[MUSIC] Power is a cornerstone of international relations. It's a very well-known and currently used concept, but however is not so clear and that's a problem. That we can probably explain why the international system, nowadays is not working well. It's because the concept of power is getting ambiguous. In the traditional visions, it seems to be simple, it seems to be obvious. That's to say, power is enforcing ones will to all the other actors by any means, including using violence and including using means, instruments, ways which are not legal in the domestic affairs. So powers seems to be the real sphere of international relations, this free fight among the gladiators as they were called by Thomas Ochs. Power in the expression of sovereignty, but it's also the expression of the pure rivalry among all the nation states which are supposed to be the only actors, the unique actors of the international relations. And so power in this traditional vision is pointing the capacity of acting, the capacity of impeding and the capacity of influencing which could be attributed to every nation state. That's to say, every unit in a free fight inside the international arena. It's really as it was pointed by so many writers and so many thinkers. It is a world of anarchy. And in a world of anarchy, every unit is able exist through its own power. In this vision, stability at the international level is only possible if we can reach a minimal level of balancing. That's to say, of balance of powers. What was true inside domestic at first is getting more obvious inside the international arena. That's to say, the only way for keeping peace is to reach a situation of balancing powers in which every power is containing the other. And so it's preventing the risk of a confrontation, a risk of a total and global war. Otherwise, we are in a situation of permanent war as it was purely described by Hobbs. No things really new from the leviathan of Thomas Hobbs. This was the vision taken by Clausewitz when we wrote his very famous book, On War, but it's also true about so many political actors and princes during the 19th century and this is for instance, the background all the famous bismarchin strategy. This is also the background of the realist theory at it is now well-known, but can we be satisfied by search of vision? In first approved, all these points seem to be really obvious, seems to be absolutely true. That if we revise this vision and if we take into account the global transformations of the world, this is not so evident that it appears. First problem, power is a concept made for defining an individual capacity. Does it fit to collective actors like state? What does it mean when people say, the power of state? But my question would be the power of whom? Is it the power of the president? Is it the power of the government? Is it the power of the administration? Is it the power of the State Department in US or the Pentagon, or the CIA? Or the power of the society of the economic actors who are playing an important role inside the domestic authors of this actor? Why do we mean when we say, the french power? Who is all the French power, the French president? His prime minister? His government? His administration, the Parliament, the parties, the political system or the mass media, the main French firms and corporations, the French civil society? That is there an ability to which realist really didn't pay attention. However, if we want to have a clear vision of how the international arena is working, we have to pay attention to the real identity of every unit other and the power is then changing. That's to say, it's no more this collective capacity, but a fragmented capacity. And from this fragmentation, we can sometimes observe that there are oppositions contrast and sometimes conflicts. That is a first problem, which has not been really solved by the political analysis. A second problem about the concept of power is that it is a subjective one. Not only an objective, which is describing the capacity of an actor. It's also subjective. That's to say, I have power if the others recognize me as holding power. My power is depending on my reputation, on my own reputation. My is depending on the perception that the others have and this is probably very ambiguous, and it leads to another question which is too important in our discipline. Was it a question of the status of a restate? That's to say, the state as a status, the status of power which is deliberated, which is decided by all the other actors if you pretend to have a power. But if you are not credible, if all the other consider that you don't have the power you pretend, you will not be able to act efficiently a0nd your power will be only a mystification. This subjective dimension of power is also pointing out and all the problem, which is the problem of the willingness of every state to use the resources of power. That it has at his disposal as state can have strong resources, strong power resources. But however, it doesn't want to use and to mobilize them. Don't want to pay the cost of using these resources. And so, this power will be only an apparent power not a real power. Other problem, what is power? How to measure power? Is it depending on resources you have at your disposal? Or is it depending on your capacity? What is the real expression of power to hoard resources or to have the capacity to solve a problem? It's quite clear that by now, US has very, very strong power resources, but is US really able to use this resources with success? That's to say, is US really capable? Has US, the capacity of solving the problem it's facing? That is an another very difficult dimension. If you consider power as a capacity, your results will be different that if you consider power as resources. You can hold resources and not have the capacity to solve the problem or you can solve a problem, but holding very few resources is another ambiguity. Now the problem of balance of power which is so important which is at the core of the international relation studies, is this concept clear? I don't think so. What does it mean, for instance, nowadays? During Cold War, balance of power was meaningful. That's to say, the balance between the US and the USSR power. That was clear or rather clear, but now what does it mean? What does mean balance of power between US and Al-Qaeda? What does mean this balance of power among actors who are so different and who hold very different kinds of resource? Last problem, but not the least, the evolution of power. Is power nowadays meaning the same thing than previously? Now when civil societies, social actors, non-state actors are more and more present inside the international arena, is power so clear? The second problem is related to culture. Previously, we were in a world which was was monocultural, but now we are in a world in which there is a competition among different cultures and these different culture don't have the same meaning. Don't give the same meaning to the concept of power. So, what to do when there are different visions of power coming from different competing cultures? And so the problem would be to say, what does power mean in the Chinese culture, in the Western culture, in the Muslim culture and so on? And how can we conceive a global arena in which these differentiations of cultures are competing? Now, the last problem is a prime of resource. That's to say, how can we define power in a world in which there are so many different and more and more differentiated resources of power? How can we conceive a hierarchy of powers in a world which is characterized by an increasing differentiations of resources, of power? [MUSIC]
