In my previous lecture I insisted on the French touch in approaching <i>Espace mondial</i> in approaching global studies and 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 MOOC. So my point will 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 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 the XIV. If France was participating in the invention of this new order, its 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 this Hobbesian vision of the world. You know, you remember, that the author of Leviathan considered that in a world of insecurity the state, 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 this reason, the state must be sovereign, and if the state is sovereign, that means that he is not committed to any rules, which will be enforced against its own willingness. That’s to say, that in the classic vision of international relations, states are sovereign and in the international arena is made of a competition among sovereign actors, like gladiators. And the formula is given by Hobbes who considered 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 are made of power politics. Power politics is covering the international system, the international relations among actors. Using power means using war, in this competition among states. War is considered by Hobbes as the main background of international relations, the normal relation 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 the juxtaposition of sovereign states, of sovereign territorial units. And this vision is quite different from another vision which was promoted during the same century by 25 years before by the famous Dutch lawyer Grotius. And Grotius had a different vision of international relations in which war is no more central. For Grotius, and remember that Grotius was one of the main advisors of the Dutch East India company, peace is necessary for promoting trade. And so, if we 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 institutions. 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 a second time by Germany. And the third defeat is during the colonial wars in Dien Bien Phu in 1954 when France was defeated by a small army made of the Vietnam resistance against colonization. And in 1960-1962 when France was defeated at the political level by Algerians, and Algeria got its independence after so many years of resistance. And this triple defeat which really triggered the trauma in the French collective vision of its own history and its 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 politics 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 a diversity of cultures. And that’s why our approach to 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 <i>Grandeur</i>. If we are no more powerful, we have to promote our <i>Grandeur</i>, our Greatness. That’s to say another vision of international relations in which influence, culture, soft power are much more important than hard power. Now we have also to consider intellectual factors. There is not a real school of political sciences 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 also of international law. International law was partly created in France through many famous layers like Georges Scelle who tried to promote another vision of the international societies and international arena made, as he said, of a co-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 transforming our international arena. But, overall, the French vision of international relations is made of sociology coming from our great French sociologist at the end of the 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 collapsed without a minimal degree of social integration. Social integration and solidarity are the two founding concepts of the Durkheimian sociology. And so, many people and especially some students of Durkheim like the French politicians Leon Bourgeois or Aristide Briand who were inspired by and influenced by Durkheim stressed that in the world we have to pay attention to a minimal international integration. Without a minimal integration, without a 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’s not integrated enough. And if there is this lack of integration there is a risk of conflict. The present conflicts are no more made of competition among states but are made of this lack of international social integration. This lack of intersocial integration is defined by some indexes like the Human Development Index. That’s to say for example lack of education, or food insecurity or health insecurity an 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 in the conflictualisation of international relations. This is this sociological vision we have to promote of the present international order.
