22 févQuentin Skinner (Queen Mary University of London), Civil liberty and human rights: a neo-Roman approach, Jeudi 5 mars 2020, 17.15-19.15


Quentin Skinner (Queen Mary University London)

This lecture focuses on a view about civil liberty that used to be widely accepted in European legal and political thinking but became largely lost to sight after the rise to hegemony of the view that freedom can be defined simply as an absence of interference with choices and actions. The lecture begins by outlining the earlier and alternative view that liberty is best conceived as the condition of not being subject to the power of others. This view is traced to Roman and common law traditions of thinking about the law of persons and related discussions about ‘fundamental’ rights. The lecture ends by considering how the re-appropriation and development of this earlier way of thinking might help us to think more fruitfully about some current threats to privacy and liberty.

Discussant : Yoel Mitrani (Sciences Po)


Sciences Po
Salle du conseil
13, rue de l’université
Paris 7

31 octBertrand Badie (Sciences Po), Simon Reich (Rutgers University, CERI), L’ hégémonie contestée – Good Bye Hegemony!, lundi 16 Décembre 2019


Au cours de cette séance, Bertrand Badie et Simon Reich qui ont tous deux traité de la fin du modèle de l’hégémonie, viendront présenter leurs travaux, L’Hégémonie contestée (Odile Jacob, 2019) et Bye Bye Hegemony (avec Ned Lebow, Good Bye Hegemony!, Princeton UP, 2014).

Salle Jean Monnet
56, rue Jacob
Paris 6

Inscription sur le site du CERI:


11 septAyelet Shachar (Max Plank, Univ. of Toronto), Dangerous Liaisons: Money and Citizenship – Jeudi 3 Octobre 17.00-19.00 2019

“There are some things that money can’t buy.” Is citizenship among them? This talk will explore this question by highlighting the core legal and ethical puzzles associated with the surge in cash-for-passport programs. The spread of these new programs is one of the most significant developments in citizenship practice in the past few decades. It tests our deepest intuitions about the meaning and attributes of the relationship between the individual and the political community to which she belongs. Shachar will identify the main strategies employed by a growing number of states putting their visas and passports for sale, selectively opening their otherwise bolted gates of admission to the super rich, while making admission harder for most other categories of migrants. Moving from the positive to the normative, the discussion will draw attention to several lines of critique of these new programs, highlighting their distortive democratic and distributional impacts in a world in which governments and intermediaries are testing, blurring and eroding the state-market boundary regulating access to membership.

Ayelet Shachar

Director, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity &
Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Toronto

Discussant: Hélène Thiollet (CNRS-CERI, Sciences Po)

Lieu : Salle Goguel, 56, rue des Saints Pères (4 étage) – entrée 27, rue Saint Guillaume

29 janJacques Lévy (EFPL – Univ. Reims) – Passer par l’espace pour (re)penser la justice – Jeudi 7 Février 2019

« France périphérique », « centres-villes en déshérence », « déserts médicaux »… Ces expressions font florès, témoignant d’un fait nouveau : la géographie s’est invitée dans le débat public et renouvelle le questionnement, central en démocratie, sur la justice.

À partir d’enquêtes faites auprès de citoyens européens, le travail de Jacques Lévy explore les enjeux de justice tels qu’ils se posent spatialement : doit-on répartir les services publics (éducation, santé…) en fonction du nombre d’individus ou de kilomètres carrés ? Que signifie concrètement l’égalité des territoires ? Comment découper les villes et les régions pour qu’elles apportent davantage de justice ?

Jacques Lévy ouvre aussi un nouveau champ, celui de la géographie de la justice, tant locale, nationale que globale. En répondant à la question « Qu’est-ce qu’un espace juste ? », il revisite les conceptions de la justice en débat dans le monde, d’Aristote à John Rawls et Amartya Sen.

Jacques Lévy (EPFL – Univ. Reims)
Discutante Camille Collin (Sciences Po – Cevipof)
Jacques Lévy est l’auteur avec Jean-Nicolas Fauchille et Ana Povoas de Théorie de la justice spatiale – Géographies du juste et de l’injuste (Odile Jacob, 2018)

Lieu : salle du conseil
13, rue de l’université
5ème étage

17.30 – 19.00

06 septMaja Spanu (Cambridge), Hierarchies After Empire: Self-determination and the Constitution of Inequality, Thursday October 18th 2018

Whereas International Relations scholars and international lawyers have conceived self-determination serving to constitute an egalitarian post-imperial international system via the principle of sovereign equality, I argue that self-determination is in fact bound up with hierarchy. My paper reveals the existence of a tension between the egalitarian aspiration of self-determination and practices attached to its realisation that create stratifications between older and newer states as well as within the latter. The tension plays out around what I see are the three historical components relating to self-determination practices: people, rights and responsibilities. While these components have been recurrent, the principles of stratification attached to them have changed over time. These are specific standards of membership in the international system of states as well as post-imperial politics of state-formation undertaken domestically. I substantiate these points by examining the three twentieth century waves of state formation after empire: after World War I, during the post-World War II decolonisation, and with the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Greater attention to the ambivalent history of self-determination coheres with recent interest in the study of hierarchy in world politics whilst speaking to literatures on the making of the international system and on state-formation.

Maja Spanu (Cambridge)
CERI, salle Jean Monnet, 17.00-19.00
Discussant: Ayrton Aubry (CERI-Sciences Po)

01 juinKarl Widerquist, « Third Wave of the Basic Income Movement », Mercredi 13 juin 2018

The Basic Income movement is growing incredibly. Since 2011 or 2012, more and more people around the world have been talking about the idea. To some people, it might seem to have come out of nowhere. Most people are aware that the idea has been around in one form or another for centuries, but few people might be aware that this is the third wave of the Basic Income movement. The current of period rapid growth in interest in basic income was preceded by two similar periods of rapid growth. The first happened in the early twentieth century. The second happened in the 1960s and 1970s. Looking at the third wave in historical perspective can open up valuable insights about the current movement and about how to capitalize on it. This paper discusses the basic income movement from that perspective.

Discutant: Jean-Fabien Spitz (Université Paris I)


Lieu : Sciences Po
199 Bd Saint-Germain
3 ème étage

22 janJean-Michel Chaumont, « Survivre à tout prix », Jeudi 15 Février 2018

Jean-Michel Chaumont (Université Catholique de Louvain)

Survivre à tout prix

Trois exemples extrêmes de la malignité humaine : être torturé, être déporté en camps de concentration, être violée. Durant des siècles et des siècles, une réaction sociale identique afflige les survivants de telles expériences : celle que nous dénonçons depuis quelques décennies comme un insupportable « blâme à la victime ». Que se cache-t-il derrière ce blâme ? La suspicion d’avoir trahi, soit la faute par excellence de la morale de l’honneur. Telle est du moins l’hypothèse suggérée par les écrits non seulement de nombreux auteurs classiques (de Tite-Live à Montesquieu en passant par Vercors) mais également de nombreux acteurs directement concernés à la fois par les épreuves extrêmes et les tribunaux d’honneur qui les suivirent.

Discutant : Etienne Dignat (CERI -IRSEM)

Lieu : Salle du conseil, 5è étage, 13, rue de l’Université Paris 7è

28 octBenoît Pelopidas (SciencesPo, CERI) « Taking luck seriously in a nuclear-armed world », Thursday December 7th 2017

This book is an intervention at three levels, which is laid out in its first part. Conceptually, it shows that one can define luck as a distinct and researchable concept. Empirically, the book uses untapped primary sources to document two cases in which nuclear explosions have been avoided out of luck and not due to control practices. Epistemologically, it identifies five expert practices that make luck invisible or a priori inconsequential to analysts and scholars alike.
Given that policymakers have paid tribute to luck in the non-catastrophic outcome of nuclear crises for a long time (Acheson as early as 1969, McNamara 2003, Leonov 2002…) and that the consensus on the Cuban Missile Crisis over the last 25 years has established the role of luck without it leading to major chances in expert claims of control and control practices, the second part of the book investigates what the implications of taking luck seriously would be on four key dimensions of responsibility in international politics: the nexus between security and sustainability; morality and the issue of moral luck; recognition as taking luck seriously changes the possibility and meaning of trust, and democratic accountability. The book will conclude by reflecting on redefining responsibility in light of those four dimensions.

Sciences Po
199, Bd Saint Germain
3ème étage


Discussant: Benjamin Puybareau (CERI-Namur)

28 octRichard Beardsworth (Aberystwyth University) « The Political Moment: Political Responsibility and Leadership Today », Thursday November 23th 2017

This paper is an exercise in problem-driven theory of a critical (rather than empiricist) kind. My first contention is that there are three major problems driving contemporary politics: 1) the disjuncture between threats that affect humanity as a whole and an everyday politics of efficacy and legitimacy (a disjuncture that is leading some to consider threats like climate change now ‘un-governable’); 2) the short-termism of contemporary forms of political responsibility and political leadership despite these threats or in direct disavowal of them (populist nationalism); 3) the challenge, therefore, of addressing ‘trans-border’ problems from within a structurally tenuous but politically resilient system of states. My second contention is that addressing each of these problems requires the active exercise of political leadership and new forms of enlightened statecraft and that, without this leadership, politics will remain polarized and endangered as a form of the common good. The paper contends thirdly that such leadership requires squaring practically and embodying symbolically national and global/human interests. In conclusion I discuss whether this focus on political responsibility and leadership (as ‘the political moment’) reinforces the status quo or critically helps to transform it.

Sciences Po
199, Bd Saint Germain
3ème étage


Discussant: Annabelle Lever (Sciences Po)

29 novSamuel Moyn (Harvard), « The Political Origins of Global Justice », Monday December 7th 2016

Samuel Moyn (Harvard)

The Political Origins of Global Justice

This paper attempts to recover the intellectual origins of contemporary ‘global justice,’ especially its cosmopolitan variant that holds that egalitarian distributive justice should apply at the worldwide level. The central claim of the paper is that the founder of global justice, Charles Beitz, was first inspired by then critical of a forgotten 1970s movement known as the ‘New International Economic Order,” rather than extrapolating from any prior chapter of Western thought. Some conclusions are drawn both about the loss of a theory of agency in contemporary normative thought, and how this episode might help think further about the larger transition in global political economy from national welfarism to global market fundamentalism since World War II.

Sciences Po
199, Bd Saint Germain
Salle 502


Discussant: Tom Theuns (Sciences Po, ULB)