« The International System in Historical Context: Perspectives and Interpretations » : différence entre les versions
| Ligne 50 : | Ligne 50 : | ||
This shift from a European to a global system led to a multiplication of actors and powers in international relations. New actors, such as the United States, the Soviet Union, China and other non-European countries, played an increasingly important role on the world stage. This development has also led to changes in power dynamics, global issues and interactions between international actors. | This shift from a European to a global system led to a multiplication of actors and powers in international relations. New actors, such as the United States, the Soviet Union, China and other non-European countries, played an increasingly important role on the world stage. This development has also led to changes in power dynamics, global issues and interactions between international actors. | ||
= | = Internationalism = | ||
As early as the 18th century, conceptualisations of the idea of supranationality can be found. However, it is from the end of the 19th century onwards that the idea of supranationality became a fundamental framework in the discourse and practice of international relations. The rise of international trade, migration flows, economic interconnection and global challenges such as peace, security, human rights and the environment have contributed to the emergence of the notion of supranationality. The central idea of supranationality is to go beyond national borders and create a higher authority that transcends national interests and competences. This higher authority, often embodied in supranational bodies, is responsible for regulating, coordinating and taking decisions at global, regional or sectoral level. One of the most emblematic examples of supranationality is the European Union (EU). Founded after the Second World War to promote peace, stability and economic cooperation in Europe, the EU has gradually evolved into a supranational organisation with extensive competences, including legislation, monetary policy, trade and fundamental rights. It has supranational institutions such as the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Parliament, which have a significant influence on the Member States. Over time, other supranational bodies have also emerged in other regions and fields of activity, such as the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and many others. These supranational organisations aim to promote international cooperation, solve global problems and facilitate trade and interaction between states. | |||
The European system of international relations, like any international system, is characterised by anarchy. This means that there is no higher authority that regulates relations between states in a binding manner. In this context, the question of setting up a supranational management entity arises. The idea is to create a higher authority or institution that would transcend the differences between states and be responsible for coordinating and regulating their actions. This supranational entity would be designed to foster cooperation, conflict resolution and collective decision-making in the common interest. However, this proposal gives rise to a profound debate on the very principle of supranationality and on the form it should take. Some states and political actors favour further supranational integration, with increased delegation of sovereignty to existing supranational institutions, such as the European Union. They argue that this promotes cooperation and the efficient management of international affairs. Others, however, are more reluctant to transfer some sovereignty to supranational entities. They fear that this would weaken their ability to take sovereign national decisions and defend their national interests. These debates also address the question of the democratic legitimacy of supranational institutions and the participation of Member States in decision-making. Discussions on supranationality are complex and require careful consideration of the pros and cons of such an approach. The establishment of a supranational entity must take into account the divergent interests, cultural and political specificities of states, as well as mechanisms to ensure democratic participation, representativeness and accountability. Ultimately, the search for a supranational management entity in the international system remains a central issue, but how this should be achieved and the precise contours it should take remains a matter of debate and controversy. | |||
Whether international organisations are emanations of nation states or autonomous actors is a matter of debate among scholars and experts in international relations. On the one hand, some argue that international organisations are essentially created and controlled by nation states, making them emanations of these states. According to this perspective, states are the main actors in the international system, and international organisations are mechanisms they use to pursue their interests and objectives. The decisions taken in these organisations are influenced and often determined by the positions and interests of the member states. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition that international organisations have a certain autonomy and capacity for independent action in relation to member states. They have specific missions, mandates and competences entrusted to them, and they can take decisions, implement policies and carry out actions that go beyond immediate national interests. They often have their own resources, expertise and capacities that allow them to act independently of Member States. These international organisations can play an important role in promoting cooperation, economic development, conflict resolution, protection of human rights, the environment, etc. They often have a certain degree of autonomy in their activities. They often have a degree of authority and power vis-à-vis member states, including through decision-making mechanisms, implementation of international treaties, management of budgets, etc. It is also important to note that international organisations are not monolithic and their degree of autonomy may vary according to specific contexts and areas. Some organisations may have more independence and autonomy, while others may be more closely linked to the interests of member states. | |||
= De multiples acteurs = | = De multiples acteurs = | ||
Version du 18 mai 2023 à 09:46
| Faculté | Lettres |
|---|---|
| Département | Département d’histoire générale |
| Professeur(s) | Ludovic Tournès[1][2][3] |
| Cours | Introduction to the history of international relations |
Lectures
- Perspectives on the studies, issues and problems of international history
- Europe at the centre of the world: from the end of the 19th century to 1918
- The era of the superpowers: 1918 - 1989
- A multipolar world: 1989 - 2011
- The International System in Historical Context: Perspectives and Interpretations
- The beginnings of the contemporary international system: 1870 - 1939
- World War II and the remaking of the world order: 1939 - 1947
- The international system in the test of bipolarisation: 1947 - 1989
- The post-Cold War system: 1989 - 2012
The international system, also known as world order or international relations, refers to the way in which states and other international actors interact with each other on the world stage. Analysing the international system in a historical context allows us to better understand its evolution, its recurring patterns and the different perspectives that have been proposed to interpret it.
The modern international system as we know it today has its roots in the Treaties of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War in Europe. These treaties established the principle of the sovereignty of nation states, stating that each state is free to govern its territory without external interference. This principle of sovereignty became a fundamental pillar of the international system and laid the foundations of modern international law.
Over the following centuries, the international system has gone through periods of relative stability and major conflicts. For example, the period of the balance of power in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries was marked by a system in which several great powers balanced each other to maintain peace. However, this was followed by periods of devastating world wars, illustrating the limitations of the existing system.
What does the notion of an international 'system' mean?
The notion of an international 'system' refers to the idea that international relations can be analysed as an interconnected set of actors and rules that influence and determine the interactions between states and other international actors. The international system is, therefore a conceptual framework for understanding how different actors interact and evolve in a global environment.
An international system involves the existence of multiple entities, mainly states, but also international organisations, non-state actors such as multinational companies, terrorist groups, social movements, etc. Relationships and relationships of trust link these entities. These entities are linked by complex relationships and interactions, which include diplomacy, negotiations, alliances, conflicts, economic and cultural exchanges, and other forms of cooperation and competition.
The notion of a system also implies the existence of rules, norms and institutions that govern the behaviour of actors and influence their decisions and actions. These rules can be formal, such as international treaties, conventions and agreements, or informal, such as norms and practices accepted by the international community. International institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other regional and global organisations, play a key role in maintaining and managing these rules.
The notion of an international system emphasises the interdependence and interaction between actors, and the existence of certain structures and dynamics that influence behaviour and outcomes. Changes in the international system can have repercussions on the system as a whole. They can lead to adaptations and readjustments on the part of actors to adapt to new realities.
Explanation of terms
The term "system" refers to the idea of a complex structure of interdependent actors in the world of international relations. This system of interaction on a global scale is an essential element to consider in understanding the evolution of international relations.
Until the 19th century, the international system was mainly centred on Europe, where the European great powers were the dominant actors. This means that the main interactions and power dynamics took place between European countries. This is referred to as the European system at that time.
During the twentieth century, the international system underwent a major transition from a European system to a global system. This occurred due to several factors, including the emergence of new non-European powers, the decline of European influence and global geopolitical and geo-economic changes.
The First World War played a crucial role in this transition process. It marked the beginning of a period of major upheaval, leading to the decline of Europe as the dominant centre of the international system. The war weakened the European powers, brought about significant political and territorial changes, and led to the rise of new powers, notably the United States and the Soviet Union.
This shift from a European to a global system led to a multiplication of actors and powers in international relations. New actors, such as the United States, the Soviet Union, China and other non-European countries, played an increasingly important role on the world stage. This development has also led to changes in power dynamics, global issues and interactions between international actors.
Internationalism
As early as the 18th century, conceptualisations of the idea of supranationality can be found. However, it is from the end of the 19th century onwards that the idea of supranationality became a fundamental framework in the discourse and practice of international relations. The rise of international trade, migration flows, economic interconnection and global challenges such as peace, security, human rights and the environment have contributed to the emergence of the notion of supranationality. The central idea of supranationality is to go beyond national borders and create a higher authority that transcends national interests and competences. This higher authority, often embodied in supranational bodies, is responsible for regulating, coordinating and taking decisions at global, regional or sectoral level. One of the most emblematic examples of supranationality is the European Union (EU). Founded after the Second World War to promote peace, stability and economic cooperation in Europe, the EU has gradually evolved into a supranational organisation with extensive competences, including legislation, monetary policy, trade and fundamental rights. It has supranational institutions such as the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Parliament, which have a significant influence on the Member States. Over time, other supranational bodies have also emerged in other regions and fields of activity, such as the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), and many others. These supranational organisations aim to promote international cooperation, solve global problems and facilitate trade and interaction between states.
The European system of international relations, like any international system, is characterised by anarchy. This means that there is no higher authority that regulates relations between states in a binding manner. In this context, the question of setting up a supranational management entity arises. The idea is to create a higher authority or institution that would transcend the differences between states and be responsible for coordinating and regulating their actions. This supranational entity would be designed to foster cooperation, conflict resolution and collective decision-making in the common interest. However, this proposal gives rise to a profound debate on the very principle of supranationality and on the form it should take. Some states and political actors favour further supranational integration, with increased delegation of sovereignty to existing supranational institutions, such as the European Union. They argue that this promotes cooperation and the efficient management of international affairs. Others, however, are more reluctant to transfer some sovereignty to supranational entities. They fear that this would weaken their ability to take sovereign national decisions and defend their national interests. These debates also address the question of the democratic legitimacy of supranational institutions and the participation of Member States in decision-making. Discussions on supranationality are complex and require careful consideration of the pros and cons of such an approach. The establishment of a supranational entity must take into account the divergent interests, cultural and political specificities of states, as well as mechanisms to ensure democratic participation, representativeness and accountability. Ultimately, the search for a supranational management entity in the international system remains a central issue, but how this should be achieved and the precise contours it should take remains a matter of debate and controversy.
Whether international organisations are emanations of nation states or autonomous actors is a matter of debate among scholars and experts in international relations. On the one hand, some argue that international organisations are essentially created and controlled by nation states, making them emanations of these states. According to this perspective, states are the main actors in the international system, and international organisations are mechanisms they use to pursue their interests and objectives. The decisions taken in these organisations are influenced and often determined by the positions and interests of the member states. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition that international organisations have a certain autonomy and capacity for independent action in relation to member states. They have specific missions, mandates and competences entrusted to them, and they can take decisions, implement policies and carry out actions that go beyond immediate national interests. They often have their own resources, expertise and capacities that allow them to act independently of Member States. These international organisations can play an important role in promoting cooperation, economic development, conflict resolution, protection of human rights, the environment, etc. They often have a certain degree of autonomy in their activities. They often have a degree of authority and power vis-à-vis member states, including through decision-making mechanisms, implementation of international treaties, management of budgets, etc. It is also important to note that international organisations are not monolithic and their degree of autonomy may vary according to specific contexts and areas. Some organisations may have more independence and autonomy, while others may be more closely linked to the interests of member states.
De multiples acteurs
Les relations internationales impliquent une grande variété d'acteurs. Outre les États, qui sont traditionnellement considérés comme les principaux acteurs des relations internationales, il existe d'autres acteurs non gouvernementaux qui jouent un rôle significatif. Les acteurs non gouvernementaux englobent un large éventail d'acteurs tels que les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG), les entreprises multinationales, les groupes de réflexion, les médias, les groupes de pression, les groupes de défense des droits de l'homme, les organisations humanitaires, les groupes religieux, les mouvements sociaux, etc. Ces acteurs non étatiques peuvent influencer les politiques nationales et internationales, défendre des causes spécifiques, apporter des contributions au développement, participer aux négociations internationales et agir comme contre-pouvoirs vis-à-vis des États. Les organisations internationales (OI) jouent également un rôle clé dans les relations internationales. Elles sont créées par des États et ont pour mission de faciliter la coopération et la coordination entre les États membres dans des domaines spécifiques. Les organisations internationales peuvent être globales, comme les Nations Unies, ou régionales, comme l'Union africaine ou l'Organisation des États américains. Elles fournissent des espaces de dialogue, des mécanismes de prise de décision, des plateformes pour la négociation et la coopération, et peuvent jouer un rôle important dans la gestion des conflits, la promotion des droits de l'homme, le développement économique, etc. Les réseaux divers et variés sont également des acteurs importants des relations internationales. Il s'agit de liens informels et de relations entre les individus, les groupes, les organisations et les États, qui fonctionnent souvent en dehors des structures formelles. Ces réseaux peuvent être des réseaux d'experts, des réseaux de communication, des réseaux d'échanges économiques ou culturels, et peuvent contribuer à la diffusion des idées, à la coopération transnationale et à l'influence des politiques. Enfin, les constructions politiques régionales, telles que l'Union européenne, jouent également un rôle majeur dans les relations internationales. Ces organisations régionales rassemblent plusieurs États autour d'objectifs communs, tels que l'intégration économique, la sécurité, la coopération politique, etc. Elles ont leurs propres institutions, leurs propres règles et compétences, et peuvent exercer une influence significative sur les affaires régionales et mondiales.
La pluralité des acteurs et leur rôle croissant sont des caractéristiques marquantes de la période contemporaine des relations internationales. À partir de la deuxième moitié du XIXe siècle, nous observons l'émergence de nouveaux acteurs et organisations internationales qui sont devenus plus nombreux et plus actifs sur la scène mondiale. Traditionnellement, dans la théorie politique, l'État était considéré comme l'acteur central et dominant des relations internationales. Cependant, au fil du temps, d'autres acteurs tels que les organisations internationales, les entreprises multinationales, les ONG, les réseaux transnationaux, les mouvements sociaux et les groupes de réflexion ont gagné en importance et ont influencé les dynamiques internationales. Cette évolution a conduit à un changement du paradigme stato-centré vers un monde multi-centrique. Cela signifie que le pouvoir et l'influence sont dispersés et disséminés à travers le monde, avec de multiples lieux de pouvoir et d'action internationale. Les décisions et les interactions internationales ne sont plus uniquement régies par les États, mais également par ces acteurs non étatiques qui jouent un rôle de plus en plus important. Cette multiplicité des acteurs et des centres de pouvoir reflète la complexité croissante des enjeux mondiaux. Les problèmes tels que le changement climatique, la mondialisation économique, les migrations, les conflits transnationaux, nécessitent une approche plurilatérale et une coopération entre différents acteurs pour être résolus efficacement. Il est donc essentiel d'intégrer ces acteurs non étatiques et organisations internationales dans la réflexion et l'analyse des relations internationales contemporaines. Leur rôle et leur influence ne peuvent être ignorés, car ils contribuent de manière significative à la dynamique et à la transformation du système international.
Les acteurs multiples des relations internationales sont constamment en interaction et peuvent être le sujet de tensions et de rivalités. Ces tensions peuvent exister entre les États-nations et les organisations internationales, ainsi qu'entre les États eux-mêmes au sein de ces organisations. D'une part, il peut y avoir des extensions de pouvoir entre les États-nations et les organisations internationales. Les États délèguent souvent une partie de leur souveraineté aux organisations internationales en leur accordant des compétences et des responsabilités spécifiques. Cependant, cela peut également entraîner des frictions, car les États peuvent être réticents à céder une partie de leur autorité et peuvent chercher à préserver leurs intérêts nationaux. D'autre part, les tensions peuvent également exister entre les acteurs étatiques et non étatiques. Les organisations non gouvernementales, par exemple, peuvent remettre en question les politiques des États, les critiquer et les pousser à prendre des mesures en faveur de certaines causes. De même, les États peuvent chercher à contrôler ou à limiter l'action des acteurs non étatiques, notamment en réglementant leurs activités ou en les surveillant. En outre, il y a une compétition perpétuelle entre les acteurs pour le pouvoir et l'influence. Les États cherchent à accroître leur puissance et à défendre leurs intérêts nationaux sur la scène internationale. Les organisations internationales peuvent rivaliser pour l'adhésion et l'influence des États membres, tandis que les acteurs non étatiques peuvent rivaliser pour attirer l'attention et obtenir des ressources pour leurs causes. Cette concurrence pour le pouvoir peut se manifester dans les négociations, les prises de décision, les alliances, les rivalités économiques et géopolitiques. Les intérêts contradictoires des différents acteurs peuvent entraîner des conflits et des désaccords, mais aussi stimuler la coopération et la recherche de compromis.