Will the global climate regime resemble the trade regime? If so,what would such a development imply for the governance of climate change? Both before and in the aftermath of the Copenhagen conference, a debate has been underway on whether the architecture of the climate regime needs to change or not.In brief, the argument suggests moving away from a top-down 'targets and timetables' approach towards a bottom-up structure that allows countries to promise actions that are consistent with their domestic politics and economic priorities.Given the impasse in climate negotiations,it is important to take the argument seriously.But calls for a new architecture also make references to the way the trade regime is designed.If the trade regime is the inspiration, then lessons from its successes and failures should also inform the debate.This brief draws on proposed parallels with the trade regime to ask questions on the incentives,flexibility with and credibility of commitments in negotiations.