The prospects for global order and governance have become a transcendent issue. As the scope of the transformation widens and as its pace intensifies, the more urgent do questions about the nature of order and governance become! [[Open Question]] What do we mean by governance on a global scale? How can it operate without government? If governance connotes a system of rule, and if it is not sustained by an organized government, who makes and implements the rules? Does the prevailing global order depend on the nature and extensiveness of governance? ## Governance and Order > To presume the presence of governance without government is to conceive of functions that have to be performed in any viable human system irrespective of whether the system has evolved organizations and institutions explicitly charged with performing them. For example, the needs for any system to cope with external challenges, to prevent conflicts among its member or factions from tearing it irretrieably apart, to procure resources necessary to its preservation and well-being, and to frame goals and policies designed to achieve them. [[Open Question]] What, then, is an appropriate way of formulating the concept of governance as it operates in world politics? Is it merely a synonym of international institutions and regimes? Can governance be effective in the absence of central authority? To what extent is the stability of a global order dependent on the presence of governance? [[Government vs governance]] As indicated by the title of this book, governance is not synonymous with government. Both refer to purposive behavior, to goal-oriented activities, to systems of rule; but ==government suggests activities that are backed by formal authority, by police powers to insure the implementation of duly constituted policies, whereas governance refers to activities backed by shared goals that may or may not derive from legal and formally prescribed responsibilities and that do not necessarily rely on police powers to overcome defiance and attain compliance==. Governance, in other words, is a more encompassing phenomenon than government. It embraces- governmental institutions, but it also subsumes informal, non-governmental mechanisms whereby those persons and organizations within its purview move ahead, satisfy their needs, and fulfill their wants. One might argue, given all the noxious policies governments pursue, that governance without government is in some ways preferable to governments that are capable of governance. [[Governance is equated with the emergence of rule-like systems and problem-solving devices]]. Students of world politics are inclined to use the term "anarchy" to designate the absence of a centralized authority in world. The term anarchy has neither good nor bad connotations, nor does it necessarily imply that the prevailing global order is marked by pervasive disarray and commotion. Rather, "anarchy" is employed simply as a descriptive term for the lack of a centralized authority that stands over national governments and has the capacity, including the use of force if necessary, to direct their conduct. For other analysts, anarchy implies a lack of patterned rule, a tendency for actors to go their own separate ways without regard for common principles, norms, rules, and procedures. This observation relates to what Fidler called [open-source anarchy]([[Global health governance now is more about informal mechanisms between state and non-state negotiations. The governance space is now accessible by states and non-state actors, a condition Fidler called "open-source anarchy"]]). However, the implications seems highly questionable because authority that are attached to treaties, international legal precedents, and international organizations, the international system is several steps beyond anarchy. In sum, governance and order are clearly interactive phenomena. As intentional activities designed to regularize the arrangements which sustain world affairs, governance obviously shapes the nature of the prevailing global order. It could not do so, however, if the patterns constituting the order did not facilitate governance. Thus [[order is both a precondition and a consequence of government]]. Neither comes first and each helps explain the other. There can be no governance without order and there can be no order without governance. ## Governance, regimes, and institutions [[Regimes can be readily described as forms of governance without government]]. The international global order refers to the arrangements that prevail in the lacunae between regimes, and perhaps more importantly, to the principles, norms, and procedures that come into play when two or more regimes overlap, conflict, or otherwise require arrangements that facilitate accomodation among the competing interests. ## Analytic order versus normative order It's important to clarify the distinction between "order" as an analytic concept and "order" as a normative precept. That is, normative concerns are bound to intensify as questions about global order — about the fundamental arrangements for coping with conflicts and moving towards goals — surface in the political arena. > The empirically discerned order may cry out for judgment and the normative order may cry out for accurate description, and both intellectual exercises can be pervaded by difficulties as the line dividing them can be obscure and variable. Nevertheless, the line is important and international relations analysts need to be ever-mindful of when they cross it. To be insensitive to the distinctions between normative judgments and empirical observations is to run the risk of either [clouding sound analysis with preferred outcomes or confounding preferred outcomes with empirically faulty recommendations]([[Global health governance is not a Habermasian ‘ideal speech’ situation in which the best argument wins out. Power matters, and outcomes are determined not only by the persuasiveness of a particular frame, but also by who is advancing that frame]]). Perhaps no degree of sensitivity can prevent some confusion along these lines as observation is in some respects a normative enterprise - but surely it is the case that confusion can be kept to a minimum if we relentlessly monitor our tendency to allow the wish to be the father of our thoughts or the empirical assertion to be the source of our judgments. ## Layers of Empirical Order First, we need to sort the empirical from the normative. Observations must be mindfully distinct from judgment. Next, delineating empirical orders at several levels, of comprehending the extraordinary complexity of human affairs and peeling off the layers of order that sustain it. The patterns of global politics is not static, as it moves at a diferent rate, in a different geographic region, in various forms, so there is not coherent set of arrangements that gets one day to the next. The numerous patterns that sustain global order can be conceived as unfolding at three basic levels of activity: (1) at the ==ideational== or intersubjective level of what people dimly sense, incisively perceive, or otherwise understand are the arrangements through which their affairs are handled; (2) at the ==behavioral== or objective level of what people regularly and routinely do, often unknowingly, to maintain the prevailing global arrangements, eg, during Cold War, there were repeated demands by the superpowers that their allies support their policies; and (3) at the aggregate or political level where governance occurs and rule-oriented ==institutions== and regimes enact and implement the policies inherent in the ideational and behavioral patterns, eg, [[Bretton Woods]], [[United Nations]], COMECON. ## Order and change The problem of the relationship between order and change in these terms calls attention to the crucial importance of material interests and conditions as exogenous sources of the life and death of global orders. Materials is a double-edged sword: it shapes the rules through which governance without government is sustainaed and order thereby maintained, and contrariwise, a transformation of the material conditions can foster a breakdown, or at least a restructuring, of the the prevailing order. > Now the problem is not world war, but other transnational problems, such as polluted environments, terrorist attacks, AIDS, and the drug trade. ## System change versus within-system change Post-Cold War, the global order are superpower rivalry with a more dispersed, less militaristic competition among many states. Rearranged relationships, altered hierarchies, and new patterns of interaction, is still the same old system the same old arrangements or conducting and managing its affair—but it's all still within-system change. If, on the other hand, emphasis is placed on the diminished competence of states, the globalization of national economies, the fragmentation of societies into ethnic, religious, nationality, linguistic, and political subgroups, the advent of transnational issues that foster the creation of transnational authorities, and the greater readiness of citizenries to coalesce in public squares, then the end of the Cold War and the emergent arrangements for maintaining global life are likely to be viewed as the bases for a wholly new order. ## Specific applications Bunch of intro on other chapters.