A global view and a regional view do not have to be opposites. It is more logical to consider them as complementary.

All issues should be dealt with as close to the citizen as possible, If a question cannot be solved on a local scale, wehave to go to higher level. Some issues can only be dealt with prpoerly at worldwide scale, e.g. climate.

But that does not mean that nothing can be done at personal, local, national and regional level. All these actions can complement each other.

My opinion is global and regional (or local) are the two sides of the same medal. It´s necessary to think global and to act regional/local. All the decissions made in a global frame have to be filled with life in the Region or the City. Hence it´s impossible to devide between the two levels. There is no global action without a regional/local activity and the regional/local activities won´t work without a global context.

As far as global action is concerned, I fully agree. As far as local and regional action is concerned, I agree to a certain point, because I believe that in certain fields global action is not necessary because local and/or national and/or regional action is sufficient.

Global governance and regionalism are not exactly opposing, because every global has been initially regional, but are quite different political platforms. The first is only about solving global problems and establishing global opportunities - stopping climate change or establishing world trade rules. In such cases regionalism could play opposing role if applied. The actors in global governance and their legitimacy are different from those at regional level; as well as the instruments and resources of governance.

Political Regionalism is of two types - geopolitics and constructive regionalism. Geopolitics is about control over a particular space (not exactly related to state borders); usually it is a negative for the region. The forms of control maybe political, economic, military, information, demographic, resources, etc. Constructive regionalism is based on shared interests and values as the European Union is. Sometimes in history a typical geopolitics may transfer into constructive (Sweden and later Scandinavian regional cooperation).

Theoretically speaking Global Governance should bring an end to Regionalism---however international reality is far from that. I feel that the spurt in regionalism has much to do with the failure of global governance structures to win confidence of being impartial.

Regionalism is a step toward global governance.

Thanks to all for taking interest in the topic. The discussion is very useful and have some interesting points for further discussions i.e global governance and regionalism complement each other, think global and act regional , global governance and regionalism are not opposite but different political platforms, they are different in nature . What do you think ?

a true cohesive societal global governance (global new world order) will not become a reality in the near or intermitent future, but regionalism can be the 100 year bridge to such a time when the human race is mature enough to accept a global society...at this point in time it not possible to have global governance even through the UN which is becoming more and more irrelevant day by day. NATO provides more "global" security than the UN. Once the human race becomes a truely interplantary species then global governance, a free society if one will exist and can be managed, could emerge. Right now regionalism is the only route to bring about a tri/quad polar world of regions that maintain global control, just as the US/USSR did during the Cold War to maintain a world disentegrating and transforming itself after a World War and the end of the colonial era.

You are right that now we can talk about global governance and hope for that after mature world. But to my mind in few matters we can think and act globally.

We can act individually and affect our personal spheres, but also the choices we make individually can affect not only our personal lives, but our communities, nations, and therefore the world. Unfortunalty, in these economic times some do not think beyond themselves because they have no economic power, but however in my personal live I am now starting to recycle tin cans, why because I know this sort of natural resource can run out, and plus there is a small economic incetive. I can do more and I should, but most people do not, at least here in the United States. Recycling as an economic model can work as income in this "throw away society" (see Alvin Toffler), if we think of it that way, it can save precious resources and can affect the whole globe. We need more maturity from our elected leaders, and it is definitely needed among the economice elite.

Thanks Irma, no doubt the meeting point is related to co operation , but the every state is thinking in terms of her own interest and trying to solve her problems by making pacts with the regional actores and also thinking globally but does not ready to be govern globally.

To some extent, these two are opposite but in principle they should be complementary with each other. They are opposite in the sense that global governance looks at the bigger picture while seeking a more systemic solution for the greater majority. On the other hand, regionalism simply looks at the issue/s from a limited space and point of view, yet in a more focused and concrete way.

I think the globalization and the regionaization are the two sides of the same medal. Or with other words the two pieces which are in summ the hole. To look from the Regions or from the Globe scale onto i.e. migration will give different answers on the same theme. There are different instrests but the solution of the problem has to include both sides - there is to find a compromise between all views.

Basically global governance and regionalism are two separate things, but each of them is complimentary to each other in the world of economic interest. Actor states are ready for global governance with certain reservations of rgionalism. Certainly a new type of system of governance is evolving which needs a new outlook.

This question mirrors a discussion in international business theory about the distinction between a global /multi-national, or transnational corporation, or the scope and scale of the global economy. Although theorising is important, in reality, the strategic alliances in the airline industry are global, or capital and commodity markets. These have both global and regional impact and it is important HOW are they governed and what are these inter-states agreements and global institutions that 'follow through' business practice.

Governance and intermediation are very broad concepts.