[MUSIC] Let's move now for the crucial question, how to run this new global order? How to cooperate for organizing this world of interaction. In this first the concept of governance was coined. This not a concept of international relation. It's a concept which was coined by the firm management. The problem is how to transfer this concept borrowed from the firm management to the world order process. There were mainly two directions. The first one is stressing on the new dimensions of this global order. The second one was trying to organize the concept through the traditional liberal version of the world order. These two visions were parallel and were promoted in the mean time. Now we can consider that we are still in a kind of combination of these two perspectives. The first one was probably initiated by the famous meadows report on the limits of growth. This report, as you know, was published in 1972. And after this report, we have to consider a second one, which is known as the Brundtland report, Our Common Future, which was published in the 80s. After we have to take the third report which is the famous commission of global governance report. These reports are pointing the finger on the change which to place in the international arena with the globalization process. And they are stressing probably three main dimensions of these new order. The first one that we have to give a common reply to groups. Groups must be globally conceived not conceive through the competition among states. That is probably a very strong amendment to the classical transitional vision of market competition. The second point is that with this global order, we have to take into account common goods. That's to say, goods that we need for our global survival, which cannot be, confused with the private and competing. And the third point is to make the main public actors and private actors cooperate for the global order. That is to say international relations can't be run only by the states, but must be run by a close cooperation between private actors and public actors. These three directions, are mostly important as they are completely challenging the traditional vision of an interstate competition. But in the mean time we had this vision of good governance which was coming from the traditional Labor vision of the world order. This good governance was coined as such by world bank in the context of the Washington consensus during the 80s. And it was founded on the postulate that the global world must be organize, must be order like the global market, and that competition would be the visible hand which would be able to rule the new order without any authoritarian nor political intervention. At this time politics was marginalized and economics was considered the main principle of the global organization of the world. These two competing visions I would say cooperating vision and contemplative vision are still in a situation of rivalry. But we are now in a new state which consider the limits and the difficulties which are associated with this conception of global governance. I will stress four limits and four difficulties which are currently met in our order. The first is coming from the institutional dimension of governance. How to institutionalize these governance. Which kind of institutions are able to promote this world of interplaying. The traditional vision of institutions was founded on the idea of co existence of nation state sovereignties. We are now in a new world in which sovereignty challenged by and by interaction. How to conceive institutions which would be devoted to the organization of this general interplaying. That is a great problem which are now, probably the basis of the main partial tensions among the world. How to overcome the national sovereignties for giving real capacity of interaction and interplaying between states. Wu is able to control this interaction and this interplay. The second point is the inclusive dimension of government. How to take into account the private actors. How to give responsibilities to private actors. How to govern with private actors. Many centuries of international relations have progressively lead to the idea of an interstate corporation and the new international law was able to promote a real political partnership among the states. How can we conceive, how can we organize, how can we rule a partnership with private actors? How to institutionalize private actors? How to organize a kind of forum in which religious actors, social actors, economic actors would be able to meet and to cooperate. How to make so diversified private actors cooperating with others. And how to define a balance between private and public actors. Even if play the very positive role in this direction. It's not really clear now to the find a way of organizing this kind of cooperation. The third level is the level of social governance. How to promote social development. International relations were organized for promoting peace, that's to say for ruling the competition among states. But how to rule the social gaps that I pointed among states? How to organize? How to collectively organize the social development? How to promote human security which was pointed by UNDP? How to do for promoting this symbolic social integration which is made of respect, of dignity, which is containing humiliation? None of the international institutions, present international institutions are able to promote a program of strengthening dignity and respect among nations. How to do that? How to integrate human dimension of the social development in the international cooperation? How to modify the vision we have of the others? How to build up authority in our world? How to imagine a law of authority, a law for constraining the powerful state to respect and to consider the poorest countries? How to do for combining national sovereignty with the respect of the others? And the force dimension is now connected to a lawful activities that is a very dangerous paradox of globalization. Globalization provides new resources to a lawful activities, to mafia, drug traffics, human being traffics, slave traffics, and so many kinds of unlawful traffics which are strengthened by the modern means of communications, which are captured by many actors and even state actors for reinforcing strengthening their own activities. The problem of these unlawful activities is to define a new order in which these unlawful activities would be pointed, limited, restricted. And we have to consider that we are very far from a result. And real reason when we know that unlawful activities is a main income in the world now more than even all incomes. Probably, and this will be my conclusion, this global governance implies first to define common laws It's very difficult to do that because we are in a global world with values are diversified. The traditions in matter of law, in matter of ethics, are different among the states which are competing in this global world. How to define common value? How to define common laws? How to do for mobilizing equally all the states around the world for participating in the common definition of these global norms? And this is resulting in the third part of my conclusion. Western count is western powers are used to rule alone. For the first time in the history they have now to rule with others. How to build up these new authority by which non western countries will be equally associated to define new norms and to different global contract. This is probably one of the main obstacles and this is explaining the reaction that takes place in non-western countries which consider themselves as excluded from this work, from this effort for defining norms and which are dangerously promoting the idea that they can promote their own norms as different from the dominant norms which are produced by the Western world. This vicious cycle is very dangerous and must be overcome if we want to be successful in this way. [MUSIC]
