[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 directions. The first one is stressing on the new dimensions of this global order. The second one was trying to organize the concepts 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 80s. After, we 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, with this global order we have 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 close cooperation between private actors and public actors. These three directions are mostly important as they are completely challenging the traditional vision of an inter-state competition. But in the mean time 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 funded on the postulate that a global world must be organized, must be older like the global market. And that competition would be the non visible 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 as 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 step 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 governments. How to institutionalize these governments? 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 nations, states, sovereignties. We are now in a new world in which sovereignty is challenged by interdependence and by interaction. How to conceive institutions which would be devoted to the organization of this general inter playing. That is a great problem which are now probably at the bases of the main political tensions among the world, how to overcome the national sovereignties for giving real capacity of interaction and interplaying between states. Who is able to control this interaction and this interplay. The second point is the 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 cooperation. 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 NGO' played a very positive role in this direction, it's not really clear now to define the way of organizing this kind of corporation. 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 political 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 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 states 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 traffics, human being traffics, slave traffics, and so many kinds of unlawful traffics. Which are strengthened by the modern means of communications. Which are 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 resolute and resolute when we knew 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 norms. It's very difficult to do that because we are in a global world in which values are diversified. The traditions in matter of law, in matter of ethics, are different among the states which are competing in this global market. How to define common values? How to define common norms? 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 certain 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]
