ABSTRACT
Today’s increasingly globalized world has brought about a New World Order that calls for reconceptualizing the Hobbesian or Westphalian notion of viewing the state as a monopolist on power. Indeed, in today’s world, which is sometimes referred to as the “Age of Governance,” the centrality of the state as the primary gure of authority has been challenged not only by the “decreasing relevance of formal models of administrative hierarchy [but also by] the recognition of interdependence among private and public actors” (Schmidt, 2004).*
e role of non-state actors as auspices of security governance† has increased to the point that in some areas they are seen to be in competition with the state as sources of authority (Muellerson, 2000). Innovations in new governance have illustrated new functions for the state and non-state actors. Moreover, the proliferation of “private governments” and how they operate only arms the increasing importance of “non state as both auspice and provider of governance” (Burris, Kempa, & Shearing, 2008, p. 59).‡ Also, the hybrid and plural nature of the auspices of security governance at times encompasses both public and private sectors not only on the domestic level but also supranational entities at the international and transnational level (Bayley & Shearing, 2001). However, despite the increasingly complex web of fragmentation and decentralization, a “collective capacity to govern” has been prevalent (Muellerson, 2000, p. 138). is collective capacity to govern has been facilitated by auspices of governance that are located in local and international communities, civil societies, nongovernmental organizations, “social movements, sub national governments, political parties, professional societies, multinational corporations and not only in nation states” (Rosenau, 1997, as cited in Muellerson, 2000, p. 138).
