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

Transnational Coalitions 53
Haas (1980, p. 357) links regime creation to perception of costs of no
cooperation: “The need for collaboration arises from the recognition that
the costs of national self-reliance are usually excessive.” Knowledge must
be rather consensual, however, in order to guide regime creation (ibid., pp.
364–367). 51 Since knowledge varies over time, reflectivists doubt that certain
forms of cooperation by definition provide collective goods (ibid., p.
360).
Reflectivists do generally not consider hegemonic power a sufficient condition
for regime creation and maintenance (E. Haas 1980, p. 359). 52 It is
unlikely, they believe, that the hegemon will supply the necessary power in
situations where it does not see the need for creating collaborative arrangements
(ibid., p. 365). This might happen when those involved at the domestic
level do not support cooperation, are unable to reach agreement among
themselves, or miscalculate the outcomes and benefits of cooperation. 53 On
the other hand, cooperation is helped to the extent governments are guided
by embedded norms stressing the existence of a commonly shared problem
and the appropriate solutions. 54 International organizations may play a
major role as producers and distributors of new scientific knowledge. But
regimes arise and change through interactions among governments, leaving
little influence to other actors (for example, international organizations,
individual leaders, and ENGOs). Downplaying the role of hegemons, Haas
(ibid., p. 370) generalizes that “regimes are constructed by states through
the medium of multilateral negotiation.”
When, then, do regimes change? Reflectivists agree that changes of
regimes are mainly results of change of knowledge affecting how the national
interest is defined: “If we adopt this perceptual notion of the national interest,
we must discard the idea of “structurally necessary” regimes; nothing is
absolutely necessary. . . . What was considered necessary in one epistemological
perspective becomes obsolete in another.” (ibid., p. 392)
To understand the evolution and change in governments’ perception of
cooperation, reflective scholars focus much on how scientists and policy
experts influence policy. They stress that professional groups (in particular,
those within which scientists and experts interact) may, by way of academic
training and professional experiences, acquire a common outlook on the
world, and may even share political values. Similarities exist between epistemic
communities and issue networks, policy communities, and policy subsystems,
but reflectivists argue that an epistemic community chooses to