The international telecommunications regime provided a multilateral framework that reinforced domestic monopolies and bilateral cartel arrangements in the global market. The regime's epistemic community believed that telecommunications services and equipment were best supplied by national monopolies and that international communications by telephone, telegram, and telex should be jointly provided by monopolists. Strong domestic political incentives reinforced this cognitive framework. When technological innovation triggered a successful political attack on the domestic regulation of telecommunications in a few key countries, the stage was set for a global challenge to the intellectual and political foundations of the regime. Two paths to reform have emerged. Their significance can be assessed by looking at changes in the distribution of benefits from the regime, changes in the manner in which governments delegate power to the regime, and shifts in the epistemic community associated with the regime.
The domestic politics of great powers significantly influence the fate of such multilateral regimes at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Unless great powers can make credible commitments to support those regimes, few countries will offer more than token support. Domestic political constraints may bind national leaders to good faith adherence to multilateral regimes even if international circumstances do not compel adherence. Domestic politics also influence the ability of other countries to monitor national adherence to agreements. Case studies of U.S. and Japanese responses to multilateral regimes show how the nature of the national electoral system, the division of powers in the government, and the transparency of the national political system influence credibility and lead to special features of multilateral economic and security regimes.
The WTO Agreement andHappily, the revolution going on in the telecommunications Telecommunications Policy industry is benign.
ReformTechnological change and competition are making possible changes considered
The strategic problem for the United States during the lead‐up to a potential military clash is maintaining the executive's ability to respond internationally while not abrogating legislative oversight of the use of force. In light of this dilemma, congressional leaders have an incentive to engage in “stage management”: establishing short‐term contracts with the executive that shift political risk during conflict onto the president while maintaining a final check on presidential policy.
The War Powers Resolution is a useful test of the stage management model and an alternative model that derides congressional involvement in the use of force as nothing more than symbolic politics. We find that the War Powers Resolution changed the process by which Congress opposes the presidential use of force, easing congressional collective‐action problems and minimizing the electoral repercussions associated with said confrontation. Moreover, presidents have used force differently since the resolution's passage. By changing both process and outcomes, the War Powers Resolution fulfills all the requirements of a stage management contract.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.