To explain how globalization rebuilt public policy and social behavior, we study the different political, economic, and social actors - public or private, individual or collective - and the exchanges and interactions between them that are remaking international relations. This course is inspired by a French sociological and historical approach to international relations. This course is also available in french version: www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/
Major Turning Points in Contemporary International Relations
Loading...
來自 Sciences Po 的課程
Espace mondial：法国视角下的国际研究
個評分
從本節課中
Introduction
The current global world implies a new approach of the international arena, breaking with classical theories.
與講師見面
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
Our westphalian world is over,
this world which was drowned
during the 17 century,
just after the 30 years war
which took place in Europe.
This world order was made
of inter state competition,
of power competition, of balance of power.
It was also made by
very few Western states.
This world is now over
because after the WW2
we had to face 3 major turning points.
And we have to observe that
the main powers, the traditional powers,
that’s to say the Western powers,
were not really able
to take properly the bend.
What are these major turning points?
I would distinguish 3 major turning points
which are structuring our post WW history.
First, in the long term globalization.
The second factor,
the second major turning point
is the crisis of the state
which took place in a middle term,
and in a short term
the third main turning point
was the collapse of bipolarity.
First globalization.
Of course there is no date
for determining when globalization took place
in our contemporary history,
that why I mentioned
a long term transformation
of our world order.
But we know that this globalization
totally questioned the westphalian order
for several reasons, at least for 5 reasons.
The first one is inclusion.
For the first time in the history of humanity
all the states, all the people,
all the societies of the world
are included in the same system.
And now at UN we have 193 members.
This is quite different from an international system
which was only composed of
10, even 8, may be 12 states
as it was the case during the 19 century.
The second transformation is communication.
With the revolution of communication
the new communication technology,
now all individuals are able
to communicate with each other.
That to say territory is defeated
as a principle of action.
Now territory has nor the same meaning
it had previously during the westphalian
moment of our history.
But it implies a new kind of governance
which is questioning
all the traditional principles
of the international law
and the main structures
of the international institutions.
Third globalization implies non state actors
proliferating in our world order,
now the world order is not only depending
on states but also on non state actors:
economic actors, social actors, cultural actors,
religious actors, and so on,
and this actors are not really integrated
in this world as far as this world is westphalian
he is not able to integrate,
to include this new non state actors.
Forth sovereignty.
Sovereignty is challenged by interdependence.
Sovereignty was the fundamental principal
of the westphalian order.
Sovereignty is not working
in a world of interdependences, in a global world.
Sovereignty is questioned by market,
sovereignty is questioned by communication;
sovereignty is challenged by transnational relations.
But this new interdependence
is not really managed
in our present world order,
that’s why this one is rather unstable.
And of course, last point of this globalization
is the increasing pressure
of the international social issues.
Now traditional political issues
are no more the main issues
in the international system.
The main issues are maid of social issues,
that’s to say hunger, health,
economic development,
environment and so on.
This is the first brake
in our westphalian order.
The second one is related to the mid term,
that’s to say the crisis of the state.
Double crisis of the state.
First, in the developing countries
but also in the developed countries.
Developing countries.
We have to take into account that decolonization,
which is one of the major events
of our contemporary world,
was badly run was nor really managed
and was realized through
a very dangerous postulate
that’s to say it’s possible
to export the Western state,
to import the Western state
inside the developing countries.
This is not working, that’s why
so many states in the South are collapsing,
and that’s why there is
a proliferation of failed states.
This is also a grate change.
And the other one is the crisis
of the state even in the developing countries,
crisis of the welfare state,
crisis of the economic functions of the state,
crisis of the very notion of security,
which is no more working.
Hobbes is probably dead by now,
that’s why we have to rethink our old world order
taking into account new parameters of regulation.
But, at last there is a short term crisis.
This short term crisis is coming
from the end of bipolarity.
Bipolarity was a clear principle,
a clear way of regulation of our international order.
In November 9 in Berlin when the wall failed down,
or may be in Lavallette once month later
when Gorbatchev met George H W Bush
and said to him that USSR is not interested
in a competition with Western countries,
that was the end of bipolarity.
But if bipolarity is no more working,
what is now presently our international system?
We don’t know that,
it’s currently called “post bipolar system”,
but we know when we say post bipolar system
that previously we had a bipolar system
but we don’t know which kind of system
we are now facing.
That’s the problem.
But the real problem is that with
the end of the bipolarity
the world had to meat
the crisis of the concept of enemy.
Who is, where is the enemy?
It is probably the main enigma of our post bipolar world.
But it means also that the competition among equals,
that’s to say among states
which have the same level of development,
is now over and if this competition is over,
we have now to define
new kind of competitions
between weak countries or
between weak and strong countries,
it’s quite different from the traditional vision of war.
And even alliances are now questioned,
like NATO and so many others military alliances.
What about this post bipolar world?
Has it substitutes for taking
these new functions
and these new challenges into account?
Or do we observe a kind of attempt
to continue to maintain
this traditional westphalian world
in a real post westphalian moment?
This would be a grave contradiction
and this contradiction is probably
the main feature of our present international order
that we will investigate together.
