Afin d’expliquer comment la mondialisation reconstruit les politiques publiques et les comportements sociaux nous étudions les échanges et interactions entre les acteurs politiques, économiques et sociaux -publics et privés, individuels et collectifs- et la façon dont ils redessinent les relations internationales. Ce cours prend sa source dans les approches sociologique et historique françaises des relations internationales. This course is also available in english version: www.coursera.org/learn/global-studies
Le régionalisme classique
Loading...
Del curso dictado por Sciences Po
Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies
calificaciones
De la lección
Le régionalisme
De nouveaux types d’intégration, et particulièrement des constructions régionales fragiles, remettent en question le territoire de l’État-nation.
Conoce a los instructores
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
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 multi-scale 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.
But 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 a citizen of its nation state
but also a member of a regional unit,
a regional territory.
The third challenge is probably
the development of a new political community,
and this challenge is presently
one of the most important challenges 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 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 a kind of political convergences
of nation states,
which are no more neighbors
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 this new convergence
among nation states
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 failing.
Second, new regionalism,
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.
It was, and that is very interesting,
a mix of idealism and pragmatism.
Idealism the purpose was to put an end
to these European civil wars,
this competition among European states,
and as I observed in my last lecture
this competition was probably
at the origin of the way
of European political development.
This was considered as very dangerous,
and more that dangerous
with the Second World War,
this kind of competition resulted
in 60 millions 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 the 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,
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 state,
but the states,
the different European states
were the only possible actors
for promoting this new political order.
That’s to say overcoming state
was promoting by European states,
that’s why the way
was rather difficult to find.
And there was from
the fifties up to the seventies
a kind of permanent contradiction between
states defending their own sovereignty
and the 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 inter-governmental 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,
is this permanent contradiction
between sovereignty
and interplaying, interaction
and even this starting interdependence.
The second contradiction is related
to 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 a kind of conflict
between these new actors
and the traditional actors.
And the third level,
the third factor of failure
was the problem of identity.
European peoples used to identify themselves
to their nation states,
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
we moved progressively, we moved
to a new kind of regionalization
that we would call neoregionalism.
Neoregionalism after traditional regionalism,
traditional regionalism
was affecting specially Europe,
when neo regionalism
was extending to all the world.
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.
