In the first model, only the government gets involved in the process and uses its official authority and power to make decisions on various political, social, and economic issues. This model does not allow the active participation of other political actors in decision-making processes.

The second model is based on the principles of democratic and participatory management. In contemporary democracies, government decision makers cannot exercise their authority in isolation from others; decision-making processes are open to various political actors including the political opposition, civil society, NGOs, pressure and interest groups, and media. In this model, governments encourage the active participation of citizens in the management of political, social, and economic affairs. Therefore, the public sphere involves multiple actors whose voices are heard in policy-making processes. This allows the promotion of interests of the majority of the society in politics.

According to Rod Rhodes (1996: 653), the concept of governance refers to:
• Collective governance,
• New public management,
• Good governance,
• Interdependency,
• Socio-cybernetic systems,
• New political economy,
• Networks.

States need to cooperate with other international actors that can be characterized as international networks. International networks include non-governmental organizations, international pressure and interest groups, individuals, media, and think tanks. We can also refer to these actors as non-state actors. Global governance, therefore, should be considered as a comprehensive, dynamic, complex, and interactive decision-making process that includes both inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as official and unofficial mechanisms (Heywood, 2011; 455).

Global civil society refers to a domain where transnational non-governmental organizations and other transnational actors interact. Global civil society defines a global realm where individuals and nongovernmental organizations can interact with each other, with international organizations, and with states. Unlike multi-national corporations, these individuals and nongovernmental organizations usually consist of non-profit and voluntary organizations (Heywood, 2011:152). As such, global civil society can be considered as a transnational civil society. 

Global civil society has emerged as a result of new ideas, approaches, and processes in dealing with economic, political and social problems caused by globalization. In this perspective, the idea of global civil society is a reaction to globalization and, in particular, to the economic, political and social hegemony of multinational corporations at the international level. This reaction rapidly increased in the 1990s and led to the emergence of new groups, organizations, movements, and networks that aimed to develop alternative models for economic, political, and social development under umbrella organizations. These global civil society organizations are called transnational networks (such as International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Center for Individual Rights, International Women’s Tribune Center, Earth Rights International) or transnational nonstate actors, since they mobilize international movements and establish civil structures that are independent from governments.

“A transnational advocacy network includes those relevant actors working internationally on an issue who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse, and dense exchanges of
information and services” (Keck and Sikkink, 1998:2).

The main goal of transnational networks is to influence and change the behavior of states and international organizations in their issue areas. They also frame new issues, develop new ideas and norms, and promote the implementation of norm in global politics (Keck and Sikkink, 1998: 2-3).

The global public sphere includes social movements, non-state actors, and global citizens. Brunkhorst states that non-state actors in the global public sphere enter into dialogue with nation states and international organizations (Brunkhorst, 2002:682-690).

Başlar (2005: 32-33) has developed the most comprehensive definition of international non-governmental organizations and identified their basic characteristics as follows:                           • International NGOs emerged as a result of carrying individual and group interests beyond the state borders.
 • International NGOs are not founded by states or intergovernmental organizations.
 • International NGOs are constituted by natural or legal persons with voluntary membership.         • Through their activities, international NGOs are able to play roles in international relations. Their members have independent voting rights.
 • International NGOs have a permanent and institutionalized administrative structure with full- time personnel, an organization scheme, and a headquarter in a specific location.
 • International NGOs have a democratically accepted charter that is prepared by a representative body, an autonomous decision-making mechanism independent from government policies, and financial resources that are totally or largely independent from central governments.
 • International NGOs do not engage in a partisan behavior.
 • International NGOs have organizational structures in more than two countries.
 • International NGOs adopt the objective of the United Nations as their own principles, and they aim to realize policies that will improve people’s quality of life, serve for the common good of humanity, and help disadvantageous people.
 • International NGOs do not use violence.
 • The primary aim of International NGOs is not to obtain profits.
 • International NGOs are social institutions that possess legal personality.
 • International NGOs respect the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs of states.

Operational activities refer to those activities through which NGOs provide services around the world. For example, providing urgent humanitarian aid and other types of assistance in case of natural disasters, migration, or refugee flows can be considered as operational activities. During the humanitarian emergencies such as the famine in Ethiopia, the civil wars in Kosovo, Syria, Iraq, and Somalia as well as the typhoons in South Asia, various international NGOs (including the Care International, the Catholic Relief Services, the World Vision, Save the Children, Oxfam, and Médecins Sans Frontières) have provided food, shelter, water, and clothing to the victims.

Defensive activities refer to those activities of international NGOs to develop new policies and agendas, usually in the face of changing conditions. Through defensive activities, international non-governmental organizations try to raise awareness among states and other actors about emerging problems in areas such as the environment and human rights. Defensiveness includes providing information to decision makers regarding agreements and contracts, helping them with the language of agreements, and obtaining the support of public opinion for certain causes.

Educational activities of NGOs aim to raise public awareness and alter public opinion.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) is the world’s largest environmental network that greatly contribute to environmental law. The IUCN provided technical support to the implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and to the ratification of the 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. The IUCN also fulfils important functions in the global governance of environmental affairs. For example, in cooperation with the UN Environment Programme and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the IUCN published the World Conservation Strategy and the World Charter for Nature. 

Think tanks are organizations that promote new ideas, conduct research, and lobby governments about various topics including politics, foreign policy, military and defense issues, social and cultural problems, and the economy. Think tanks are usually organized as research institutes, centers or foundations. Most think thanks are non-governmental organizations. Think tanks are accepted as non-profit organizations that serve the public interest by acting as a bridge between the academia and policymaking communities (Haass, 2002: 1).

Think tanks engage in three main activities. First, they offer leaders political advice. Second, they educate the members of political parties or ordinary people. Third, they create networks between politically like-minded individuals, corporations and parties.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI), AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are neoconservative think tanks which are influential in shaping the current US foreign policy

One of the first generation think tanks, which established relations with local and federal authorities, was the Chicago Civic Federation (CCF). The CCF was founded in 1894 by Jane Addams, Bertha Palmer, and Lyman Gage in order to fight corruption, to design tax policies in a more reasonable way, to provide financial reforms, and to increase the efficacy of the federal government. The organization is still working in the US. The work of the CCF inspired the formation of the National Civic Federation (NCF), a New Yorkbased conservative organization. The NCF was established in 1900 to increase the responsibilities and effectiveness of local governments. However, it was shuttered in 1949 (Cigler, 1995: 141).

In the beginning of the 1900s, significant think tanks were established for informing governments
not only about domestic politics but also about foreign policy. These include the Russel Sage Foundation established in 1907, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace established in 1910 by Andrew Carnegie, the Hoover Institution in 1919 by former US President Herbert Hoover,
the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921, the Brookings Institution established in 1927, and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research founded in 1943. 

The RAND Corporation and the Hudson Institute were influential think tanks that arose with the beginning of Cold Wa in policy making. The RAND Corporation provided the Air Force with military advice on the best defense strategies against enemy attacks, while the work of the Hudson Institute contributed to strengthening the US nuclear deterrence.

The third generation think tanks are identified as partisan organizations. Their agendas are shaped by their political ideologies, and there is no clear line between objective political research and political advocacy. Indeed, the main goal of the third generation think tanks is to become part of political processes. Thus, unlike the first generation think tanks, these organizations are more directly engaged with political actors and decision makers.

The Center for the National Interest is one of the most influential fourth generation think tanks in the US, which was established by former US President Richard Nixon in 1994 “to serve as a voice for strategic realism in U.S. foreign policy. ”The aim of the Center is “to stimulate debate, promote public understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs, and define principled yet pragmatic policies to advance America’s national interest in the complex world of the twenty-first century,” (cftni.org).

Political and bureaucratic leaders who have significant roles in transnational networks are crucial in global governance. Transnational networks include non-governmental organizations, civil society, corporations, and social movements. Individual leaders fulfill important functions in these networks such as guiding international social and civil forces and developing solutions for global issues. During the times of crisis and change, individual leadership is particularly significant because a leader can act as a neutral player who represents the goals and ideals of the international community. 

The first way includes those who are active in global intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations and actively contribute to the resolution of global problems. For them, the most important point in solving global problems is to achieve results that protect the interests of the global community. However, this sometimes requires to reach a balance between global civil society organizations and governmental organizations. Here we can observe the importance of the constructive roles of global political leaders who can find a common ground between different actors. In this context, individual leaders can play an important role in solving problems, especially contributing to global governance in times of crisis. 

UN Secretaries General can be an informative example of political and bureaucratic leadership in global governance. The UN Secretary-General is widely viewed not only as an international public servant but also as a representative of the wider ‘international community’. This is particularly important because the UN Secretary General may have a claim to a certain moral authority in international relations. Former UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan who died on 18 August 2018 is a good example here. Annan took on the challenge of fighting the climate change, the AIDS disease, as well as poverty worldwide. He made efforts to ensure peace and justice in order to resolve the crises in different parts of the world. He took the sign of the Annan Plan, which envisages that the Turkish and Greek Cypriots would come to an independent Cypriot state in Cyprus. He endeavored to resolve the dispute that had been caused by Iran’s nuclear program. Annan was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001. These efforts made him a global statesman who fought for a more just and peaceful world. 

The second way in which we can analyze global leadership is international foundations. The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) is a good example. The FMEP was established in Washington in 1979 by Merle Thorpe, Jr., a Washington-based lawyer and philanthropist. Thorpe devoted himself to the pursuit of peace between Palestinians and Israelis. He became deeply involved in searching for a conflict-ending agreement. Between 1979 and 1994, Merle served as the director and sole principal of FMEP. During that time, he tried to contribute to the peace in the Middle East by creating a grant-making program, bringing Israeli and Palestinian speakers to the US, publishing several books on the conflict, and promoting a balanced analysis of current events related to Israel and the Palestinians. His vision continues to guide the work of FMEP today.