[MUSIC] How can the international system be homogeneous when there are so many tensions, so many contradictions, and so many failures. In extending the state model on the world, over all the world. And this is probably one of the main features of our espace mondial. The international system is obviously heterogenous. It's heterogenous not only in the meaning given by Raymond Aron when he said that different kinds of regime were coexisting during the Cold War in the political system. Of course, USSR and US, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe, were not made of the same regimes. But all of them were states where, frankly, states rooted in the Western tradition. USSR, even USSR, if it was also an empire, was profoundly affected by the state tradition, which grew up in Europe. Now in a global order, the things are quite different. That's to say it's not only a question of difference of regimes, but it's a question of coexistence, of different kinds of political systems. And among those political systems, we have to notice so many collapsing states. And this global order, so heterogeneous, is, of course, very difficult to rule out. Can we rule an international order which is made of so many contradictions, of so many different cultures of politics? And which is so deeply affected by the crisis and the failure of the western state exportation? So that's why if we want to have access to this international order, we have to point out four kinds of deviant political systems. I would take into account virtual states, microstates, failed states, and rogue states. These different categories are now frequently used by analysts, but also by political actors. So we have to create a kind of order in this very anarchical use of these different concepts. First, virtual state, you know that virtual state was coined by the great American particle scientist and economist, Richard Rosecrance. And Richard Rosecrance points the case of those states, Which have a capacity which is not based on territorial or material resources, but which is based on non-material resources. Richard Rosecrance, take the example of Singapore. Singapore, doesn't find its capacity in its territory, which is very small, very tight. But from the informal relationship, the virtual relationship, which made it as one of the main trade actors in our present global world. This is a break because if we take into account European history, European history is exclusively based on territorial construction, is exclusively based on material power. And this new kind of status, probably initiating another vision of politics. And here the main question is how to make coexist these different kinds of powers. Those which are rooted in material resources, and those who are mobilizing non-material resources. The second category, which is a little bit puzzling, is the microstate. Microstate is defined by UN as a state which has less than one million and a half inhabitants. That's to say, many states in our present world, those states are sometimes very, very small. If you take into account, for instance, Tuvalu in Oceania, Tuvalu has only 10,000 inhabitants. Imagine if we compare Tuvalu with China and its 1.4 billion inhabitants, Monaco has 33,000 inhabits. Tuvalu, Monaco, but also are members of the United Nations and are considered legally as equal to China, India, Russia, or United States. We can easily understand that this equality can be nothing but formal. And the issue of sovereignty is clearly at the center of the reflection which is triggered by this new category. How these states can be so ready, how can they have minimal chance of being sovereign? But also another question, how is it these states are able to survive with few resources? They have very poor resources, and that's why those states are sometimes moving to other activities, as tax paradise, or even some illegal activities. We can understand, then, how this discrepancy is generating some deviance and pathology of our international order. And this is important, as we know that the trend of the fragmentation of the world order and the order is now growing and growing. Some fragmentations taking place in Africa, Asia, Europe, and so on. The third category is probably the most important one, it is the category of the failed state, what is a failed state? A failed state is a state which is not able to achieve its main functions. That is to say, it's not able to protect its own population, which is not able to be committed to the Hobbes social pact, that's to say, not able to provide security to all the citizens. These failed states sometimes have no social contract, that's to say, even nation is questioned. Some of them are not able to dispense the minimal security that people are expecting, and this is particularly true in war societies like the Democratic Republic of Congo, or in Somalia, or in Central Africa today. These states have not the minimal infrastructure which is needed by a state for being active and for protecting its population. If we take into account the example of the Central Africa Republic, some places like, for instance, Birao at the northeast of Central Africa, are not accessible from the capital of the state. And so this lack of infrastructure is of course decreasing the protection capacity of the state, which is not able to penetrate its own society. But, on the contrary, the failed state is, for the same reasons, the state which is more and more penetrated by outside, by powers from abroad, from neighbor states. And for Central Africa, those neighbor states are Chad, Sudan, or Democratic Republic of Congo. But also from powers coming from other continents, and that's particularly obvious in the behavior of economic entrepreneurs coming from Europe, for extracting and using the metal resources of the failed state. This concept was created In 1991 for legitimizing the American intervention in Somalia. And the question was, how can we intervene in a sovereign political system, it's contrary to the rule, contrary to the international law. And so the solution was to imagine, to coin this concept of collapsed state, failed state, because if a state is collapsed, if a state doesn't work, there is no more sovereignty. And so it's not transgressing sovereignty when we intervene inside these countries. Now, what is the criteria, and which kind of international institution is able to define in which conditions one state can be properly considered as a failed state? This is a blurred aspect of the question, and that's why this concept is not really operational by now. And the last category would be a rogue state. Rogue state was a political concept coined by political actors during the 90s, during the Clinton administration. When the US was short of enemies, and was trying to rediscover enmity among, Some less powerful state, or even powerless state, but states considered as deviant. A state which is considered as rogue, as deviant, is a state in which it would be legitimate to get involved. And that's why this concept is also very dangerous, when you coin a state as a rogue state, you get the right to intervene inside its domestic affairs. That is why this concept is very political and is purely scientific for very simple reasons, which is the same that we pointed for the concept of corruption. What are the good criteria of a rogue state? Is a rogue state a state which is not really committed to human rights? But so many countries are in this case. Is it a state which is authoritarian and not democratic, is is it a state which is using a kind of violence? But in all these possibilities, we can discover that so many examples are fitting to this definition. So that's why this new typology of political systems in our present world is difficult to build up. We know only something very important, heterogeneity of the international order and the [INAUDIBLE] to handle this complexity. [MUSIC]
