关于本课程 为了解释全球化是如何重构公共政策和再塑社会行为，我们将研究不同的政治、经济行为体、研究各类——公共或私人，个体或集体——社会行为体，并着眼关注到它们之间的交流和互动作用，这些行为体正在重构着国际关系。 本课程以法国社会学和历史学视角来研究国际关系。同时也提供英语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies/)、法语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-fr/)和阿拉伯语版本(www.coursera.org/learn/espace-mondial-ar/)。
传统区域主义
Loading...
Del curso dictado por Sciences Po
世界空间、法国视角下的国际研究
4 calificaciones
Conoce a los instructores
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
[MUSIC]
Let's move now to another challenge to our Westphalian world.
As we observed in the last lecture,
territory is no more limited to the nation state territory.
After 1945, the world met a new
challenge to regionalize the world order.
That's to say, the national unit
is not the only territorial unit of our new world.
We are now in a multiscale world in which
the regional territory is added to the national territory.
We have to take it into account through a very important and
crucial concept, which is the concept of integration, regional integration.
Integration is probably the opposite to sovereignty.
Integration means abandoning a part of
sovereignty in a more global, in a wider unit,
which is the regional territory.
That integration means also new identification.
The national, the citizen identification is no more the prior allegiance.
And now the main challenge is how to classify,
how to order the multiple identities of an individual,
who is both citizen of his nation state but
also the member of a regional unit or regional territory.
The true challenge is probably the development of a new political community.
And this challenge is presently one of the most important challenge in Europe.
Is Europe a political community or not?
Is it only an addition of national political communities or
are we observing the rise of a new regional political community?
But it's also a transformation of the international order.
Is now the the world order made of inter-regionalism,
that's to say competition among the regions, for
instance Europe, America, far east and so on?
And the last question is amazing.
Are we now facing a new regionalism,
which is no more based on geography, but
on the kind of political convergences of
nation states which are no more neighbor,
but which are sharing the same values and
the same political objectives?
This is for instance, the main feature of what we call transregionalism.
IBAS, India, Brazil, South Africa,
which is called in English, IBSA.
IBSA is an example of these new convergence
among nation state which is not based on
proximity but on political solidarity.
But if we take into account regionalism,
we have to take into account three dimensions.
First, the traditional regionalism which is now fading.
Second, the neoregionalism which emerged
around the 70s, the 80s, last century.
And now maybe we are meeting a third step,
which is made of a crisis and
a kind of revisiting this traditional and neoregionalism.
First of all, let's start by this traditional regionalism.
Traditional regionalism was born in Europe
just after the Second World War in 1945.
And this is very interesting,
a mix of idealism and pragmatism.
Idealism, the purpose was to put an end to this European civil war,
this competition among European states.
And as I observed in my last lecture, this competition was probably the origin
of the way of European political development.
This was considered as very dangerous and
more than dangerous with the Second World War.
This kind of competition resulted in 60 million of people killed.
And so the idea was to overcome that.
This was the ideal vision of what
regionalism a European region did mean.
But it was also a question of pragmatism.
It was a time of reconstructing Europe.
And at this time for reconstructing Europe, European countries needed coal.
And British coal was not sufficient for covering all the needs of the new Europe.
And the new Europe needed also the German coal.
So, the unification of Europe,
that's to say reconciliation among enemies,
was necessary even at an economic level.
So this traditional regionalism was
strongly influenced by a very important author,
David Mitrany, in his very famous book,
which was A Working Peace System.
This book was published in 1943.
The main point of Mitrany was to say that we have not to be committed
to the needs of the state, but we have to be committed to the needs of human beings.
The needs of human beings can be satisfied by the state, by the nation state.
But generally, it has to be satisfied at other level,
subregional level but also a global regional level.
That's to say Europe, United Europe is able to
satisfy the needs of European individuals,
European peoples more than the nation state.
And the nation state can, on the contrary,
disturb the satisfaction of the human needs.
That's to say with this new vision of politics, for
the first time in the European history, state is no more at the center
of the analysis or at the center of this vision.
But we are immediately facing a very strange paradox.
The main purpose of this traditional regionalism was to overcome the states.
But the state, the different European states were the only possible actors for
promoting this new political order.
That's to say, overcoming states was promoted by European states.
That's why the way was rather difficult to find.
And there was from the 50s up to the 70s,
a kind of permanent contradiction between
states defending their own sovereignty and
European construction, which more and
more implied to overcome national sovereignty.
That's why this traditional regionalism was a living contradiction.
And the main problem we were then facing was to
combine two opposite elements of the political development.
This intergovernmental vision of Europe has failed.
And political actors were aware of this failure.
It failed probably for three reasons.
The first one as I mentioned, it is permanent
contradiction between sovereignty and interplaying,
interaction, and even this starting interdependence.
The second contradiction is related to the transformation,
the social economic transformation of the world.
That's to say, the rising new actors who were the transnational actors.
How to locate transnational actors in this
intergovernmental vision of regionalization.
And when these transnational actors were playing a very
active role in the transformation of the European economy,
when this European economy was developing,
there was kind of conflict between these new actors and
the traditional actors and a third level.
And the third factor of failure
was the problem of identity.
European peoples used to identify themselves
to their nation state, I would say to their passport.
When Europe started getting a real figure,
a real presence in this new international arena,
how can they identify themselves?
Are they still French, German, Italian, or are they more and more European?
This contradiction fueled a very strong debate about political identities.
But in the meantime, created a kind of pressure from below,
from societies, for reshaping this regional order.
That's why possibly we move to a new kind
of regionalization that we would call neoregionalism.
Neoregionalism after traditional regionalism,
traditional regionalism was affecting especially Europe
when neoregionalism was extended to all the world.
[MUSIC]
Explora nuestro catálogo
Inscríbete de manera gratuita y obtén recomendaciones personalizadas, actualizaciones y ofertas.
Coursera brinda acceso universal a la mejor educación del mundo, al asociarse con las mejores universidades y organizaciones, para ofrecer cursos en línea.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
