French-Speaking Sovereignties

Un monde sans souverainet: Les tats entre ruse et responsabilit by Bertrand Badie;
Mondialisation, souverainet et thories des relations internationales by Pierre de Sernaclens
Review by: Ariel Colonomos
International Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 115-117
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186309 .
Accessed: 18/04/2012 07:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to International Studies Review.
http://www.jstor.org
French-Speaking Sovereignties
Un monde sans souveraineti: Les
itats
entre ruse et
responsabiliti,
Bertrand
Badie
(Paris: Fayard, 1999).
306
pp.,
135FF.
Mondialisation,
souveraineti et
theories
des relations
internationales,
Pierre
de Sernaclens
(Paris:
Armand
Collin, 1998).
218
pp.,
160FF.
T hese
recent books in French-Badie is French and Sernaclens is Swiss-
testify
to the
importance
of
sovereignty
as an issue within international
relations studies in
Europe. Adopting
a
postrealist perspective,
both books
strongly emphasize redefining sovereignty
after the Cold War.
Sernaclens
points
out that
sovereignty
is limited
today (chap.
2, "L'&re
des
souverainet6s
lim-
itees"),
while Badie shows that
sovereignty
has been constructed as a
political
fiction since the
development
of the modem state
during
the Renaissance
(chap.
1,
"Une invention
complexe,"
and
chap.
2,
"Des
usages ambigus").
In an
approach largely
drawn from historical
sociology
since his first
pub-
lications on the
development
of the
state,
Badie seeks to
analyze
the historical
construction of state
authority
and the
meaning
of this construction for
power
relations
today. Sovereignty
as a norm or
principle
has had a
major
function
within the international
system.
Sernaclens still sees it as a useful
guideline
that
orients relations between states
(pp. 68-69).
Badie's
perspective
is
definitely
more
critical,
pointing
out the
dysfunction
of
sovereignty
after the Cold War and the redefinition of the
power
and the
capacity
of the state
(chap.
4,
"Les
souverainet6s d6chues").
In this
book,
as in
his other
works,
Badie underlines the ambivalence of state
power.
On the one
hand,
the
signs
of the erosion of
sovereignty
are
obvious;
on the
other,
there are
contexts conducive to a redefinition of state
power
and the rebirth of sover-
eignty practices.
T he United States when confronted with treaties that could
limit its
power,
China's
strategy
on the international
scene,
or that of "deviant
states" such as
Iraq
or Burma are true
examples
of these
contemporary
forms of
resistance
against
the
predicted
death of
sovereignty.
When he looks at the
changes
induced
by globalization,
Badie is critical,
yet
his criticism is
mitigated by
his
analysis
of new forms of
regulations
fol-
lowing
the
steps
of his
previous book, La Fin des T erritoires. States and non-
O 2001 International Studies Association
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 MainStreet, Malden,
MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF,
UK.
116 Ariel Colonomos
state actors interact
along
the domestic
foreign
frontier,
and Badie refers
implicitly
to James Rosenau's theories. In this
perspective,
new interactions between var-
ious
heterogeneous
actors
(chap.
5,
"Les communautes de
responsabilit6")
pave
the
way
for the
emergence
of a new norm and
responsibility, orienting
new
forms of intervention.
T hese debates have decisive theoretical
implications.
Sernaclens
points
to the
limits of realism and liberalism and underlines the
challenge
that the redefinition
of
sovereignty represents
for traditional
IR
studies. Yet Badie is keen to encour-
age
the birth of a new
sociological inquiry
that would
explicitly
focus on the
dy-
namics at stake in the definition of
post-Westphalian
issues. T he
emergence
of what
Badie calls "communities of
responsibility"
necessitates a
comprehensive
soci-
ological analysis
that would enable us to
fully grasp
these micro- and
macrophe-
nomena.
Along
with other French authors such as Didier
Bigo,
Badie calls for a
political sociology
of international relations that would
provide
instruments de-
signed
to
comprehend
the
global changes
of the
twenty-first century.
T he issue of
responsibility
is linked to a series of international
concepts
and
practices mostly
referred to in the
Anglo-Saxon
world as
"accountability."
Badie
implicitly
refers to new social contexts where
institutions, states,
or inter-
national
organizations
such as the United Nations are held accountable for their
present
or
past political
action.
Unfortunately,
international
theory
has
yet
to
address these new issues and shows little
sign
of
adapting
to modern times.
Consequently,
IR
scholars are
having
difficulties
explaining
the
specificity
of
these new modes of
bargaining among
states and nonstate actors. A sociohis-
torical
analysis
of
accountability
as a
global
norm would
help
to better under-
stand the redefinition of
sovereignty.
In this
process, entrepreneurial
norms such
as international
lawyers,
activists,
and social movements
play
a decisive role.
Sernaclens,
who has
previously
directed the human
rights
office at the UN
Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural
Organization,
is
highly
critical of notions
like
"global
civil
society."
In these
supposedly
new forms of
cosmopolitanism,
he sees
nothing
more than Western bureaucratic influence
(governance)
and
some market-oriented social forces
(business
firms in search of
legitimacy)
(chap.
7,
"La mondialisation entre ordre et
anarchie,
une
conception
utilitaire,"
p.
200-202).
For this
author,
"global
civil
society"
and "international
public
opinion" belong
to the
practice
and discourse of
intergovernmental organiza-
tions and are also
increasingly popular among nongovernmental organizations
that share the same enthusiasm for these
concepts, specifically designed
to
legitimize
their action.
Contemporary
literature
focusing
on
sovereignty
tends to deconstruct the
realist
perspective
and
points
out new
phenomena arising
from
globalization,
such as the diffusion of moral issues. Badie's work
strongly
criticizes the realist
approach
and favors a
sociological interpretation
of
global
issues
affecting
the
transformation of state
power.
T hus the first
chapter
of his book on the socio-
logical history
of
sovereignty
is
inspired by
constructivism. Yet Badie intro-
Reviews 117
duces a new
perspective
when he
interprets
the
contemporary practices
of
sovereignty
and the
emergence
of
responsibility
as an international
guideline
for the behavior of state and nonstate actors. When
analyzing responsibility,
Badie shows less enthusiasm for constructivism where a
cosmopolitan
view of
political theory
takes over from the critical constructivist
approach.
In the second half of his book
(from chap. 5),
Badie builds on the
insights
of
Jtirgen
Habermas,
who sees the diffusion of
cosmopolitan
ideas as a redefini-
tion of state
power
and the consolidation of human
rights
law. Habermas
sug-
gests
that we are
moving
toward "a
cosmopolitan
law of a
global
civil
society"
(kosmopolitischen
Recht einer
Weltbiirgergesellschaft).
If his
analysis
is cor-
rect,
the media would
play
a decisive role in the definition of this "transnational
public
civil
sphere."
Responsibility
lies at the heart of this
phenomenon, testifying
to the
expan-
sion of
"publicity"
on a
global
scale. From a
sociological point
of
view,
when
IR
scholars are confronted with such issues as
military
intervention and eco-
nomic or
political sanctions-say,
in the case of Austria-a
thorough
assess-
ment of the media's role would
help
to understand the
emergence
of
responsibility.
Despite
its diffuse
character,
responsibility
is an
emerging
norm shared
by
states
and
nongovermental
actors;
yet,
within a Habermasian
framework,
the redefi-
nition of human
rights
laws is an
open
and
challenging
field of
study.
Badie's
sociohistorical,
constructivist and
cosmopolitan
dualism is most
stimulating
when the definition of new
paradigms
is at stake. Postrealism remains
an
open
field for
interdisciplinary analysis,
and this tension between
critique
and
hope
is the true
symptom
of such an
epistemological quest.
T he
study
of
the circulation of norms and
especially
the values that validate the idea of
responsibility
will enable us to better understand the role of individuals in
reinventing
normative worldviews. A decisive
question
arises: Would
respon-
sibility,
a
subjective posture,
take over
sovereignty,
a
subjective standpoint
made
objective by power
and law? In such
circumstances, IR
studies
or,
more
pre-
cisely,
IR scholars,
would be confronted with the
experience
of their own sub-
jectivity:
"le
retour
du
sujet"
as a
poststructural challenge?
REFERENCES
Bertrand
Badie,
L'Etat
importd
(Paris:
Fayard, 1992).
---,
La Fin des territoires
(Paris: Fayard, 1995).
Saskia
Sassen,
Losing
Control:
Sovereignty
in an
Age of
Globalization
(New
York: Columbia
University
Press, 1996).
Jtirgen
Habermas,
Apres
l'stat-nation
(Paris: Fayard, 2000).
-Ariel Colonomos
Centre
d'Etudes
et de Recherches
Internationales,
Paris