[MUSIC] Power is a cornerstone of international relations. It's a very well known and currently used concept. But however, it's not so clear and that's the problem. That we can probably explain why the international system nowadays is not working well. It's because the concept of power is gettin ambiguous. In the traditional vision, it seems to be simple. It seems to be obvious. That's to say, power is enforcing one's will to all the other actors by any means including using violence and including using means, instruments, ways which are not legal in the domestic affairs. So powers seems to be the real sphere of international relations. This free fight among the gladiators as the were called by Thomas Ops. Power is the expression of sovereignty, but it's also the expression of the pure rivalry among all the nation states which are supposed to be the only actors, the unique actors of the international relations. And so power in this traditional vision is pointing the capacity of acting. The capacity of impeding, and the capacity of influencing which could be attributed to every nation state, that's to say every unit in a free fight inside the international arena. It's really as it was pointed by so many writers and so many thinkers, it is a world of anarchy and in a world of anarchy, every unit is able to exist through it's own power. In this vision, stability at the international level is only possible if we can reach a minimal level of balancing, that's to say of balance of powers. What was true inside the domestic efforts is getting more obvious inside the international arena. That's to say the only way for keeping peace is to reach a situation of balancing powers in which every power is containing the other and so is preventing the risk of a confederation, a risk of total and global war. Otherwise we are in a situation of permanent war as it was clearly described by Hobbes. No thing really knew from the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes. This was the vision taken by Clausewitz when he wrote his very famous book On War, but it's also true about so many political actors and princes during the 19th century and is as, for instance, the background of the famous Bismarckian Strategy. This is also the background of the realist theory as it is now wide known. But can we be satisfied by such a vision? In a first approach, all these points seem to be really obvious. Seem to be absolutely true, but if we revise this vision and if we take into account the global transformations of the world, this not so evident that it appears. First problem, power is a concept made for defining an individual capacity. Does it fit to collective actors like state? What does it mean when people say the power of state but my question would be the power of whom? Is it the power of the president, is it the power of the government, is it the power of the administration, is it the power of the state department in US or the Pentagon, or the CIA or the power of the society, of the economic actors who are playing an important role inside the domestic [INAUDIBLE] of this actor? What do we mean when we say the French power? Who is holding the French power? The French president, his prime minster, his government, his administration, the parliament, the parties, the political system, or the mass media? The main French firms and corporations, the French civil society? There is there an ambiguity to which the realist theory didn't really pay attention. And however, if we want to have a clear vision of how the international arena is working. We have to pay attention to the real identity of every unit actor and the power is then changing. That is to say it's no more this collective capacity but a fragmented capacity. And from this fragmentation we can sometimes observe that there are oppositions, contrast and sometimes conflict. That is first problem which has not been really solved by the political analysis. The second problem about the concept of power is that it's a subjective one not only an objective which is describing the capacity of an actor. It's also a subjective, that is to say, I have power if the other's recognize me as holding power. My power is depending on my reputation. On my own reputation. My power is depending on the perception that the others have, and this is probably very ambiguous and it leads to another question, which is so important in our discipline. The question of the statues of every state. That is to say the state as a statue of power which is deliberated, which is decided by all of the other actors. If you pretend to have the power, but if you are not credible, if all of the other consider that you don't have the power you pretend, you will not be able to act efficiently and your power will be only a mystification. This subjective thing mentioned of power is also pointing out another problem which is the problem of the willingness of every state to use the resources of power that it has at its disposal. A state can have strong resources, strong power resources, but however, doesn't want to use and to mobilize them. Don't want to pay the cost of using these resources and so its power will be only an apparent power, not a real power. Other problem, what is power? How to measure power. Is it depending on resources you have at your disposal, or is it depending on your capacity? What is the real expression of power? To hold resources or to have the capacity to solve a problem. It's quite clear that by now, US has very very strong power resources. But is US really able to use these resources with success, that's to say is US really capable? Has US the capacity of solving the problem it's facing? That is another very difficult dimension. If you consider power as a capacity, your results will be different than if you consider power as resources. You can hold resources, and not have the capacity to solve the problem. Or you can solve a problem but holding very few resources, this another ambiguity. Now the problem of balance of power, which is so important, which is at the core of the international relation studies, is this concept here? I don't think so. What does it mean, for instance, nowadays? During Cold War, balance of power was meaningful. That's to say, the balance between the U.S. and the USSR power. That was clear. Or rather clear. But now what does it mean, what does mean balance of power between US and Al Qaeda? What does mean this balance of power among actors who are so different and who hold very different kinds of resource. Last problem but not the least, the evolution of power. Is power nowadays meaning the same thing than previously? Now when civil societies, social actors, non-state actors are more and more present inside the international arena, is power so clear? The second problem is related to culture. Previously we were in a world which was mono-cultural. But now, we are in a world in which there is a competition among different cultures, and these different culture don't have the same meaning, don't give the same meaning to the concept of power. So what to do when there are different visions of power coming from different competing cultures and so the problem would be to say, what does power mean into China's culture, in the Western culture, in the Muslim culture and so on? And how can we conceive a global arena in which these differentiations of cultures are competing? Now the last problem is a problem of resource. That's to say how can we define power in the world in which there are so many different and more and more differentiated resources of power? How can we conserve hierarchy of powers in a world which is characterized by an increasing differentiations of resources of power? [MUSIC]
