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/)。
法国学派之视角？
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]
In my previous lecture, I insisted on the French touch in approaching
Espace Mondial, in approaching global studies in globalization.
Of course, there is no French exception, but there is a French specificity.
And this French specificity is probably the background of all this mood.
So my point would be here to explain,
what is this French approach to international relations?
The French vision of international politics and of globalization.
Of course, France contributed in inventing the Westphalian world.
France was one of the main actors of the the Westphalian peace.
One of the main authors of the Westphalian treaties, and
that's to say that the world order which is
generated by the Westphalian peace
was produced by France and by French actors and,
especially, by the French King Louis Quatorze, Louis XIV.
But, if France was participating in
invention of this new order, it's evolution
is rather different from other countries'.
Let's consider for a moment the Westphalian model, and
consider one of the main thinkers of this Westphalian order,
the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes.
The French vision of international relations
was strongly affected by these obscene vision of the world.
You know, you remember that the author of Leviathan consider that
in a world of insecurity, the state, that's to say the sovereign,
the Leviathan, is providing security in return for
a part of individual liberties,
which are abandoned by individuals, by citizens for being protected by the State.
But for these reasons, the state must be sovereign and if the state is sovereign,
that means that is not committed to any rules
which would be enforced against its own willingness.
That's to say that in the classic vision of international relations,
states are sovereigns and the international arena is
made of a competition among sovereign actors.
Like gladiators and the formula is given by Hobbes,
who consider that we can compare states
with gladiators in the international arena.
But if the state has to be sovereign for being efficient,
the state must first of all use power.
And that's why international relations is made of power politics.
Power politics is covering the international system,
the international relations among actors.
Using powers means using war in this competition among states.
War is considered by Hobbes as the main
background of international relations, the normal relations among states.
And that's why peace is only considered as
a very provisional moment between two wars.
And not only war is something normal, trivial among states,
but war is considered as an important factor of state making.
And that's why the famous American sociologist and historian,
Charles Tilly pointed these relations between war making and state making.
War making, state making, power politics
are the main parameters of this Westphalian order,
which is made of those extra positions of sovereign state,
of sovereign territorial units.
And this vision is quite different from another vision which was promoted during
the same century but 25 years before by the famous Dutch lawyer, Grotius.
And Grotius had a different vision of the international
relations in which war is no more central for Grotius.
And remember that Grotius was one of the main
advisers of the Dutch East India company.
Peace is necessary for promoting trade.
And so, if you want to have a peaceful world,
we have first of all to be committed to an international law.
And this international law is legitimate because it's a natural law
given by God to people.
But Grotius was not the winner,
Hobbes was the real winner of the competition,
and that's why we kept this Westphalian
world during several centuries.
The Grotius vision came back at the end of the First World War with Woodrow Wilson.
And Woodrow Wilson tried to reinvest the Grotius vision of international relations
for giving priority to international law and international institution.
But Hobbes never left the arena.
That is power politics.
Now, the French vision of international relations was strongly amended.
And the French vision of international relations got
critical against this traditional vision of power politics
in international relations for several reasons.
For political reasons and for intellectual reasons.
Political reasons.
These political reasons are connected to the French political experience.
And we have to take into account the fact that France
experienced defeat three times in one century.
In 1871, when France was defeated by Germany.
In 1940 when France was defeated, for
second time, by Germany.
And true defeat is when the colonial wars
in Dien Bien Phu in 1954 when France was defeated by a small
army made of the Vietnamese resistance,
against colonization.
And in 1960/62 when France was defeated at
the political level by Algerians and Algeria got its
independence after so many years of resistance.
And this tripled defeat which really triggered
the trauma in the French collective vision of
its own history and it's own future.
This trauma led to a new vision of international
relations in which power politics was no more central.
There is no more this strong trust in power politic that we can find.
For instance, in the American history as US was not
defeated as France was during its history.
The second point, the second political experience is coming from colonization.
That's to say through colonization
France got in touch with new people, new cultures.
And so it took place a new approach to international relations
which was much more anthropological and less political.
Taking into account the diversity of cultures.
And that's why our approach in international relations is made
of anthropology, sociology, history.
And the third difference is Gaullism.
That's to say, General De Gaulle was
convinced that France was no more powerful,
but has to move to what he called Grandeur.
If we are no more powerful, we have to promote our Grandeur, our greatness.
That's to say, another vision of international relations, and
in which influence, culture, soft power, much more important that, hard power.
Now, we have also to consider in territorial factors.
There is not a real school of political science of
international relations in France.
The political vision of international relations was not really promoted
among our academic people.
But there is a very long and old tradition of history of international relations.
That's why we will stress on the historical dimension of the global world.
An important school of thought of the international law.
International law was partly created in France through
many famous lawyers like Georges Scelle who tried to
promote another vision of the international societies and
international arena made as he said
overcome penetration of different societies.
This law dimension has to be considered in this lecture and
we will try to show how the new international norms are shaping and
conforming our international arena.
But overall, the French vision
of international relation is made of sociology.
Coming from our great friend, sociologist, at the end of 19th century, Emile Durkheim
played a very important role in promoting the concept of solidarity.
Contrary to Max Weber, Durkheim didn't take into account power.
Power was not the central concept of his own theory,
but the main point of
Durkheim was to say that, without solidarity there is a risk of collapsing.
Societies will collapse without a minimal degree of social integration.
Social integration,
solidarity are the two founding concepts of the Durkheimian sociology.
And so, many people, and especially some students of Durkheim,
like the French politician Léon Bourgeois or
Aristide Briand, we were inspired by, and
influenced by Durkheim's threat that in the world we
have to pay attention to minimal international integration.
Without minimal integration,
without minimal social integration of the world, there is the same risk of collapse.
And the main point of this lecture will be to point
that the present international system is
fragile because it is not integrated enough.
And if there is this lack of integration, there is a risk of conflict.
The present conflict are no more made of competition among states,
but are made of this lack of international social integration.
This lack of international social integration is defined
by some indexes, like the human development index.
That's to say, for instance, lack of education or
food insecurity of health insecurity and so on.
But we can also find some symbolic factors.
That's to say for instance the lack of respect and humiliation which is playing
such an important role in the transformation and
the conceptualization of the international relations.
This is the sociological vision that we have to promote of
the present international order.
[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.
