The Canada-United States Automotive Products Trade Agreement of 1965 has been a source of controversy between these two countries, yet has also shown considerable resistance to change. An adequate political understanding of the creation, content and history of the Pact requires an examination of the complexes of issues and goals within which the Canadian and American governments approached its negotiation. These influenced not only what issues were dealt with in the APTA but also how and how successfully. Canada was initially favoured, as is demonstrated by the outcome of the talks. However, the Pact postponed, rather than resolved, the differences between the two governments; subsequent controversies between them over the Pact stem in large part from these unresolved differences.

The liberal approach to international regimes is attractive in the development of thatconcept because it deploys a well-developed and rigorous set of analytic devices in the form of rational actor models. However, it also assumes that regimes are benevolent, voluntary, cooperative, and legitimate associations of actors, which unnecessarily limits theregime concept and encourages an ideological and apologetic position with respect to regimes. Following a critique of the liberal approach, this article suggests an alternative based on a fundamental assumption of contestability in regimes. Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault which culminates in the concept of “power/knowledge,” it regards international regimes as attempts to define, order, and act within international public spaces. It also regards international regimes as loci and foci of struggle. Some aspects of this conceptualization are sketched in preliminary form, and a brief illustration in the area of nuclear nonproliferation is provided.