Before we can explore the ontology of security, we must establish a preferred meaning of the word and purge it, as far as possible, of ambiguity. This preliminary task is especially important when one’s subject is a term in common currency and deployed in a wide variety of contexts for a wide variety of purposes.1 The more familiar a word, the more likely we are to take for granted that our own particular understanding of it is widely shared and that its meaning goes without saying. This is as true of the word ‘security’ as it is for almost every other key concept in the study of world politics.

TG is limited ratione temporis and ratione materiae. Limitations ratione temporis imply that TA should direct the transition towards permanent institutions, and then relinquish power. They should furthermore exercise these duties on a temporary basis, i.e. with the aim of being replaced. This usually means that TA are barred from suspending or perpetuating the interim rule, and often from having their leaders and/or members running for office after the transition. The powers of TA are also limited ratione materiae. TA are precluded from carrying out activities that would go beyond their mandate, which usually contains three components: preparing for the future without fully predefining it; respecting state continuity both internally and externally. They concentrate on managing the present, including the transition, and are entrusted with administering the country ad interim in spite of the extensive external assistance they may receive. In sum, TG mainly fulfils a fiduciary function.