From International to Global
Preface by Bertrand Badie
The major debate about territory, about what it once was and no longer really is, is partly settled today. As globalization has become part of our lives, it has substantiated the idea that distance is no longer an obstacle, that borders no longer block very much and that interdependency has divested the juxtaposition of states of an essential part of its meaning. The world is thus less and less Westphalian and no longer resembles the mosaic it once did: sovereignty has lost some of its territorial strength, while national interest has been reconfigured around a complex rationale of transaction and co-management – however timid and selective – concerning the common goods of humanity.
At the same time, people are still dying for territory, not so much anymore in conquering or expanding it, but in attempting to materialize that essential aspect of identity that it tends to bestow. While territory has lost its material value, at least in part, it retains its symbolic significance and its expressive form. This is contradictory only in appearance: territory no longer has the instrumental scope of yore, but it retains its declarative force. Thus the “end of territories” must not be confused with the end of any reference to space. Space remains more than ever at the very center of the social sciences: action remains tied in with space, but space is less and less material or limited by set boundaries.
The notion that space has thus been “liberated” is borne out in many aspects that make up today’s world, as this atlas aptly describes. Individual and social action now operate on many planes, which form multiple levels of analysis – and while the national space these actions reference is less and less foregrounded, the local, the supranational regional and increasingly the transregional levels are acquiring an importance that is constantly reassessed. Identity itself is ever more distinct from the national framework, referring to multiple levels of spatialization that are moving further and further away from the territorial format. As ties with the structured nation slacken, territory becomes less and less suited to identitarian ambitions. What’s more, such ambitions tend to destroy territoriality as they dispute the legitimacy of constructed forms and, unable to counter these forms with others, may be tempted to resort to horrific extremes – ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Expanded by diasporas and migratory networks, dilated by communications advances, increasingly flexible in a world where issues themselves have become more mobile, spaces of identification now intersect and overlap. They appear multiple and fragmented, whereas they are actually tentacular and networked. Any attempt to confine these spaces behind walls or barriers, or with gatekeepers is effectively chasing shadows and of necessity involves coercion: it is an act that contravenes the very nature of globalization, a failure to understand that networks, mobility, population displacement and the like are quite simply part of our world and will remain so.
The soaring importance of the network concept attests to this: social relationships (and therefore political or economic ones) become more efficient the more they are informal, scarcely visible, and meta-institutional. It negates territorial geometry, defies distances, frontiers and closures. It reinterprets connections of solidarity and becomes the vehicle for new forms of violence and new identities. For some, it creates an invisible enemy; for others, it guarantees that incredibly sophisticated regulations. Networks, as the new sinews of exchange, at the same time drain the life out of conventional confrontation.
The disintegration of territorial constraints does not abolish inequality : on the contrary, it brings it even more into relief. Where the logic of the nation-state once imposed political boundaries, modern (or postmodern) spatialization processes offer up the unadulterated truth of disparities. To use a term coined by Scalapino in discussing Asia, “natural economic territories” now have greater relevance than political territories: growth triangles, special economic zones, an incredible densification of flows and exchanges on either side of the Formosa Strait contribute more to the understanding of East Asia than the old geopolitics.
And it’s only natural: everyone is tending to be more and more in everyone else’s space. Because new communication technologies make it possible, because interests are increasingly interdependent and not confined to sectors, because space means flows and relationships, not closed communities anymore. The logic of boundary-setting has given way to the logic of transaction: “space” thus refers to the dimension of an exchange, and no longer that of an encampment. This is a huge change – one that comprehensively reconstructs the concept of security and, further upstream, even that of conflict. Individual security no longer exactly coincides with the security of one’s territory – inhabited, formerly, like a kind of comfortable and impregnable fortress. It now is played out at a distance, depending on multiple levels of spatialization. There can be no security at home without security for others, no political stability at home without health or food security for others.
In this new order, national security has lost its relevance in favor of collective security, which quickly became global. It yields to the idea of integration : when it is too weak, it provokes tension and violence, but not in the form of head-on political clashes that Hobbes, Clausewitz, Weber and Morgenthau described.
This new international social violence instead calls to mind Durkheim and Merton, and phenomena of anomie and deviance: it is a new brand of conflict, using playing cards that no longer resemble those used before, but instead arising out of frustration, exclusion and humiliation.
At the same time, these conflicts affect everyone: they are closely tied to the invasion of the international arena by multiple actors who no longer respect the state-constructed monopoly. Each must then contribute to successful international social integration, as the idea of global governance imperfectly suggests. Yet, in this more Durkheimian than Weberian world, where solidarity proves more effective than going it alone, where social relations are more constructive than unilateral acts, multilateralism becomes useful once again, offering a new way of conceptualizing the world. By concluding this Atlas on that theme, its authors wisely lead us to an entirely different representation of space, in which open and inclusive societies prevail over logics of closure and exclusion and in which collective processes take the place of unilateral acts. A world probably shaped by contestation instead of being held together by power.
The idea of a world space is thus gradually being theorized, in contrast to the “international system” idea by rejecting the hypothesis of a mere juxtaposition of nation-states, by refusing to view them as a universal, permanent fact or a fixed point in history, by reinserting societies in the game of world politics, by nuancing their strict compliance with the logics of borders, by banking on the importance of mobility and transnational flows. Most of all, positing a world space amounts to emphasizing the gradual replacement of sovereignty with interdependence as a primary feature.
In a world where everyone depends on everyone else and everyone can see everyone else, competition does not explain everything. Most of all, it overlooks the main pathologies plaguing the world order today: the lack of international social integration has become a source not only of new outbreaks of violence, but also of frustration and humiliation, provoking all manner of destabilization as well as making states unable to fulfill their traditional role of promoting public goods. As a space striving for integration, the world space is becoming the custodian of global public goods.
As its structure is hypothetical and necessarily incomplete, in concrete terms the world space contains a clearly vibrant, resilient inter-state system, with norms and institutions, but a system that has lost its monopoly on everything that classical analysis once pigeonholed in the “external” category. This world space also contains a complex system of identity references that does not hew to either the contours of states or to its own integrative mode. This combination of tensions between systems that intellectually exclude one another while being condemned to coexist explains the instability of our world order.
Continual instability, uncertainty, wrangling, even improvisation, are thus routine in an international system that we are no longer even able to name, to qualify, or to take at face value. It emerged from bipolarity, which was its last refuge, and it is now being replaced by the concept of world space, at once more inclusive in terms of actors and issues, and less confined by an event or sequence of events. Relations that were once qualified as international in the world space are now increasingly intersocial: diplomacy – which purports to be “the science and arts of managing relations
between those who regard themselves as separate and different” (Paul Sharp) – is no longer the prerogative of states and their embassies alone but now also pertains to societies. This Intersocial diplomacy has issues to deal with (separation, inequality and divisions between societies), actors (states that are engaged in it and non-state actors that are reassessed by it) and loci (social fora, mobilizations, even new forms of world conflict). The mutual interference and exploitation of these two diplomacies are constantly restructuring the world space – to the point of giving it a sedimentary thickness at variance with the strictly horizontal theories inspired by realism.
In paying close attention to these issues, then, the present Atlas is itself part of a radical renewal of international analysis and aptly expresses what is arguably a distinctively French approach to international relations. More sociological than strictly political, open to the multiplicity of actors, to social forms of violence and conflict, giving priority to solidarity and integration over classical war and power politics that are currently ailing, this approach fully embraces a vision of space that is no longer one of classical geopolitics or territory-based orthodoxy.
It is clear that this new situation requires a radical intellectual, academic and pedagogical transformation. Intellectually, we must learn to conceive the world in terms of its mobility, its interdependency and its integration. This may be entirely at odds with a political class raised on national deliberation and sensitivity to immediate interests. From an academic standpoint, we must learn not only how to represent this fluidity but also conceptualize it, leaving the tropes of enemy, border and identity behind; we must learn how to examine the social beyond the political; we need the (rare) courage to renegotiate disciplinary boundaries and their gatekeepers. Pedagogically, it is time to propose a new offering, which will naturally go beyond the geopolitics of yesteryear or what remains of it, but strive also to go beyond more recent international relations theories, and thus not limit consideration solely to relations between nation-states, but highlight societies, social actors and mere individuals fully participating – on a daily basis, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously – in the world space. This offering, then, will look to the future, highlighting its hopes and its uncertainties.
That does not mean history is linear. It harbors plenty of surprises and has always taught us how robust the various forms of conservatism can be, especially when they are united with fear. Among the surprises, it is increasingly clear how the disappearance of old territorial codes is challenging spatial divisions that were fixed under the Westphalian system. While this system had sanctified national spatializations, today its weaknesses suddenly leave national boundaries once thought to be eternal open to discussion. In Scotland or in Quebec, Catalonia or in Belgium – in other words, in the Westphalian fiefdoms – new national aspirations have emerged that once would have been taboo. Yesterday’s absolute nation is yielding to a new movement, one that is inventing a nation born of a conjunction of circumstances or crises: what would once have been seen as divorce, and therefore sacrilegious, is viewed as a parting of the ways, co-existence if no longer co-habitation. And why, after all, shouldn’t Isabella the Catholic and Ferdinand II of Aragon not each go their separate ways after a half-millennium of virtual loyalty? The clash of beliefs here is brutal and will make headlines: that, too, is globalization.
As regards forms of conservatism, we cannot overlook the neonationalism developing in places all over the world, North as well as South, East as well as West, reflecting a political will to reinforce, against the grain, the old principles of territoriality and sovereignty. In the name of fears aroused by globalization and its consequences, with migration at the top of the list, old nationalist schemas are being reactivated – not, this time, around the conquest of new rights, but instead focused on exclusion and confinement, symbolized in the rise of ethnicism and materialized in the celebration of walls.
As in a systolic movement, globalization brings its own contradictory, changing experiences with it, expansions and contractions, changes and fears, projections and reactions. Whether temporary or bound to endure, this aspect remains central today.
Bertrand Badie
Professor, Sciences Po
- borders > Border
- The line that marks the limit of state sovereignty, as distinct from the hazy boundary zones or limits of empires. In no way natural, these long-term historic constructs, which can be more or less endogenous and more or less subject to dispute and violence, are being profoundly altered by contemporary globalization processes. Regional integration processes are transforming and diminishing them – even erasing them, and pushing them back; transnational actors are crossing them or bypassing them; at the same time, they are being closed to migration, while new borders (social, cultural) are being constructed.
- states > State
- The state is a political system that is centralized (unlike the feudal system), differentiated (from civil society, public/private space), institutionalized (institutions are depersonalized), territorialized (a territory whose borders mark the absolute limit of its jurisdiction), that claims sovereignty (holding ultimate power) and that bears responsibility for ensuring its population’s security. In public international law, the state is defined as a population living on a territory defined by borders subject to a political authority (the national territorial state).
- Westphalian > Westphalia
- Signed in 1648 by the countries of Europe (except for England and Russia), the treaties of Westphalia brought an end to the Thirty Years War (Sweden, France, Spain and the Germanic Holy Roman Empire). In addition to reshaping the geopolitical map of central Europe, they enshrined new political principles: 1/ a gradual secularization of politics, 2/ the collapse of the hegemonic, imperial and Catholic policies of the Hapsburgs, which were succeeded by a concept of political and religious balance to ensure peace in Europe, 3/ the strengthening of the identity and independence of states with the establishment of precise borders recognized by all, and within which the prince or monarch was sovereign, 4/ the establishment of standing armies. The terms Westphalian “order” or “model” are used in the context of these treaties.
- common goods of humanity > Common goods
- Goods considered as the common property of humanity, for which each of us is responsible for the survival of all. This notion comes from two philosophical traditions: the ancient concept of community, taken over by the Catholic Church, and the liberal and utilitarian idea of individual responsibility. It enables the general interest of societies, such as the protection of common goods, to be defined. On the global scale (global commons), the concept invites indivisible control of humanity’s common heritage, both material (health, environment) and immaterial (peace, human rights, transcultural values). Some goods are therefore beyond the limits state jurisdiction (the high seas, space) or beyond sovereign claims (Antarctica).
- identity > Identity
- The concept of identity is ambiguous, multifaceted, subjective, and frequently exploited and manipulated. No identity is foreordained or natural – so it is better to talk of identity construction, or of the processes of constructing self-representations developed by an individual or group. These constructions are neither stable nor permanent, defining the individual or group from multiple perspectives: on its own terms, in relation or opposition to others, and by others. The way individuals and groups use identity varies according to their interests and the constraints inherent in their specific situation: identity, therefore, is a construct based on interaction. This combination of affiliations, allegiances and internal and external recognition is a complex process, involving various degrees of awareness and contradiction, constantly being amalgamated and reconfigured.
- space > Space
- A term with multiple meanings and uses and a category given far less consideration by philosophers than the concept of time. Space as a concept has long been a theoretical difficulty (lack of consensus) for geographers – for whom it should be the primary object of study. Contrary to the common representation of space as a natural expanse filled by societies, space is a social product that is constantly reconstructed by social interactions. It constitutes one of the dimensions of our social life, at once material and cultural. To speak of social space does not in itself tell us what form this space takes – whether it is territorial, or networked, or both at once.
- nation > Nation
- Political community based on an awareness of shared characteristics and/or a will to live together. It is common practice to contrast political and cultural concepts of the nation – which in practice are mutually influential and tend to converge. In the political concept, the nation is invented and produced by a state: the territory precedes the nation and defines its contours (this is known as the French concept, based on the republican melting pot and jus soli, right of the soil). In the cultural understanding of nation, a shared common culture produces the nation. The national project consists in bringing this population together on a single territory (the cultural or romantic or German concept of the nation, based on jus sanguinis, right of blood). The latter concept intrinsically produces conflicts and can lead to ethnic cleansing or genocide (Nazi Germany, Greater Serbia, etc.).
- genocide > Genocide
- Crime codified by the international Genocide Convention of December 9, 1948. Its definition specifies acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
- diasporas > Diaspora
- A set of communities that are often dispersed over very considerable distances, but remain linked by economic, financial, and cultural exchanges, and refer to a land and culture of origin. Acceleration of the globalization process and the increased number of migrants have given new life to former diasporas (Jewish, Greek, Armenian, Chinese, Indian) as well as creating new ones (countries of the Southern hemisphere). The ability to preserve cultural references from one generation to another and independently of distance is a function of the dense international networks they construct. By extension, the term diaspora is used by governments of the South to talk about their migrant workers in the North, whose remittances to the home country contribute to GDP.
- networks > Network
- Classical geography tended to place too much importance on surface areas, territories, countries and soil, but network analysis has now become central to its approach. Networks are defined as spaces in which distance is discontinuous and consists of nodes linked by lines. Some are physical (networks for the transportation of people, goods and energy, IT cables and information super highways), others not. When they are partly virtual (such as the internet), they also involve individuals and organizations. Philosophers (Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari), sociologists (Manuel Castells), political scientists (James Rosenau), and economists use this concept to analyze the interconnected functioning of individuals.
- globalization > Globalization
- The term globalization refers to a set of multidimensional processes (economic, cultural, political, financial, social, etc.) that are reconfiguring the global arena. These processes do not exclusively involve a generalized scale shift toward the global because they do not necessarily converge, do not impact all individuals, and do not impact everyone in the same way. Contemporary globalization means more than just an increase in trade and exchanges, an internationalization of economies and an upsurge in connectivity: it is radically transforming the spatial organization of economic, political, social and cultural relationships.
- regulations > Regulation
- The term regulation refers to all the processes and mechanisms that enable a system to function in a normal, regular fashion. At the international level, it refers to the set of processes, mechanisms and institutions that act to correct imbalances that might threaten the global order and to ensure that actors behave predictably, thereby ensuring stability. It is closely linked to the notions of governance and global public goods.
- inequality > Inequality
- Unequal distribution of goods, material and/or non-material, regarded as necessary or desirable. Beyond income inequality (national, international and global), cumulative inequalities can also be measured with respect to accessing public services (healthcare, education, employment, housing, justice, effective security, etc.) and accessing property and natural resources more generally, and also relative to political expression or the capacity to respond to ecological risks. When these inequalities are based on criteria prohibited by law, they constitute discrimination.
- modern > Modern
- Modernity, characterized by the increasing importance of the economy, of technical innovation, of Western-type democratic regimes, and of rational-legal bureaucracy, is defined from an evolutionist perspective according to the model prevalent in the most industrialized countries, and is a trend toward which all the so-called less advanced societies are seen as converging. This viewpoint, widely denounced for its naïve evolutionism, remains nonetheless implicitly present in much political discourse and within a good deal of research. “Postmodern” is used of artistic and philosophical currents of the second half of the 20th century that critique and deconstruct the concept of modernity.
- postmodern > Modern
- Modernity, characterized by the increasing importance of the economy, of technical innovation, of Western-type democratic regimes, and of rational-legal bureaucracy, is defined from an evolutionist perspective according to the model prevalent in the most industrialized countries, and is a trend toward which all the so-called less advanced societies are seen as converging. This viewpoint, widely denounced for its naïve evolutionism, remains nonetheless implicitly present in much political discourse and within a good deal of research. “Postmodern” is used of artistic and philosophical currents of the second half of the 20th century that critique and deconstruct the concept of modernity.
- growth > Growth
- A long-term, sustained increase in a country’s production of economic wealth, in other words, its GDP. Economic growth is not synonymous with development. Measuring it with purely economic and monetary tools is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory because of the deterritorialization and internationalization of economic activities, as well as the failure to take account of any wealth creation that cannot be monetized (elimination of illiteracy, gains in scientific or cultural knowledge, etc.). This implies special emphasis on high productivity despite the potential destruction (especially ecological) caused by growth that is seen exclusively from the angle of economics and financial profitability.
- flows > Flows
- Increasing flows of goods and assets, tangible and intangible, of capital and of people are characteristic of the globalization processes currently underway. This cross-border mobility constitutes a spatial phenomenon that geographers and cartographers, focused as they have been on territory, have been relatively slow to examine. These flows are organized in networks of varying degrees of density, not because territories and places are similar and interchangeable but because they are different and interdependent. They presuppose infrastructures (submarine cables, oil and gas pipelines, routes via land, sea, river and air) and logistics businesses (intermodal ports, freight airports, e-commerce warehouses, data hubs, etc.).
- geopolitics > Geopolitics
- Study of power struggles for territory, generally involving states in competition for space, with the direct or indirect use of organized violence as its mode of operation. Translation of the German term Geopolitik (1897), with definitions and uses that have varied over time. Friedrich Ratzel and Rudolf Kjellén examined the relationships between state politics and geographic data; Karl Haushofer wrote about the relationships between land, blood and race and defined the Lebensraum (living space) that formed the basis of Nazi propaganda (in consequence of which the term subsequently fell into disuse); and Halford John Mackinder spoke of the “geographic” foundations of military power, contrasting the continental heartland with the maritime periphery. More recently, Yves Lacoste emphasized the importance of representations, the idea of the nation being for him the most powerful form of geopolitical representation. Geostrategy is geopolitics directed toward action (military or economic).
- communities > Community
- According to the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855-1936), community (Gemeinschaft) is the opposite of society (Gesellschaft) and denotes any form of social organization in which individuals are linked by natural or spontaneous solidarity, and driven by common goals. According to current usage, it applies to any social grouping that appears to be united, whatever its mode of integration (international community, European or Andean Community, or adherents of a religion). The ambiguous term of international community describes an ill-defined set of political actors (states, international organizations, NGOs, individuals, etc.) based on the idea of that humanity is united by common objectives and values or an allegiance to central political institutions, which is far from being the case.
- security > Security
- A set of representations and strategies developed by an individual or collectivity to reduce the threats to which they feel exposed. At the international level, security may consist of: 1) an unstable, precarious balance between the security of different nations, underpinned by their degree of power; 2) the concerted organization of this balance (international security); 3) the establishment of a security regime imposed on all states that have signed up to it (collective security). Above and beyond any tangible threat, the language of security tends to represent objects or groups of people as dangers for the security of states, notably in order to justify particular security policies (state of emergency, military action, closing of borders, etc.).
- conflict > War
- Violent confrontation between armed groups over values, status, power or scarce resources, in which the aim of each party is to neutralize, weaken or eliminate their adversaries. This organized, collective, armed violence can be undertaken by states (via their national armies) or by non-state groups; it can bring several states into opposition (interstate war) or occur within a single state (civil war). The former, progressively codified within a legal framework, have become rare, while the latter, today primarily caused by state institutional failure, are tending to become more international in scope, to last over time (sometimes decades) and to be extremely devastating, especially for civilian populations.
- integration > Integration
- Concept with multiple uses. The opposite of “segregation,” with reference to the incorporation of foreigners within host societies, “integration” means more than just inclusion by juxtaposition (multiculturalism) but is different from assimilation. Spatial integration refers to the progressive incorporation of peripheral, marginalized spaces within a central spatial system. The problem of social disintegration occurs when groups experience multiple types of exclusion at once: economic, social, political and spatial. The globalization processes that are connecting societies but maintaining or deepening social, economic, health and cultural disparities between and within these societies, are creating and reproducing a global social integration deficit that is increasingly apparent to those excluded.
- actors > Actor
- An individual, group, or organization whose actions affect the distribution of assets and resources on a global scale. The state has long been considered as the main actor on the international scene, but the number of non-state actors has increased and diversified (businesses, non-governmental organizations, special interest groups, mafias, religious actors, etc.) over the past few decades. Contemporary globalization has made the relationships between these actors more complex.
- governance > Governance
- Inspired by management and entrepreneurship, the expression global governance refers to the formal and informal institutions, mechanisms and processes through which international relations between states, citizens, markets and international and non-governmental organizations are established and structured. The global governance system aims to articulate collective interests, to establish rights and duties, to arbitrate disputes and to determine the appropriate regulatory mechanisms for the issues and actors in question. Governance takes various forms: global multilateral governance, club-based governance (restricted to members, e.g. G7/8/20), polycentric governance (juxtaposition of regulatory and management mechanisms operating at various levels), and so on.
- multilateralism > Multilateralism
- To see multilateralism as international cooperation involving at least three states reduces it to a mere technique. In fact, it also has a qualitative, normative aspect which has been evident since the time of the League of Nations. According to Franck Petiteville, this makes multilateralism a form of international collective action which aims to produce “norms and rules seeking to establish a cooperative international order governing international interdependencies.” The adjective “multilateral” first appeared in the late 1940s which is when awareness of the concept began to emerge.
- interdependence > Interdependency
- Mode of relationship based on dense, continuous interaction between social and political entities, leading to reduced autonomy for each of them individually as they are partially reconfigured in relation to each other. Used of states primarily in the context of globalization, implying a reduction or modulation of sovereignty as well as a relativization of power: after all, interdependence goes both ways, implying a reliance of the strong on the weak just as much as of the weak on the strong.
- global public goods > Global public goods
- These are material and symbolic goods which are under the guardianship of each one of us for the survival of all. Their functions are threatened by shared sovereignty (ozone layer, biological diversity, the cultural heritage of humanity, cultural diversity, scientific knowledge, health, food, financial security, and so on). This concept was set out in the report of the 1999 United Nations Development Program and has since been widely adopted by many international organizations. The term “club goods” is used when administering and consuming these goods is limited to a small number of participants.
- institutions > Institutions
- The term institution refers to social structures (rules, standards, practices, actions, roles) that are long-lasting, organized in a stable and depersonalized way, and play a part in regulating social relationships. An institution can be formalized within organizations (international or otherwise). In political science, institutionalism tackles the objects of political analysis by studying their structural basis and their organizational model rather than thinking about how they relate to society.
- bipolarity > Bipolarity
- These terms refer to the division of power in the international system. According to the number of dominating powers (one, two, or several), the configuration is described as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, respectively. In contrast to these notions, discussed particularly among realist currents in international relations, the idea of apolarity has emerged, which stresses the irrelevance of seeing global space in terms of power centers, because of the way these have been transformed.
- realism > Realism
- A theoretical stance according to which international relations are built on a dichotomy of internal and external factors and which postulates the central role of states. These compete for power in order to ensure their own survival in an international environment lacking any supra-national authority, where war is consequently always on the cards.
- war > War
- Violent confrontation between armed groups over values, status, power or scarce resources, in which the aim of each party is to neutralize, weaken or eliminate their adversaries. This organized, collective, armed violence can be undertaken by states (via their national armies) or by non-state groups; it can bring several states into opposition (interstate war) or occur within a single state (civil war). The former, progressively codified within a legal framework, have become rare, while the latter, today primarily caused by state institutional failure, are tending to become more international in scope, to last over time (sometimes decades) and to be extremely devastating, especially for civilian populations.
- individuals > Individual
- The individual, as a basic social actor, is playing an increasingly important role in the processes of globalization for multiple reasons, including the ever-faster circulation of ideas, values and information; the ability to build networks for sharing and solidarity without physical proximity; the networking of international expertise; and human rights movements and demands for democracy.
- neonationalism > Nationalism
- Attitude or political doctrine in which a social group asserts the primacy of national interests and the right of forming a sovereign nation. Nationalism can take the form of a struggle for independence and for “the right of peoples to self-determination” which can be irredentist (annexation of territories sharing the same culture and/or language), separatist (constitution of a new state on the margin of an existing one) or anti-imperialist (struggle against a colonizing power). It can also become hegemonic when based on an ambition to extend the influence and interests of a nation and its state(s) beyond existing borders (reunification, quest for security and/or power, xenophobia, etc.). Nationalist movements are diverse in nature: they can be identified across the political spectrum, evolving in accordance with specific historical contexts. When tinged with populism, nationalism produces a “national populism” combining the primacy of the national interest with a call for people to contest existing elites.
- migration > Migration
- Movement of people leaving their country of origin permanently (emigration) to relocate to another country (immigration), which might be voluntary or forced (war, poverty, unemployment, human rights violations, climate factors, etc.), and which often involves temporary stays of varying duration in several transit countries. Migratory flows, which are an integral component of humanity’s history, give rise to a range of public policy measures linked to specific political, economic and cultural contexts and understandings of nationality. Host states seek to organize immigration, sometimes to attract it (need for labor, exploitation of specific territories, naturalizations, etc.), and most often to restrict it (border controls, quotas, residence permits, etc.). In most cases the states of origin seek to maintain relations with their nationals and diaspora communities living abroad.