This book puts forth a bold vision for global governance, based on a simple but powerful argument. The argument is this: “Networks of government officials … are a key feature of world order in the twenty-first century, but they are underappreciated, undersupported, and underused …” (p. 1). Central to this vision are the concepts of network and governance. Anne Marie Slaughter is careful to define each of these concepts and, in so doing, calls attention to the fundamental theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic challenges inherent in transforming this vision into some semblance of reality.

The book introduces the argument with a brief discussion of “the globalization paradox,” by which the author refers to the expansion of government structures and functions, nationally and internationally, on the one hand, and the attendant fears and concerns that invariably accompany this expansion, on the other. This duality is one of the many paradoxes that are generated by the sustained power of the state in world politics and the persistence of invasive globalization processes. The argument is that the tensions created by this paradox can be reduced, if not resolved, by greater understanding, appreciation, and development of government networks operating both within and across national boundaries. The author selects three types of network functions—those pertaining to information, enforcement, and harmonization—and examines in considerable detail the networks of regulators, the world of courts and court systems, and the networks of legislators worldwide.

The first chapters are devoted to a careful description of each of these networks, noting their characteristic features, core functions, and operational manifestations. By distinguishing between vertical and horizontal networks, the author reinforces the overall strategy toward the globalization paradox by highlighting the architecture for this vision of the new world order in terms of breadth (across states) as well as depth (within states). This is an important exercise in that it provides a rather inclusive view of existing governmental networks across domains of governance and jurisdictions. Presented as a description of the world as it is today, this exercise underscores the author's view of the state and of the state system in disaggregated, rather than the more conventional, unitary terms. This disaggregation however, is defined almost exclusively in terms of governmental structures and functions with special focus on the purposive networks that emerge as a result. While essential to the author's vision, if taken too literally this disaggregation itself may harbor some serious theoretical, empirical, and normative challenges that, if unheeded, may undermine the validity of the overall vision. To be fair, there is every indication that the author appreciates these challenges and, to some extent, is deft in recognizing their implications and addressing them head on.

The notion of networks is applied across internal, external, transnational, and organizational boundaries, creating a vision of a world that is dense in networks of governance. This density is seldom appreciated by scholars or by practitioners in international relations. In many ways this analysis amounts to something of a census of official and quasi-official global networks, with formal structures and functions, and relatively well defined parameters of purposive behaviors. Excluded from this census are informal, emergent, or self-organizing networks that may be devoid of formal structures and functions but characterized by common, shared and purposive actions. Noting this exclusion is not meant as a criticism of the vision or the argument, rather it highlights clear boundaries in the author's terms of reference.

A New World Order is based on the view that the “state is not disappearing; it is disaggregating.” However, only in the world of formal international relations is the state seen as a unitary entity. Few scholars, analysts, or practitioners of international relations would seriously support the unitary vision. But, since the state is the only entity enfranchised to speak on behalf of individuals in the international context, the unitary perspective remains robust for purposes of governance at any level of analysis—national, international, or global.

What is important and distinctive about the view of the state in the book is the organizing principle—or the meta-fault line—of this dissaggregation. The subject is governance (structures, functions, purposes, and performance) and, by definition, formally recognized as such by all relevant entities in question. Again, the terms of reference are clear: these do not focus on informal networks, organizations, or mechanisms, “underground” or competing governance structures, or any institutional and networking principles that may be rooted in principles other than those recognized in conventional modern, Western, political discourse.

In this connection, however, one of the significant contributions of the book is that it provides the foundation for framing basic and applied research to address issues at the frontier of this bold vision anchored in governance and in networks. Among the interesting research questions in the governance domain, for example, are the following: To what extent do the advances in information technology that are deployed in virtual domains (emerging cyberspaces) influence the operations of established networks of governance? Is the practice and promise of e-governance similar to that of “real” or material or physical governance? Does the diffusion of e-capabilities facilitate or impede the development of trajectories toward this vision of a new world order? What meta-principles of governance can provide the “best” guidance for mechanisms to reduce disconnects in the design and organization of basic information relevant to governance at different levels of socio-political or economic aggregation?

In the domain of networks, some issues on the theory side are particularly compelling, and must be addressed in order to gain a deeper understanding of the full implications of this book. For example, given the ubiquity of networks and the wide range of network theory (or theories) put forth in different disciplines, what particular theory of networking might be most relevant to the international order? Given the diversity of intellectual perspectives, what are the most promising approaches for research on governance networks to help support a new world order? Even more fundamental, of course, is how a more fully articulated network theory of governance might facilitate the transition from framing a bold vision to addressing the complex challenges of operation and implementation. Further research aside, however, A New World Order is an important volume.