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
Sa diversité historique
Loading...
From the course by Sciences Po
Espace mondial, une vision française des global studies
ratings
From the lesson
Le système international
La polarisation et le multilatéralisme sont les nouvelles caractéristiques du système international après 1945. La première est probablement dépassée et la seconde contestée.
Meet the Instructors
Bertrand BadieProfessor
Marie-Françoise DurandProfessor
It’s a kind of paradox:
the concept of international system
which seems to be so obvious and so important
has not been used in international relations theory.
That’s particularly strange as the realist theory
gives us a macro vision of international politics,
but realism was a little bit reluctant
to the concept of system
which implies an idea of order.
For the realists, there is no order
in the international arena
as it is a permanent fight among gladiators,
it’s a kind of anarchy.
And so, we had to wait for the great moment
of the system theory
for observing the first uses
of the concept of the international system,
that’s to say around the 60s, the 70s, so, very late.
My purpose is to define
what is an international system,
which is not so obvious too.
How to define it? And after,
I will offer a lecture
on what is multilateralism,
that’s to say how multilateralism
is shaping the international system.
And then we have to take into account
the famous problem of polarity.
Are we facing a unipolar or a multipolar
or a post-bipolar system? What does it mean?
What is an international system?
I would say that an international system
is a state of international life, a moment,
a sequence of the international life.
It is made for helping to describe
and to understand constraints
on actors and relations.
It is I would say a set of international practices
that can be identified
at a given sequence of the time.
Now the problem is to define the criteria
of the international system.
If the international system is a moment
of the international life,
how to seize this moment?
How to describe this moment?
Which kind of variables
has to be used and mobilized
for describing the international order?
I would select four criteria, four variables,
which are explaining the transformation
of the international system.
First one is degree of inclusiveness.
Is the international system including
all the potential actors?
All the potential actors, it means first
all the states, all the sovereign states.
And we have to take into account something
very important and even crucial
for understanding the international system
that generally all the state actors
don’t participate in the international system.
If we observe the European 19th century
international system, it was limited to Europe.
It pretends to cover all the world
and to take into account what for instance
took place in Latin America, but however
only European states were participating in it.
The China or the Ottoman Empire were not admitted
as members of the international system,
and with the Monroe doctrine,
US didn’t accept to participate
in this kind of international system.
And now the problem
is what about developing countries?
Formally of course they are members
of the international system,
but sometimes, late members.
If you take into account for instance
the decolonization process,
this decolonization process took place
during the 60s, mainly during the 60s,
and so, before 1960 the major part of the world
was not actively participating
in the international system.
Now, another question is:
what about the non-state actors?
That’s to say: is the inclusiveness
of the international system also covering
non-state actors, which are more and more active,
more and more relevant
inside the international arena,
but which don’t really participate in.
The second variable
would be what about the deliberation?
An international system can be identified
through its way of deliberating,
that’s to say how deliberation is going on?
What are the institutions, the procedures?
And what are the members
of the international system,
which are really participating,
actively participating in the decisions?
And so we have to observe that
for the major part of the international system,
those one were oligarchic or even diarchic,
that’s to say we have to take into account
the difference between active states,
which are really participated
in the decision-making process and passive states.
For instance, now, with the P5, that’s to say
the five permanent members
of the security council of the UN,
only five sovereign states are really active states
in the international arena,
and the others have to follow.
If now we take into account the G groups,
that’s to say G7, G8 or G20,
all the other members are not participating
in the decision-making process, and so we can say
that this deliberation is really oligarchic,
and so we can classify
the international systems according
to the real participation
of the actors to the decision.
Third criterion, it would be the alliances
which are composing the international system.
Are these alliances structured or not?
Are they covering all the states of the world
or not, or only a small part?
Are they lasting like NATO for instance
created in 1949 up to now, or are they precarious?
This is another variable.
And the last one will be of course
the type of power and domination,
which is exercised inside the international system.
Is there a hegemonic power?
Is there a condominium?
Or is there a decentralized power
inside the international system?
If now we try to classify the international systems,
we have to take into account
not to fall into three traps.
The first one would be the obsession with polarization
considering that all the international systems
are polarized, that is not true.
Polarization, as we will see, is an exception.
What about the non-polarized international systems?
The second trap will be
the absence of a social dimension,
that’s to say international system
is not only made of state actors,
is not only made of sovereign states,
but more and more as we saw previously,
more and more by non-state actors.
What are these non-state actors?
How to classify them? And how to consider
their participation in the international life?
And the third trap would be disregarding
the temporal factor, that’s to say
international system is not a stable one,
an international system is moving, is transforming,
and this transformation
is probably at the core of the international analysis.
If, for putting an end to this lecture,
I consider different kinds of international systems,
I would say that for instance
beginning with the Vienna congress in 1815,
from 1815 up to 1818,
we had a kind of oligarchic joined management,
that’s to say the fourth winners
of the wars against Napoleon
were co-managing the international system.
From 1818 up to 1871, that’s to say
the creation of Germany, I would say that
we had an unstable and a conniving coalition,
fragile coalition among the major European powers,
but without a real command management,
a kind of limited competition.
From 1871 up to 1914, that’s to say
the beginning of the First World War,
we had a conniving antagonism,
that’s to say structuring alliances,
which will result in the confrontation
of the First World War.
From 1918 up to 1939, that’s to say
the Second World War,
we had a very fluid international system,
without any structuration
and without a very fast transformation
of the coalitions and alliances.
Now from 1945 up to 47,
very brief period just after the war,
we had a kind of fragile joined management,
a kind of condominium between USSR and US
who were the two winners of the Second World War,
I mean the main two winners
of the Second World War.
From 1947 up to 67,
we had a rigid bipolarity.
From 67 up to 89, that’s to say
the destruction of the Berlin wall,
we had a diarchic polarization
From 89 up to 94
we had a limited unipolarity around US
which was the real winner of the cold war.
And from 94 up to now,
we have a kind of fragmented apolarity,
without a clear hegemony,
without a clear structuration,
and because the system is not very clear,
it’s coined post-bipolar system,
without deciding exactly on the content
of this international system.
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
