Archive for the 'Non classé' Category

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

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)

23 septLaura Dickinson (GWU), « Challenges to Domestic and International Legal Frameworks: Drones, Contractors, and Automated Weapons », Mardi 13 Octobre, 2015

Laura Dickinson (George Washington University)

This paper grapples with the impact of new military technologies on two bodies of law governing the use of force overseas (1) the domestic constitutional and statutory allocation of power between the President and Congress in U.S. law; (2) international humanitarian law. Unmanned aerial systems, often referred to as drones, as well as other increasingly automated weapons systems, are so radically reshaping the nature of war that they are distorting and changing time-worn legal calculations about the decision to use force abroad, as well as the way force is used once that decision is made. Moreover, the growing use of contractors, who invent, maintain, and in many cases operate these technologies, enhances this effect. By minimizing U.S. casualties and augmenting more conventional air campaigns, drones and contractors together reduce the political costs of engagement, making it easier for states to contemplate using force abroad. Perhaps even more significantly, in the United States these new methods and means of warfare enable legal arguments that change the balance of power between Congress and the President enshrined in domestic law – tilting it toward the President. At the same time, deploying these new technologies fragments authority and diffuses decision-making, which now often involves multiple actors who are removed from the actual battle. As a result, responsibility for the calculations governed by international humanitarian law is harder to pinpoint. Thus, even putting aside the vigorous debate about the scope and content of humanitarian law as it applies to the U.S. terrorist targeting program and the campaign against terrorism more broadly, we can see that the increasingly automated means of conducting that campaign, combined with the prominent role for contractors, diminishes the restraining power of international humanitarian law. To illustrate these points, the paper will focus on three examples in which the U.S. President did not receive explicit Congressional authorization for the use of force: the Kosovo intervention in 1999, the intervention in Libya in 2011, and the current campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Discussant: Roger-Philippe Garner (Univ. of Toronto)

Ecole Doctorale, 199 boulevard Saint Germain
3ème étage


16 mar« Pratiques discursives de (non)intervention: une archéologie (1648–1815) », Christelle Rigual (Graduate Institute Genève), Jeudi 26 Mars 2015, 17.00

Christelle Rigual (The Graduate Institute Geneva)

Pratiques discursives de (non)intervention: une archéologie (1648–1815)

Few studies are dedicated to the concept of non-intervention, which is frequently equated with states’ sovereignty-deduced right to independence. The paper consequently questions how, historically and discursively, the notion of nonintervention emerged and evolved. The research, investigating ‘How has the conceptual system of (non)intervention been articulated and (de)constructed in international discursive practices between 1648 and 1815?’ will be conducted as a Foucauldian archaeology. This theoretical framework suggests looking at the relations, continuities and discontinuities around discursive formations; here the one of ‘non-intervention’ defined as the ‘external (non)interference in the internal affairs of a political entity’. Assumptions guiding the research suggest that 1) concepts of nonintervention and sovereignty did not emerge in a neat package during the Peace of Westphalia; 2) these concepts might have been disconnected and have evolved differently though time. Empirically, the paper qualitatively investigates several bodies of discourses (international treaties, lawyers, politicians and historians) around
key historical junctures from the Peace of Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna, to uncover discursive practices having governed understandings of (non)intervention through time. This contribution fills the gap in our knowledge on the concept of nonintervention, contributing to the literature of International Relations and shedding a renewed light on key contemporary events.

Discutante : Amélie Ferey (Sciences Po)

Lieu : 199 boulevard Saint Germain, école doctorale, 3ème étage

18 sept« Le temps des humiliés », Bertrand Badie (Sciences Po), mardi 7 Octobre, 17.00-19.00


Bertrand Badie (Sciences Po, CERI), Le temps des humiliés.

Bertrand Badie viendra présenter son dernier ouvrage, Le temps des humiliés – Pathologie des relations internationales (Odile Jacob, 2014). Convoquant l’histoire et la sociologie politique, Bertrand Badie remonte aux sources de l’humiliation : la montée des revanchismes dans l’entre-deux-guerres, une décolonisation mal maîtrisée. Il montre que sa banalisation consacre l’émergence dramatique des opinions publiques et des sociétés sur la scène internationale, mais qu’elle trahit aussi l’inadaptation des vieilles puissances et de leurs diplomaties à un monde de plus en plus globalisé. Dès lors, il devient urgent de reconstruire un ordre international dans lequel les humiliés et leurs sociétés trouveront toute leur place.

Discutant : Ariel Colonomos (CNRS-CERI)

Lieu : CERI, 56, rue Jacob, Salle Jean Monnet

22 mai« Shared National Responsibility for Climate Change: From Guilt to Taxes », Christopher Kutz (Berkeley), Jeudi 12 Juin, 13 heures

Christopher Kutz (Berkeley)

This paper, prepared for a colloquium on problems of state responsibility, takes up the issue of state responsibility for the costs of mitigating and adapting to global climate change. It argues that any theory of state responsibility must be integrable into individual conceptions of moral responsibility among the subjects of the states bearing the burdens of these costs. I take up the particular question whether permissions trading systems or carbon tax systems are more likely to be integrable into senses of responsibility, and argue for the superiority of the carbon tax on this (among other) grounds.

Discutante: Margaux Le Donné (Sciences Po)

Jeudi 12 Juin, 13h00-15h00
Lieu: Sciences Po, 199, blvrd St Germain, école doctorale, 3ème étage, salle de réunion
Séance organisée avec le séminaire de théorie politique de l’école doctorale

13 avr« Perception and Misperception 40 years later: Reputation in IR », Robert Jervis (Columbia University), Lundi 28 Avril 2014

Perception and Misperception 40 years later: Reputation in IR

Robert Jervis (Columbia University)

In the almost 40 years since Perception and Misperception, was published, there has been an enormous amount of relevant research in psychology and political psychology. While I think little of it contradicts what I said, it does move in directions that I didn’t explore or that I implied were dead ends. The most important, I believe, concerns the role–or rather the roles–of emotion. First of all, it is clear that the previous habit of contrasting emotion to reason (and exalting the latter) is badly misleading. It is also clear that perceptions can be driven by psychological needs, and what are called « motivated biases » can be very powerful. Indeed I think it is fair to say that psychological and political needs share pride of place with expectations as the prime determinants of perceptions in the political realm (see my « Understanding Beliefs » in the journal Political Psychology).

Another important development is Prospect Theory, which argues that people are much more risk-acceptant when they are in the realm of losses than they are when they are in the realm of gains, something that may be a part of human nature, as I argued in another Political Psychology article. This means that wars are particularly likely when both sides believe they are in the realm of losses, a danger compounded by the difficulty of understanding that the adversary feels it is in this situation.

Work on the biological roots of perception and behavior in the forms of genetics and the neurobiology of the brain hold promise, but also are in the early stages of development and some skepticism is in order.

For many years, much work in IR and other fields was based on a rational choice theory of reputation. Indeed, this was the approach I used in my first book, The Logic of Images in International Relations. The books by John Mercer and Daryl Press have cast this into doubt, although Gregory Miller’s recent book reasserts the older view with better research. The topic is without doubt extremely important and deserves deeper conceptualization and research. But I think it is clear that there is much to the point made by Snyder and Diesing 40 years ago–leaders are very concerned about their own reputations but pay much less attention to those of others. Contrary to the American preoccupation (shared with other countries?), backing down in one instance does not automatically lead to a reputation for being weak or irresolute.

Discussant: Gloria Origgi (CNRS, ENS-EHESS)

Lundi 28 Avril 17.00-19.00
Lieu: Sciences Po, salle 511, 199 blvd St. Germain (rez-de-chaussée)

06 avr » Éthique, défense, sécurité et agents artificiels autonomes », Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (Paris 6), Jeudi 24 Avril 2014

Éthique, défense, sécurité et agents artificiels autonomes

Jean-Gabriel Ganascia (Paris 6, Pierre et Marie Curie)

Les agents artificiels autonomes prennent une part de plus en plus grande dans la vie quotidienne, que ce soit dans le monde physique, avec la robotique manufacturière, la robotique de service ou les drones, ou dans le monde virtuel, avec les « bots », les « malwares » (maliciels en français), etc. S’ils procurent puissance et confort, ces agents sont aussi source de nouvelles vulnérabilités. Il n’y a donc rien d’étonnant à ce qu’ils acquièrent de plus en plus d’importance dans le monde de la défense et de la sécurité. Après avoir rapidement passé en revue les applications militaires et policières actuelles de ces agents, nous verrons en quoi on peut évoquer des questions d’ordre éthique à propos de leur comportement. Nous montrerons ensuite comment approcher la programmation de ces agents en s’inspirant des cadres conceptuels posés par certaines approches philosophiques de l’éthique. Ce faisant, il se trouve que la notion de conflit, centrale pour l’éthique, provoque des incohérences logiques que doivent surmonter les programmes d’intelligence artificiel qui supervisent ces agents. Cela conduit à l’introduction de formalismes de représentation non monotones que l’on évoquera. Nous montrerons ensuite, comment ces modélisations ont pu être mises à profit par des roboticiens comme Ron Arkins pour légitimer la réalisation de « robots soldats » qui se substitueraient aux hommes dans les théâtres d’opérations. Nous conclurons en indiquant les limitations intrinsèques de ces approches et en proposant d’autres perspectives qui précisent la part des agents artificiels dans la prise de décision.

Discutantes : Amélie Ferey, Marine Guillaume

Jeudi 24 Avril, 17.00-19.00

Salle du Conseil, Sciences Po, 13, rue de l’Université – 5ème étage

05 mar« Droit international et théorie politique internationale », Jean-Marc Coicaud (Rutgers University), Mercredi 19 Mars 2014

Jean-Marc Coicaud, Droit international et théorie politique internationale : comprendre le present, revisiter le passé et offrir une vision pour le futur

Cette présentation s’inscrit dans le cadre d’un livre en cours que Jean-Marc Coicaud développe actuellement sur le thème de la justice globale pour Cambridge University Press. Elle se concentrera sur les relations entre le droit international et la justice internationale et la justice globale. De ce point de vue, l’accent sera mis sur trois questions: les défis que le droit international rencontre aujourd’hui dans le contexte de la globalisation; une vision alternative de l’histoire du droit international; une critique philosophique du droit international; et quelques pistes de recherche pour le passage du droit international inter-étatique a un droit international plus cosmopolite.

Mercredi 19 Mars 17.00-19.00
SALLE DU CONSEIL, 13, rue de l’Université, 5ème étage

Discutant : Andrei Poama (Sciences Po)

02 juin« The War to End War », Oona Hathaway (Yale), Mardi 25 Juin 2013

Oona Hathaway (Yale), The War to End War

Attached are portions of a book manuscript that I am writing with my colleague, Professor Scott Shapiro. I have provided you with the introduction, which attempts to set the stage and preview the argument of the book, and the fourth chapter. Those who are pressed for time should focus on the introduction alone.
The first three chapters of the book (which are not included here) describe what we call the Old World Order—a system that relied on war as the linchpin of law. The first chapter centers on Grotius and the legal order he established. The second chapter shows that war was a source of legal redress and legal rights. The legal rights to territory, people, and goods were decided by war—even one that was entirely unjust. The third chapter examines what followed from the legality of war and of conquest and how those rules in turn shaped the international legal system that persisted for hundreds of years.
The second part of the book—also comprised of three chapters, of which I have given you the first—tells the story of what we argue is a deep shift in the legal meaning of war. It describes the end of the Old World Order and the beginning of something fundamentally new. This shift, we argue, has consequences not just for states’ recourse to war, but for international law and the international system as a whole.
The third part of the book will examine our modern international legal system and the ways in which international law can and cannot shape state behavior. This part of the book will draw on our article on “outcasting” as a mechanism for enforcing international law (Hathaway & Shapiro, Outcasting: The Enforcement of Domestic and International Law, Yale Law Journal (2012)).

Discussant: Ariel Colonomos (CNRS, Sciences Po), Christopher Kutz (Berkeley Univ.)

Mardi 25 Juin, 17.00-19.00
Salle Jean Monnet, Ceri

24 novChristian Reus-Smit (European University Institute), « Struggles for Individual Rights: Global Change, Normative Implications », Lundi 12 Décembre (Lieu : Sciences Po, 13, rue de l’Université)

Christian Reus-Smit (EUI)

Struggles for individual rights played a key role in the globalization of the present system of sovereign states. From its original kernel in sixteenth century Europe, the system expanded through five great waves; the most significant were those associated with the Westphalian settlement, the independence of the Americas, and post-1945 decolonization. In each case , empires suffered crises of legitimacy as new ideas about rights were mobilized to challenge established regimes of entitlements. When empires proved incapable of accommodating the new rights claims, subject peoples embraced the sovereign state as the institutional alternative. This history challenges not only conventional understandings of the relation between individual rights and sovereignty, but also opens up new possibilities for the normative justification of human rights. This seminar sets out the historical and theoretical argument in greater detail, and sketches, in a very preliminary fashion, its implications for normative theory. Overall, it offers an example of how empirical and normative enquiry can be brought into productive dialogue.

Sciences Po, Salle du Conseil, 13, rue de l’Université, 17.00-19.00

Discussant: Richard Beardsworth (AUP)