Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea: Public Ideas ... - IMO

Transnational Coalitions 51
tive or productive bargaining behavior must prevail over distributive or positional
bargaining behavior. The second hypothesis states that justice and
fairness must be achieved, otherwise no regime will arise. Third, salient solutions
or focal points make it more likely that regimes are created. 46 Striving
for simplicity will facilitate negotiations involving numerous parties.
The fourth hypothesis states that exogenous shocks or crises may increase
the probability that agreement is reached. Such events (the discovery of
ozone depletion over Antarctica is one example) increase the urgency of
reaching an agreement. Fifth, it is hypothesized that policy priority is essential.
Two alternative formulations are suggested: that regime formation is
successful only if an issue is given high priority by the participants, and that
the probability of successful regime formation increases when an issue is
given low priority.
The sixth hypothesis emphasizes that, in order for regime building to succeed,
states must adopt a broader view of their interests and must value
common goods. The seventh hypothesis reflects that environmental regimes
regularly are concerned with scientific and technical issues. Three probabilistic
and quite science-optimistic arguments regarding the influence of
science and technical expertise on regime formation are suggested. The
eighth hypothesis states that regimes will be created only if all relevant parties
and stakeholders participate in the negotiation process. The ninth
hypothesis suggests that the establishment of credible compliance mechanisms
for regimes is an important although not a necessary condition.
The final hypothesis states that regimes can arise only if individual leaders
have effective influence. Three different types of individual leaders are
identified: structural, entrepreneurial, and intellectual leaders. 47 A structural
leader acts on the behalf of a state and leads the bargaining process by
constructive use of the power that stems from the state’s material resources.
An entrepreneurial leader uses negotiating skills to construct mutually beneficial
solutions and to shape institutional arrangements in such as way that
states are willing to accept them. An intellectual leader shapes how participants
in institutional bargaining perceive the issues under consideration
and think about solutions to these issues. It is suggested that entrepreneurial
activities are necessary for successful regime formation, and that the
interplay of at least two of these forms of leadership is required. 48 Young
and Osherenko (1993b, p. 234) conclude that intellectual leaders are more
important in the early stages, “usually before explicit or public negotiations