Our theoretical aim is to determine not only conditions for the effectiveness of governance in areas of limited statehood but also its empirical and normative consequences. This entails three issues of concern:
The coordination of various actors and the negotiation of different normative claims are specific challenges of governance under the circumstances of limited statehood. Institutions of the international system that have taken on this task of meta-governance should be viewed critically, especially, as to their state-bias. It is crucial to point out possibilities of dealing with phenomena of states that cannot enforce their rules, fluid boundaries, and non-state actors of governance or of violence.
Governance of non-state actors in areas of limited statehood runs the risk of further undermining the (residual) statehood. The analysis will show under which conditions governance can promote the development of state capacities. Possibly, there are new forms of statehood in which the state acts primarily as a manager of non-state governance, or entirely different forms that reproduce themselves through systematic corruption.
Given our empirical focus on governance in areas of limited statehood, matters of justice arise: matters of the inclusiveness of services; the determination of subsidiary parties responsible; the institutionalized guarantee of access to vital goods; or the assessment of normatively ambiguous actors of governance. Besides this, the question as to the deserved recognition and bindingness of the emerging order arises. As to meta-governance, it must be considered normatively to what extent non-state actors can be obliged to grant collective goods. Finally, we will deduce policy recommendations for specific national and international organisations from our empirical and normative findings. A particular, institutionalized form of this exchange exists with the German Federal Foreign Office (cf. Tresearch Project T3).