ABSTRACT
The regimes produced by global governance frameworks are increasingly attracting the attention of scholars concerned with the contemporary architectures and patterns of global order. Yet as scholars of regionalisms and global order have observed, such global regimes have ramifications at various spatial levels – from the micro-regional to the state/ national to the meso-regional to the macro-regional – with attendant impacts in terms of deterritorialization and reterritorialization. An evocative example of the paradoxes associated with (de/ re)territorialization is the Kimberley Process on conflict diamonds. Although the Kimberley Process is a global governance framework that situates itself as a global regime, the vast majority of its governance efforts have been directed at Africa at the “macro-regional” level. Concomitantly, the Kimberley Process has bolstered stability at the “meso-regional” level (e.g. West Africa and Central Africa), capacity at the national level (e.g. monitoring and regulating the artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) diamond sector), and human security at the “micro-regional” level (e.g. violent conflict in areas home to diamond mining within Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, the Central African Republic and Angola).1
