Due to the numerous changes, dynamics and developments in our world in the recent decades, the discussion about the existence, forms, processes, dynamics, actors and the effectiveness of global governance, beyond inter-state cooperation, has continuously intensified. Although there is almost no debate about the simple existence of global governance, there are widespread academic discussions about how to understand the relations between the variety of involved actors and the dynamics they create amongst different issue areas within the global system. This paper discusses the questions if there actually is such a thing as global governance and if it can ever be effective? Therefore, I will first take a short look at some basic definitions, the involved actors and their possible roles within global governance arrangements before I examine different approaches towards the existence, functioning, effectiveness and limitations of global governance. The main idea in this context is to give a brief introduction to current issues, questions and solutions in the actual global governance debate.

If we want to understand what global governance is about, we will first have to define what global governance means and which actors are involved. Following O’Brien and Williams, global governance primarily evolved within the ongoing globalization and can be defined like this:

“By global governance, we mean the overarching system which regulates human affairs on a worldwide basis. […] The mechanisms and rules of global governance are created by the actions and agreements of key actors in the global system.” (O’Brien/Williams 2007: 385)

Another slightly different and broader perception has been suggested by Ruggie: “Governance, at whatever level of social organization it may take place, refers to conducting the public’s business - to the constellation of authoritative rules, institutions, and practices by means of which any collectivity manages its affairs.” (Ruggie 2004: 504)

The fact that there is no single global authority, such as a world-state, regulating the global system by passing binding rules, makes it necessary for actors such as states, international organizations or transnational corporations to interact within given issue

2

areas such as finance and trade, environmental issues, development or even security to achieve certain agreements, codes of conducts or other types of commonly accepted rules and norms. (O’Brien/Williams 2007: 385/386) In the academic field of international relations, agreements between nation-states are usually understood as regimes which have been of major interest in this field during the 80´s and which Krasner defines as following: “Regimes are implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors´ expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” (Krasner 1983: 2; quoted in O’Brien/Williams 2007: 385) Examples for this type of inter-state cooperation on a transnational or global level are the Kyoto protocol but also the creation of international organizations such as the WTO. Some of these Organizations, i.e. the UN, IMF or the World Bank, which have been created after World War II, can be seen as the starting point for what we today know as global governance. However, there have been severe changes within the global system driven by the process of globalization and the rising influence of other actors despite states. (Ruggie 2004: 505) Thus, we have to take a look at the range of involved actors and their role in current global governance arrangements.

First, the state is still the most important actor within global governance although its role changed throughout the last decades and some authors already see the state in terminal decline. (I.e. Zürn: 2005) This view is clearly exaggerated. As Held writes, “The power, authority and operations of national governments are changing but not all in one direction. The entitlement of states to rule within circumscribed territories (sovereignty) is far from on the edge of collapse, although the practical nature of this entitlement - the actual capacity of states to rule - is changing its shape. […] Far from globalization leading to the end of the state, it is stimulating a range of government and governance strategies and, in some fundamental respect, a more activist state.” (Held 2000: 397)

This active role of the state could be observed well during the current financial crisis, in which nation states had to intervene to prevent a collapse of the international financial system and are now working on further global regulation of financial markets. The rising

3

importance of the G-20, for example the Pittsburgh summit 2009 dealing with global financial governance, can be seen as an example of these emerging effects of a more inclusive inter-state cooperation on a global level, although its outcomes can be discussed concerning their reach and efficiency. Despite the discussion about state decline, the important role of the state within global governance builds largely on the fact that the state is the only actor which can implement binding rules within its given territory as a representative body of its people which makes him “the central legal actor in the international system”. (O’Brien/Williams 2007: 389)

Second, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or civil-society organizations (CSOs) play an important role in global governance. Examples range from global human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, to grassroots-groups, religious actors, environmental organizations and women’s rights movements. “International NGOs seeking social transformation operate on a number of levels to influence global governance - they create and activate global networks, participate in multilateral arenas, facilitate inter-state corporation, act within states to influence policy and enhance public participation.” (O’Brien/Williams 2007: 396) As the quote shows, the role of CSOs in global governance has been mainly described as indirect in terms of lobbying and influencing the behavior of other actors, because of their exclusion from formal inter-state arrangements or international organizations. However, Ruggie argues based on Wapner’s findings that this view is unable to grasp the full implications of civic action on a global scale. (Ruggie 2004: 501 - 502) In consequence, he argues that

“[…] civil society actors have helped make possible genuinely political activity at the global level apart from the system of states.” (Ruggie 2004: 502)

Therefore, civil society actors, as well as corporate actors and states play an important role in Ruggie’s concept of a global public domain, which can be understood as a new emerging institutionalized arena producing global public goods. The global public domain extends the classic inter-state system which is embedded in this broader context that illustrates the severe changes within the global system, creating new forms of sociality,

4