During our second funding period we developed four central conclusions at the SFB 700. To start with, we discovered the following governance models both in our empirical, contemporary, and historical research:

• hierarchical and non-hierarchical ruling without a state structure
• the respective central government delegating governance to external and internal/local actors
• diverse non-hierarchical negotiating systems involving different actors.

Our second conclusion was that we could not find a systematic connection between the degree of residual statehood and the effectiveness of governance modes in areas of limited statehood. Also, effectiveness and legitimacy of governance do not vary depending on certain policies. However, this does not imply that state or statehood do not play any role in the areas that we looked at. Our third research finding proves the close connection between (empirical) legitimacy and effective governance. When governance is being perceived as legitimate or illegitimate, it consequently triggers a process of adaptation or defense which in return supports or hinders the governance's effectiveness. From a normative perspective our fourth finding distinguishes clearly between instrumental and intrinsic justifications of a certain way of ruling. Instrumental justifications potentially legitimize a governance model if there is consensus on the ruling objectives. Yet, the justifications are limited to the restricted sphere of protection of fundamental human rights and other indisputable goods. Governance services exceeding this limited sphere require participatory processes working on the definition of the respective issues and objectives.