism, especially in response to the failure of the League of Nations to maintain peace. They believed that focusing on cooperation in **technical and non-political** sectors (such as trade, health, and transportation) would lead to gradual international integration and peace. - Mitrany's 1943 work, **"A Working Peace System"**, was foundational in articulating this vision. He argued that global governance could be achieved by creating functional organizations tasked with addressing specific problems that cross national borders, like trade or communication. Mitrany believed that by solving practical problems, these organizations would foster habits of cooperation among states, leading to broader integration over time. He envisioned this integration happening outside the traditional mechanisms of power politics, which were seen as sources of conflict. - After World War II, functionalist ideas gained traction as international leaders sought to create new institutions that would prevent another global war. The founding of organizations like the **United Nations (UN)**, the **International Monetary Fund (IMF)**, the **World Health Organization (WHO)**, and later, the **European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)** in 1951 reflected the belief that functional cooperation on economic and social issues could help build lasting peace. - The **European integration** process is a significant historical example of functionalist ideas in action. The ECSC was created to manage the coal and steel industries of Western Europe in a way that would prevent future conflicts between France and Germany. By starting with technical cooperation in key industries, this effort set the stage for broader European integration, eventually leading to the formation of the **European Union (EU)**. - **Challenges and Criticisms (1970s-1980s)** - By the 1970s and 1980s, functionalism faced challenges. The **realist critique** maintained that functionalism underestimated the role of state power and interests. Realists argued that states would only cooperate in functional areas if it suited their national interests, and they could withdraw or limit cooperation at any time. - Furthermore, regional integration efforts like the EU experienced setbacks in the 1970s due to economic crises and rising nationalism, suggesting that functionalist theories did not adequately account for political resistance or the enduring importance of national sovereignty. - **Revival and Influence (1990s-Present)** - Functionalism saw renewed interest after the Cold War, as international and regional organizations expanded to address new global challenges, such as environmental degradation, human rights, and economic globalization. Organizations like the **World Trade Organization (WTO)** and regional trade blocs such as **NAFTA** (now USMCA) embodied functionalist principles by promoting cooperation in specialized sectors to manage cross-border issues. - In recent decades, functionalist ideas have been applied to new areas like environmental governance (e.g., the **Paris Climate Agreement**) and public health (e.g., the **World Health Organization** during global health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic). Functionalism remains relevant for understanding how technical cooperation in specific areas can foster broader international collaboration. - Is it really possible to separate functional and political issues?Top of Form - **View on Regional Organizations**: Neofunctionalism sees regional organizations like the EU as **driven by functional cooperation** in areas like trade or infrastructure. Over time, the success of integration in these areas **encourages states to cooperate in other areas, leading to deeper integration and the development of supranational governance structures**. - **Criticism**: Critics argue that neofunctionalism does not fully account for the role of national governments in maintaining sovereignty and resisting deeper integration. - **Emile Durkheim, James Rowland Angell, Talcott Parsons, Archibald Moore, John Dewey** - **David Mitrany**: A pioneer of functionalism, Mitrany argued that international organizations emerge to address specific, practical issues that transcend national borders, such as economic cooperation or environmental management, leading to more integrated global governance. - **Ernst Haas**: Known for his theory of **neofunctionalism**, Haas focused on regional integration, particularly the European Union. **He argued that cooperation in specific sectors can lead to deeper political and economic integration over time.** **6. Institutionalism** - In response to realism, **neoliberal institutionalism** gained prominence during the 1970s, particularly with the work of **Robert Keohane** and **Joseph Nye**. The economic interdependence and proliferation of international institutions during the Cold War showed that states could cooperate for mutual gain despite anarchy. Neoliberal institutionalists argued that organizations like the United Nations, World Trade Organization (WTO), and regional bodies like the European Union (EU) help states cooperate by reducing transaction costs, increasing transparency, and providing rules for interaction. - **Institutionalism** is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of institutions---**rules, norms, and organizations---in shaping the behavior of states and other actors in international and regional politics.** Several scholars have advanced different strands of institutionalism, each focusing on **how institutions facilitate cooperation and influence global governance**. The three major variants of institutionalism are **neoliberal institutionalism**, **historical institutionalism**, and **rational choice institutionalism**. - **Neoliberal Institutionalism.** Neoliberal institutionalism, often referred to simply as institutionalism in the international relations (IR) context, builds on the liberal theory of cooperation. It argues that even in an anarchic international system, institutions can help states cooperate by reducing uncertainty, providing information, and offering mechanisms for dispute resolution. Institutions do not eliminate anarchy, but they help mitigate its effects by promoting rules and norms that regulate state behavior. - **Key Advocates:** - **Robert Keohane**: Keohane is a central figure in neoliberal institutionalism, especially through his seminal work *\"After Hegemony\"*. He argues that international institutions can facilitate cooperation even in the absence of a dominant global power (a hegemon), as they help states overcome collective action problems by providing transparency and creating norms of reciprocity. - **Joseph Nye**: Nye, often associated with Keohane, co-authored works such as *\"Power and Interdependence\"*, which developed the idea of complex interdependence, where institutions play a vital role in managing economic, social, and political interactions in an interconnected world. - **Stephen Krasner**: Krasner focused on the role of regimes---specific sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures---in structuring state behavior. He examined how regimes influence the international system, particularly in areas like trade and finance. - **North, Barken, and Ostrom** - **Historical Institutionalism.** Historical institutionalism emphasizes how institutions evolve over time and how their development shapes political outcomes. It focuses on path dependency, suggesting that decisions made at critical junctures in the past shape the direction of institutional development in ways that may be difficult to change later. - **Key Advocates:** - **Paul Pierson**: Pierson\'s work, particularly on the development of social policy and political economy in advanced democracies, highlights the role of institutions in shaping long-term political trajectories. His analysis of path dependency demonstrates how early institutional choices can create self-reinforcing mechanisms. - **Kathleen Thelen**: Thelen has contributed to understanding how institutions evolve gradually through processes of adaptation and transformation. Her work on labor markets and welfare states is notable for applying historical institutionalism to understanding economic and social policies. - **Rational Choice Institutionalism.** Rational choice institutionalism applies economic principles of rational choice to political decision-making. It posits that institutions arise because they help states and other actors achieve mutually beneficial outcomes by reducing transaction costs and providing credible commitments. Actors are assumed to be utility-maximizers, and institutions create the rules within which they make decisions. - **Key Advocates:** - **James March and Johan Olsen**: March and Olsen are credited with developing the concept of the \"new institutionalism,\" which contrasts with earlier, behaviorist approaches. They argue that institutions are not simply reflections of actors\' preferences but also shape those preferences by structuring incentives and constraints. - **Douglass North**: North\'s work in economic history contributed significantly to rational choice institutionalism by showing how **institutions, particularly those governing property rights and contracts, are key to economic development**. His idea that institutions provide \"**the rules of the game**\" that reduce uncertainty and encourage cooperation has been influential in IR theory. - **How do** \"**the rules of the game**\" -- mechanisms and frameworks provided by institutions reduce uncertainty? - **Institutionalism in International Relations and Regional Organizations** - Institutionalist scholars generally argue that institutions, whether international organizations like the UN, WTO, and IMF, or regional organizations like the EU, ASEAN, and AU, play a critical role in fostering cooperation, providing governance mechanisms, and managing interdependence among states. They help create predictable environments where states are more likely to cooperate on issues ranging from trade and security to environmental protection. **Key Concepts in Institutionalism:** - **Regimes**: Sets of rules, norms, and procedures that govern state behavior in specific issue areas like trade, finance, or human rights. - **Path Dependency**: Historical institutionalist concept emphasizing how early institutional choices shape the range of future possibilities. - **Transaction Costs**: Neoliberal institutionalism emphasizes that institutions help reduce the costs associated with making and enforcing agreements, making cooperation easier. - **Credible Commitment**: Institutions allow states to make commitments that are more likely to be trusted, increasing the likelihood of sustained cooperation. **7. Regime Theory** **Regime theory** in international relations examines how states cooperate and interact within frameworks of norms, rules, and institutions, focusing on managing shared issues or problems. In the context of **international regional organizations**, regime theory helps explain how states form, maintain, and adhere to such institutions for regional cooperation. **Core Ideas of Regime Theory** **a. Cooperation in Anarchy** - Regime theory challenges the realist view that states, operating in an anarchic international system, are primarily focused on self-interest and power. Instead, it posits that states can cooperate even in the absence of a central authority by creating regimes---sets of norms, rules, and institutions that guide state behavior. **b. International Regimes** - Regimes are formal or informal sets of principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures that states voluntarily follow to coordinate their actions in specific issue areas (e.g., trade, security, the environment). - Examples include the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Paris Climate Agreement, and regional organizations like the European Union (EU). **c. Issue-Specific Focus** - Unlike general international systems, regimes typically focus on specific issue areas (e.g., trade, arms control, environmental protection), helping states manage interdependence and avoid conflicts by aligning expectations. **d. Hegemony and Leadership** - In some cases, regime theory emphasizes the role of a hegemonic state (a dominant power) in establishing and maintaining regimes. The hegemon provides leadership, sets the rules, and ensures compliance. - However, regimes can also emerge and function through mutual cooperation when states find it beneficial to follow shared norms, even without a dominant power. **e. Institutions as Facilitators** - International institutions play a crucial role in regime theory by reducing transaction costs, monitoring compliance, and providing forums for negotiation and conflict resolution. These institutions enhance trust and transparency, making cooperation more likely. Here\'s how regime theory applies to international regional organizations: - **Cooperation & Interdependence.** Regime theory posits that states form regional organizations to manage complex interdependence and promote cooperation on shared issues like trade, security, environment, or health. These regimes provide frameworks for states to align their interests and reduce uncertainty. - **Rules and Norms.** A regime consists of agreed-upon norms, rules, and decision-making procedures that shape state behavior. In a regional context, this means creating formal institutions (like the European Union, ASEAN, etc.) or informal mechanisms that set expectations for state conduct. - **Hegemony vs. Mutual Benefit** - **Hegemonic stability theory**, a branch of regime theory, argues that a single dominant power in the region often plays a key role in forming and maintaining regimes. For instance, the United States has been central to creating regimes like NATO in Europe or economic agreements in the Americas. - Alternatively, regimes can also develop through **mutual benefit** where multiple states perceive cooperation as serving their long-term interests, even if no single state dominates. - **Issue Areas**. Regimes within regional organizations often focus on specific issues: - **Security regimes** like NATO ensure military cooperation and conflict resolution. - **Economic regimes** like the EU promote trade liberalization, economic integration, and shared development goals. - **Environmental regimes** like those formed under the Arctic Council manage regional resource use and environmental protection. **Institutionalization & Enforcement** Successful regimes become institutionalized, meaning they develop formal structures to monitor compliance, enforce rules, and resolve disputes. In regional organizations, this might involve supranational bodies like the European Court of Justice in the EU or secretariats in organizations like the African Union (AU). **Adaptability and Evolution** Over time, regimes in regional organizations may evolve in response to changing political, economic, or environmental circumstances. States may renegotiate agreements or expand regimes to address new challenges, such as cybersecurity or climate change. **Regime theory** in international relations offers insights into the mechanisms of cooperation among states, particularly within organizations that establish rules and norms. **Key Advocates of Regime Theory** Several scholars have contributed significantly to regime theory: **a. Robert Keohane** - A leading advocate, Keohane's work in his book *\"After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy\"* (1984) is foundational to regime theory. He argues that even in the absence of a hegemon, international regimes facilitate cooperation among states by reducing uncertainty and creating predictable frameworks for interaction. **b. Stephen Krasner** - Krasner helped formalize the concept of regimes, defining them as \"sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actor expectations converge in a given area of international relations.\" His 1983 work *\"International Regimes\"* is a key text in the field. **c. John Ruggie** - Ruggie introduced the idea of \"embedded liberalism,\" where economic regimes fostered by post-World War II institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank are grounded in liberal economic principles but embedded within a framework that allows for state intervention to mitigate social disruptions caused by global markets. **d. Oran Young** - Young contributed to regime theory, particularly in environmental and Arctic regimes. His work focuses on how regimes evolve, adapt to new challenges, and how governance structures emerge in specific issue areas like climate change. **Criticisms of Regime Theory** Despite its utility, regime theory faces several critiques: **a. Overemphasis on Cooperation** - Critics, particularly from the realist school, argue that regime theory is overly optimistic about the potential for state cooperation. Realists claim that power politics and competition dominate state behavior, and regimes are often shaped by the interests of powerful states rather than mutual cooperation. **b. Hegemonic Bias** - Critics of the hegemonic stability model within regime theory argue that it overemphasizes the role of dominant powers in maintaining regimes. Some suggest that regimes can emerge and persist even in the absence of a hegemon, as seen in multilateral trade and environmental agreements. **c. Underestimation of Power and Interests** - Some scholars argue that regime theory underestimates how much state power and interests shape regimes. They contend that regimes often reflect the preferences of the most powerful states rather than being neutral frameworks that benefit all participants equally. - For example, critics argue that international trade regimes often reflect the interests of developed nations, sidelining concerns of developing countries. **d. Regimes and Inequality** - Regime theory has also been criticized for reinforcing global inequalities. Some regimes, especially in trade or investment, benefit wealthier states while marginalizing weaker or developing countries. This leads to questions about the fairness and inclusivity of certain international regimes. **e. Limited Applicability** - Another critique is that regime theory works well for certain issue areas like trade or arms control but may be less effective in explaining cooperation in more complex or contentious areas such as human rights or global migration, where interests and values vary widely. **f. Institutional Failure** - Some critics argue that regime theory does not adequately account for the potential failure or collapse of regimes, particularly in cases where states withdraw (e.g., U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement under the Trump administration) or when enforcement mechanisms are weak.