Keohane's article, "Demand for International Regimes", there are many strong point expressed by the author. The main argument for the article is that international regimes allow for a more efficient flow of world politics by cutting cost of agreements, making more and higher quality knowledge available to the actors in world politics, and lastly making a solid framework for the legal responsibility of agreement making. In the paper five main points are expressed. First is the identification of the strengths and weaknesses of constraint-choice analysis. Second is the function of regimes and the contexts within they operate. Third are the benefits of international regimes and the demand by the actors in world politics. Fourth are the issues of closure and communication within regimes. Fifth, and last, is the suggestion that by 1980 control oriented regimes will be supplemented by insurance regimes. Overall Robert O. Keohane seems to be a strong activist for the implementation of international regimes and over the course of the article seems to be trying to sway the reader's opinion on the use of international regimes by expressing the vast strengths and benefits of them. These benefits and strengths will be presented point by point in this paper.
First point is the identification of strength and weaknesses of constraint-choice analysis. Constraint-choice analysis is the understanding that in world politics there exists no hierarchy. The stage that is world politics is in constant, yet controlled, anarchy. Constraint-choice analyzes and understands that, although there is no higher power per se, there still is power and inequality. The larger states posses a greater power than smaller ones. This is why international regimes may become an important power to the larger states because they may push forward ideas and pass international legislation that benefits other large states. This is all great for the larger states but the error in constraint-choice comes when analyzing the small, weaker actors in world politics.
