[MUSIC] In the history of system there is a very important break up that we have now to consider. It is the invention of multilateralism. This invention was progressive. And the world of multilateralism appeared in 1945 while the multilateralism process was initiated at the end of the 19th century with the first international conferences and the first international organization. But the main moment was 1999 well diverse IPs when was created the League of Nations and after the World War II the United Nations. Multilateralism is a transformation of international relations. International relations were first made of bi-lateral relations. That's to say one state with another. Multilateralism means one state with all the others, or a part of the others, or at least two others. That's to say, to overcome this face-to-face relationship which was the main feature of the traditional international relation. This transformation had very important implications, very important consequences for the very meaning of international relations. I will distinguish four important implications. The first one is the idea of international community. If international relations are no more face to face relation, it suggests that now international arena is made of a potential international community. I say potential because it would be excessive, abusive to say, to speak of an international community which is not organized, and even now and especially now. But the idea multilateralism results in the perspective of a creative international community. That's to say, international arena is no more this fighting gladiators of ops international communities are kind of attempt to overcome this permanent sight among gladiators around nation state. The second implication will be the idea of a connective security in the traditional vision of international relations, security is made of a fragile balance of power. That's to say, individual strategies of state which are adapting to each other, now with the multilateralism we perceive the idea of a possible collective security regime. That's to say, a vision of security which would be made of norms defined from above, that's to say, by the international community as a constraint to all the members of this community. The third implication would be that international law is more important, more decisive than sovereignty. If there is a collective security, that's to say that there is a collective norm, a collective law which is above the national sovereignties of the state. That's to say multilateralism is necessarily challenging the traditional vision of sovereignty. And the false implication would be through multilateralism defining sectors of international regimes. That's to say a kind of international order as it is said, which is organized around norms adopted by nation states. The financial sector with the creation of the Bretton Woods Institutions and is particularly the IMF and also development with the creation of the World Bank. But also, around the UN agency, a regime in the international regime of health around the WHO, World Health Organization. A regime of education around UNESCO, a regime of food and alimentation through FAO, and a regime of labor and of social law, international social law, around the ILO, the International Labor Organization. That's to say these international regions are opening the way to the intervention into the domestic offers of all the other actors, all the other states. That's why I said that this multilateralism is paving the way to overcoming the national sovereignty. And that's why also multilateralism is inspire so many reletences among those states which are strongly committed to the strict vision of national sovereignty. The most important part of this lecture is to consider the problems. Which are created, which are triggered by this new multilateralism. With multilateralism we have really new international relation. These new international relations imply important challenges to the traditional order to the traditional conception of international relations. Are we able to solve these dilemmas? I will distinguish four dilemmas, four problems which are emerging from multilateralism and this multilateral development of the world. The first one the problem of inclusion. That's to say there was always a kind of reluctance to include all the states inside these multilateral institutions. After the First World War, the defeated nations were not admitted in the League of Nations. Germany, for instance, was not admitted and was only admitted in 1926. That's to say, seven years after the creation of League of Nations. But after the Second World War, Germany, Italy, Japan, that's to say all the defeated nation of the Second World War, were not admitted. That's to say this multilateral world is oddly an including world. But what about very important states in the international arena like China, Beijing, China, which was admitted instead of Taiwan only in 1971. Vietnam was admitted only in 1977, that's to say after the Vietnam War. And during the Vietnam War we trust one of the main wars of the post 1945 world. Vietnam was however was not member of the United Nations. Koreans were admitted only in 1991, and now what about Palestine which is not member of the United Nations? What about Taiwan which is no more member of the United Nations and what about these non-recognized states which are however active administrations in the international order like Kosovo, like Somalian, like Pentland. All these non recognized states and others are not members of the United Nations, and however, inside this part of the world, there is a real risk of international tension and international conflict. That means that UN is not able to moderate the main conflict in the world because some of the major protagonists are not included as members of the United Nations. That is the first challenge. The second challenge will be is multilateralism only an inter-state multilateralism? Can we consider now, in the third millennium, at the beginning of the 21st century, that only states are actors of the international arena? Non-state actors must be included in negotiation in the deliberation, in the global process. And if they are not, there is a strong risk of a limited capacity of the United Nations to solve the problems. That's why the great Secretary General, Kofi Annan, considered that first of all the new multilateralism must be a social multilateralism including the main non-state actors. That's why, for instance, NGOs are more and more accredited to ecosolve. That's to say, the Economic Social Council of the United Nations, this council must be enhanced as it's so weak by now. And it must actively include all this about 3,000 NGOs which are currently accredited to the ecoserve. But Kofi Annan launched also the global compact program by which invited the main multinational firms to participate in a multilateral program. By which they declared to be committed to international values and in counterpart, they will receive a label given by multilateralism. This inclusion of new actors is probably one of the main challenge we have to meet in the next years and the next decades. The third challenge would be issues. Of course, the main issue is global peace. But peace must be considered not only as non-war, peace must be considered as human security. That's to see people free from fear as it was correctly pointed out by the UNDP, the United Nations Development Program, in which UNDP considered seven human securities. That's to say food security. Don't forget that we have every three hours 2,800 people killed by starvation, but also health security, environment security, economic security, cultural security, individual security, and partial security, that's to say, to enlarge the multilateral agenda. That's to say considering that the main social issues are the most important international issues in the present agenda of the world. And the force in the last challenge is the ability of multilateralism to contain power is multilateralism a club of powers or a real representation of the international community. The problem in that, the main issues are handled by the security council. And the security council is constituted partly by five permanent members. And these permanent members, that's to say United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom have a veto power, that's to say they can block when they cast their veto a decision which is not conform to their own wish. That's to say it's impossible to enforce the powers and that's also to say that the main international issues are really managed by these five powers. We are now in a world which is globalized, and in a globalized world, local actors is more and more important, more and more decisive. And so security council is facing two apporias. First is how to open this security council to new powers, that's to say, rising powers, Brazil, India, South Africa, Japan, Germany and so on. And the silent version is is it possible in our present world to enforce decisions, taken only by the P five and which are regarding local actors were absent in the deliberation. This is not possible that's why. We are now in a very strange situation, in which power decides not to intervene, like the case in Palestine when Israel violates the resolution of the security council. Or to intervene when their interest is involved in an international issue with results that which are not really convincing. So, it's quite clear that now with the new international conflict, we have to revisit the capacity of conflict solving of multilateral institution. This institution will survive if we are able to really deal with them. [MUSIC]
