Archive for the 'Non classé' Category

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:égémonie+en+question?event=1781

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

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 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)

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

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 2014

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