This chapter introduces a conception of rule that takes resistance rather than obedience as the constitutive element of rule. Based on an eclectic reading of different theories of rule, we argue that there is no rule without resistance. Even though rule might aim at suppressing resistance or might take such a subtle shape that it hardly encounters resistance, conceptually, rule is bound to resistance. Without a minimum of opposition, a recourse to rule would not be necessary. Even legitimate rule, which Weber calls authority, is legitimate only to a certain degree. As a consequence, not only obedience and the will to comply, but also dissent and the will to resist are part of rule. This chapter therefore sheds light on the relational dimension of rule, by analyzing the dynamic relationship between (forms of) rule and (forms of) resistance at the global level. To this end, we distinguish between two forms of resistance – opposition and dissidence – in order to show how resistance and rule implicate and influence each other. To demonstrate this relationship, we discuss four illustrative case studies on state and non-state forms of resistance and how they indicate and influence different forms of rule.

International Relations scholars are increasingly studying different forms of sub- and superordination in the international system through analytical lenses such as hierarchy, hegemony, or authority. Drawing on these debates, this introduction sets out to establish the concept of rule as the defining feature of order in the international realm. More specifically, we argue that the manifold conceptual approaches to sub- and superordination in the international should be understood as rich conceptualizations of one concept: rule. We define rule broadly as constellations of formally or informally institutionalized sub- and superordination with the aim of affecting the distribution of basic goods and influence and of stabilizing expectations, regardless of whether these constellations are primarily of sociocultural, economic, or military nature. With this, we aim at advancing a research agenda that defines rule as a systematic approach to studying international politics. By promoting the concept of rule, we aim to show that rule can serve both as an integrating and a diagnostic tool for the study of the international “beyond anarchy.”

Governance beyond the state is characterized by remarkable individual and collective involvement of business corporations in norm production. In fact, “the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities for tackling social and economic issues” (Stoker 1998: 18) is one of the decisive features of governance in the post-national constellation. By engaging in norm-setting and norm implementation in the context of public–private or private–private governance arrangements, corporations are undergoing a role shift from norm violators to actors who commit themselves to human rights norms and even serve as agents of human rights promotion. This is particularly important in the light of the growing demands that these corporations face to take on new responsibilities when states lack capacity or willingness to provide public goods (see Chapter 4, this volume).

The turn of the international community to partner with the business sector in global governance can be framed as a second wave of human rights socialization targeting companies, but with an attempt to further the human rights situation in countries in which human rights still have a precarious status (Chandler 2003). With the accelerated speed of economic globalization in the 1990s in the wake of privatization and liberalization of markets, the business sector has greatly increased its influence in many regions while the governance capacities of governments stagnated or even decreased.