[MUSIC]

Let's move now to the crucial question, how to run this new global order.

How to cooperate for organizing this world of interaction.

In this perspective the concept of governance was coined.

This is 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

management to the world order process.

There were mainly two narrations.

The first one is tracing on the new dimensions of this global order.

The second one was trying to organize the concept

through the traditional liberal vision of the world order.

These two visions were parallel and were promoted in the meantime.

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 eight years.

After, we have have to take a third report which is

the famous commission on global governance report.

These three reports are putting the finger on the change,

which took place in the international arena, with the globalization process.

And they are stressing, probably three main dimensions of this new order.

The first one that we have to give a common reply to growth.

Growth must be globally conceived and

not conceived through the competition among states.

That is probably a very strong amendment to the classical

traditional vision of market competition.

The second point is that where's 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 goods.

And the third point is to make the main public actors and

private actors cooperate for the global order.

That's to say international relations,

can't be run only by the state, but must be run

by a closed corporation between private actors and public actors.

These three directions, are mostly important.

They are completely challenging the traditional

vision of an interstate competition.

But in the meantime, we had this vision of good governance which was

coming from the traditional liberal 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 organized,

must be ordered, like the global market.

And that competition would be the invisible hand,

which would be able to rule the new order,

without any authoritarian nor political intervention.

At this time, politics was marginalized, and economies was considered

at the main principle of the global organization of the world.

These two competing vision I would say, cooperating vision and

competitive 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 stretch 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 this governance?

Which kind of institutions are able to promote this world of inter-playing?

The traditional vision of international institutions was founded

on the idea of coexistence of nation-state sovereignties.

We are now in a new world,

in which sovereignty challenged by interdependence and by interaction.

How to conceive institutions which would

be devoted to the organization of this general interplay?

That is a great problem which are now

probably at the bases of the main political tensions around the world.

How to overcome the national sovereignties for

giving real capacity of interaction and

interplay between states.

Who is able to control this interaction and this interdependence?

The second point is that inclusive dimension of governance.

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

led 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, economy 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 NGOs played a very positive role in this narration,

it's not very clear now, to define the 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 party 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 present international institutions are able

to promote a program of strengthening dignity and respect among nations.

How to do that?

How to integrate the human dimension

of the social development in the international cooperation?

How to modify the vision we have of the others?

How to build up alterity in our world?

How to imagine a law of alterity, 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 fourth dimension is now connected to unlawful activities.

That is a very dangerous paradox of globalization.

Globalization provides new resources to unlawful activities,

to mafia, drug trafficks, human being trafficks,

slave trafficks, and so many kinds of unlawful trafficks.

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 matter of reason when we know that unlawful activities

is the 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 norms.

It's very difficult to do that

because we are in a global world in which the values are diversified.

The traditions in matter of law, in matter of ethics are different among

the states which are competing in this global order.

How to define common values?

How to define common norms?

How to do for mobilizing, equally, all of 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 countries, Western powers are used to rule alone.

For the first time in their history they have now to rule with others.

How to build up this new alterity by which non-Western

countries would be equally associated to define new norms and

to define a 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 new 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]

Une gouvernance fragile

Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies

Meet the Instructors