G8 strategy

March 25, 1973. US Secretary of the Treasury, George Shultz, invites to Washington, in the library of the White House, the Ministers French, British and German finance for an informal discussion on the issues money international. The following year, their Japanese counterpart joined the "group of the library", and appears on this occasion in the newspapers the expression "group of five", or G5. These meetings, informal and small size, are very probably boss at the meeting convened in November 1975, at the château de Rambouillet, the French President and Chancellor of the Federal Germany. The other leaders of the G5 countries and that of the Italy will "discuss the Affairs of the world" in a[1] casual." The G7, then called also "global economic summit", was born, although the Canada will there be admitted until the following year. In 1978, the club invites the European Union as an observer. The Russia guest since 1991, Member full for political discussions in 1994, completely joins the club in 1998, G7 becoming G8. Substance, form, functions, means, end French President confessed, in 2003, that "the G8 is a club, it is not an authority or institution." [2] " Illegitimate but effective, all reduced by being open, private but listened, ignorant but programmatic, supranational but infra-policy, transverse but selective, there is its limits apparent as undeniable forces. This ambivalence of the form and substance is added to its functions and its versatility. Internally, Exchange system more that decision, the G8 meets the diplomatic service for the establishment of friendly relations and consensus between the representatives of the major industrial powers. External, conductor and composer, he ordered and désordonne international public institutional reinforcement while weaving a parallel private instances frame, allocates and coordinates the tasks between the actors in the markets by standards laws and of a nameplate speech widely relayed by the media rather than inter-State negotiations - this normatisation and this standardization is for the purposes of a freedom and a centrality increased the market[3]. These are its revolutionary nature and its experimental value: without Secretariat or headquarters, without Covenant or original Treaty, without statutes or Charter, without even goals explicit nor memory official, it is a déterritorialisé, fluid, adaptive and flexible network rather than bureaucratic and difficult to reformed structure practical evolutionary partnerships more readily than binding alliances, mania standards and talkspromotes projects on programs and is based, in the image of the anti-Soviet camp, less on a formal doctrinal framework on a generative grammar drawing a grid of coercion to the moral, legal and practical times[4]. This geometry and this geography multidimensional him allow a fluid and adaptive governance, a careful whole, a discrete ubiquity and finally a unequivocal universality. The limit, this would be a set of multifaceted relations that a proper organization, plus a space that an entity, less an institution that the Coordinator the easting and northing of a space supranational pregnant. While the G7 was not the first informal deliberative forum created after the second world war. The G10, inaugurated in 1961 to handle the General agreements to borrow, was certainly the institutional mould in which is is cast the G7, or even the prodrome of new supranational order. He was succeeded by, as in a mirror set, the G77, which was intended to defend the economic interests of the movement of non-aligned countries. Until the middle of the 1970s, while country primarily clubs consumers flowered, mainly producing countries is organized also. From looking at these instances as rivals, the G8 them has always encouraged[5]. And for good reason: in the same way that the European Union is since its creation the major regional groupings, G8 became, at the end of the 20th century, the model of supranational informal proceedings, modulating his field of existence in its own image. Modelled on the organizational scheme of the market, the form is the rhizome. It is not to recreate this bureaucratic monster that is the United Nations. Instead of Governments, organizations, programs, meetings, it will be question of "mechanisms", "forums", "plans", "initiatives" and "partnerships"[6]. This kind of shadow government removed the different functions of regulating the interests and flows public institutions - that the members of the G8 dominate by far. The G8 has both changed the international field that the term seems inadequate to describe the space her hair of the globalized market players. I him prefer therefore supranational field. Indeed, the ownership of supranational space succeeds her "G8-ization", the component instance more substantive and the standard of a world of G where the dream of a totalizing institution gave the step with the reality of battles between groups of interest by private standards and interposed supranational bodies. Taking note of a reality of the world, but also of its "adaptability", ranging from immediately above international institutions, law and beyond States, investing and reshaping the anarchic supranational relations field, is focusing on the instances to the institutions, a moral universalist at a public international law attacked of all hand, invitations to certifications, statements to the conventions, treaties and resolutions, the G8 denies an important aspect of the institutional legacy which runs from the Treaty of Westphalia to the agreements of San Francisco. There is more here question of a concert of Nations committed to the peaceful coexistence of States and peoples, but well a désétatisé Orchestra led by a private market service organization. Because the central element, the end and the means justify this nature, these modes of operation and this new dynamic, it is the development of the market economy, the universal acceptance of the economy of the policy as end and the free market as a general regulatory principle, centrality instructing, schema, organization and direction of human activities, principle of understanding of the immediate and recent history, if not of human nature itselfas could be the State so far and the divine before him[7]. Deeply versatile, the G8 seems to invalidate analyses in terms negative and binary of prohibition, oppression of domination or hegemony and an institutional perspective that sees that power relations between blocks[8]. Before such a purpose, political science cannot confine itself to be an alchemy of domination, arithmetic of the powers, a geography of the States and a mechanics of institutions. It must allow a dynamic power relationships, reversible in their strategic uses, a physics of the in-between, gaps, flows between poles shifting and changing. Method From the 16th to the 20th century, the story of the West has been a progressive ownership of power relations and understanding. Reference point and authorising Supreme practices as much as political reflections, the State has captured, institutionalized, modulated in a little different fields and instruments of power and human life such as war and army, security and police, justice and law, the economy and markets, the territory and infrastructure, population and healthsocial links and the public sphere. It has become the measure of power at the national level also while extranational, and political science has largely remained, until today, a science of the State. A bit of universals such States, civil society, the law, domination, representation, power, authority, sovereignty, legitimacy, legality, the war, the balance of powers, but also more recently management, interest, costs of transaction, the field, the game or even information - and historical events - the battle of Marignan in the first world war, of the Treaty of Westphalia to the Kyoto Protocol-, the thinking of international relations was in large part to explain the latter by the first or vice versa, or even the first by the first and vice versa. Practitioners of international politics have never thought otherwise. According to this approach, the study of the G8 would be to pass it through a sieve of political concepts traditional and modern to assess the legitimacy, power, performance or balance while wondering, from often conflicting indicators, on hegemony rising or declining of the States that make up, on compromises and horse-trading that allowed such decision or such implementation and decisions and updates in works that have led to this situation. The approach adopted here is another. Because what is happening mostly in the second half of the 20th century, it is that neither the State nor the domination work as the first principles of intelligibility of the policy. Addition, while seems to open a supranational field above States and outside their total control, actors and the mechanisms of regulation so far poorly identified by the radars of political science. What would refuse to assume power as a set of prohibitions, and recognize its creator aspect for the occasion. Setting the policy as domination, on the State as the modern paragon of this domination, act as a main instrument of domination of the State: this is what this work, with the help of its purpose, intends to dispose. The G8 and the supranational field "The world economy, diagnostic the Economic Declaration of 1995, has changed dramatically over the last fifty years. Under the action of technological change, globalization led to economic interdependence increased, both at the level of certain policies once considered purely internal to the interactions between policy areas. The main challenge is to manage this interdependence, while working in the direction of the markets, and to recognize the growing number of major stakeholders. This is particularly important for macroeconomic and financial stability world." [9] " This is a pair of paradoxes: States, claiming the end of the integrity and State sovereignty, put at the service of the markets, and at the same time that they are raised to the rank of central principle of functioning of the economy, of reference policy choices and finally grid of intelligibility of the world, was born the G7, or a mechanism for understandingcoordination, direction and impetus which members agreed to common values and principles the "strengthening of markets discipline and effectiveness of regulation[10] . That is the double assertion of any power of the self-regulating market and a necessary economic administration? Disorganise The G8 is not the simple accounting of globalization, or even only its Office of management. Etatique and juridicisé, the world he inherited in 1975 is well adjusted to the free market. Able to reconfigure the environment of the latter according to the principles of economic liberalism, it is necessary to challenge, to stop and finally break the existing system, both at the level of its principles as those of its practices and its instruments. First task of G8 thus: the deconstruction of the international order - or more precisely a continuation of a deconstruction by decolonisation, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the constitution of the market price for the raw materials. To do this, the G8 will open three fronts: morality, law and public institutions. If developments in law, policy, a good indicator of structural changes, changes in the moral order are otherwise more. The principles structuring political authority that sovereignty, the integrity, the legality, stability or even legitimacy disappear, in the speech of the G8, of the public sphere; This law was the law, and that this Act on any. How the G8 members have questioned the corset of international legislation that was most often against them was most of the time to ignore it. In this sense the United States, with their support to the international legislative instruments, their ratification and their respect, are probably the main "rogue State" of the planet. The confirmation of the existence of a right to two speeds, the main consequence of non-compliance with international law is its relegation to the rank of standard among others. This would also be the State in the beginning of the 21st century: a power that no longer has anything of divine but that, too human, shows its limits, its constraints, irreducible instability, ultimately powerless. The history of the West since the 17th century would be to look again, as that of a State control of corporations and their resistance to this phenomenon. While the State was the basis of the international legal system, the order of the market obeys its own normative architecture, and G8 will in this sense organize bypassing public judicial bodies in favour of instances of normatisation private that it will need create. This phenomenon is observed both at the national and the international level: limitation of UN Security, i.e. development and the "peacekeeping[11] , reorientation of the IFIs to the human and institutional environment of the market, strengthening of GATT and the WTO will be the three axes of the institutional consolidation of the international system company G8. This first reconfiguration of the international order has the main effect a setting flat of the prerogatives of institutions incorporated as a kind of floor above States, and conversely the highlighting of a G8, their opposite generalist, transverse and easily reversible, not in seemingly better equipped for "Managing" globalization. The conceptual lines drawing general intelligibility of supranational space grid were moved together, now operative distinction is more between the State field and the non-State field, national and international, or even between the public sphere and private, but between the local and the global, between the market and non-market. Rule After a questioning of the absolute relevance of public authorities and the legal instrument, the re-regulation by the G8 is supranational and indirectly binding. Not having power legislative - the benefits of a private existence is being apparently shown above the inconveniences of the abandonment of the international legal personality-, it is very logical that the G8 favoured the normative power. He in fact makes a strange return to jus cogens to the original meaning of the term, i.e. a certain morality of supranational relations[12]. This symbolic re-normatisation operating in the field of signs and principles succeeds a practical normatisation re, the G8 establishing the existence of non-State actors supranational bodies, redefining the powers of the public authorities and the division of labour between supranational organizations for the benefit of the private sector, and this always for the purpose of a freedom, a centrality and effectivity strengthened the market. First, the use of the discursive weapon by the G8 obviously fits the expansion of a universe of discourse - as to the market in the heart of the system, it is raising the rank of instrument for regulation information - but is not understandable to its only light. It adds, inter alia, the need for a shared understanding between the market players and the fight for the Western protection of the monopoly of the common sense of globalization. For thirty years, the G8 eyeing the title of creative word of God, this intuitus originarius which gives life to what it States, speech performative in its form the most effective[13]. He was responsible for the floor, simply act locutoire, a first truth, at the same time that was placed in the expert knowledge that the "third way" 1940s was promoted to the rank of conscience of the world. So, the G8 operates less a sublimation of politics show that an update of the theatrical politics of the 17th century, if not earlier form of representation policy such as the religious ritual. The G8 statements within the discourse of the Scripture, which repetition corrects any errors of interpretation, establish a line, an amount, one grammar that is other than the signals sent by the central transmitter interested comment: the market oracle. Speech and values, standards and principles: wherever one turned, once in the universe of the G8, it's always signs, it's always standards. Second, in this flexible world that he has imagined, the signage of the supranational pipes is more a code of the road in the form of inter-State, stable and sanctioned by public authorities. It is embodied in a set of voluntary standards detached from the guardianship of the State, is reflected in the development of charters, codes of conduct, good practices as models with an example. In the logic of this informal, global, voluntary regulation and variable geometry, the contractual and consensual mode overrides gradually to the established legal frame. Law, this great matter of the end of the Middle Ages until the 19th century, been replaced by the standard. There is no law, no treaty, no Pact, no agreement which was endorsed by all the States of the world, and even less respected by all those who had acknowledged, has not prevented G8 dream of universality: fighting tirelessly against protectionism normative and "United around certain universal values - democracy, the respect for the rights of man and the market[14] economy" - its members were the key of true to their principles in their relations with other countries[15]. The statements of the G8 are minimalist repository, the "lines guidelines[16] " any policy: their understanding grid, their justification and purpose. One cannot but note, parallel to the assertion of the liberal principles, the proliferation of standards issued by private institutions under the benevolent eye of the G8. And it would still be a paradox: at a time when democracy is elevated to the rank of universal political standard, is reduced to its functional and procedural aspects. The key principles of the universalist morality advocated by the G8 are not these principles structuring political action from the 16th and 17th centuries. In reading his statements, it is no longer question, with regard to the political sphere, integrity but of initiation, development and progress; not more legitimacy but capacity and quality; not more representation but participation; not more of legality but efficiency; not more sovereignty but integration and responsibility; not more authority but of freedom; not more independence but interdependence, transparency and monitoring; not more stability but and adaptation and innovation; not more solidarity, but competition; not more Alliance but coordination, cooperation and partnership; not more Government but management and governance; not more of a policy but a plan of action[17]. By merrily mixing these principles and these areas in a speech circular and tautological, G8 is explicitly designed to melt in a same block a political liberalism based on a subject of rights constituting of the sovereign and a economic liberalism based on a free and rational subject component of the market, this for the benefit of the second and for the purpose of a "new sense shared[18] community" that would apply to the philosopher's stone of globalization[19]. Rather that a moral utilitarian, of the ordered design principles to that of interest. On the one hand the moral values are folded on technical principles such as efficiency, stability, speed, consistency, simplicity, ownership, alignment, harmonisation, management based on the results, the risk assessment, the obligation to account or accountability, these principles at the same time of selection and measurement instruments to solve social and political problems to the means of techno-economic solutions. On the other, between the interest groups which addresses the G8 - Governments, banks, industries, trade unions, consumers, associations - there is no precedence of principles according to an established hierarchy, or of agreements and disagreements with negotiations, there are interests that converge and interests who are confronted. If it works, if discussing, if we exchange, be it is war or peace, it is because it is, at a given time, any interest. The reforms proposed to non-G8 members are in this sense in "interest" and inter-State cooperation to summary "mutual interest" and "mutual benefit" for groups of countries[20] or for all countries of the world, "the interest of the economy world[21] " with value of general interest, the common good is substituting the "benefit of all".[22] ». Asked once the symbolic boundaries of this general framework, the normative activity can be liberalised without risk. So open to the various supranational actors, she sees that arise these "entrepreneurs of standards[23] that are organizations in the non-profit sector, and on the other a "global without state[24] Act" of private Exchange rules between multinationals or their breast and international standards and rules more or less formalized by business associations and bodies of arbitration such as the Chamber of commerce international. Also called lex mercatoria, this old normative set of at least five century gradually colonized the legal field and helped make of supranational commercial law, as set out today by the WTO, the paradigm of international law and the world legal pyramid. Standardize G8 follows no principles anarcho-capitalists who don't want to give the State a jump seat or those, Keynesian, that place between his cold hands the key levers of the economy. Public institutions are the economic game players, governmental authority gives as an economic power, but in a monopoly position, G8 intends to substitute a situation of competition; a role of regulation of the market it will prefer the task of regulation for the market, the status of State mercantilist, creator of the market. This would be at the bottom, the heart of the neoliberal method: deregulation is only a prerequisite for the normatisation, and the normatisation a prerequisite of standardization, coordination and permanent intervention are even more necessary that the juridico-institutional frame is impaired. The State is no longer a place of obliged passage from the local to the supranational, but only, according to the word of Hayek, "an organization among other[25] . So the fundamental distinction between the State and non-State seems here give way to a distinction between the local and the global. This reconfiguration of the public authorities and the Government operates according to a quadruple axis: reduction of public institutions to organizations among others and the Government to a mode of management as another; redefinition of public institutions as interest groups and of the Government administration; promotion of the rule of law and the Government of the structural, institutional and human of the market environment; Finally limitation of public non-market institutions and the Government to the shortcomings of the market. First, the late 20th century is confirmed a landslide of the action of the groups of interests of the para-gouvernemental field into the space of the market[26]. In the late 1990s, after a period where the collaboration which was often limited to the exchange of information and trading in influence, actors private associations and entrepreneurial are invited by the G8 to participate in these forms of loose and flexible cooperation that are partnerships. Partnerships between public institutions, partnerships between private institutions, public-private partnerships,[27] contact points", everything is permitted both informality knows no constraints of institutionalization[28]. Is in the "spirit of partnership[29] that the private sector and corporations in particular, is promoted to the rank of unavoidable partner for development, the fight against terrorism and piracy, health, research, education of environment The first consequence of this gradual privatization of the public action areas is a flattening of the customary hierarchy between public authorities and private bodies. Second, according to releases of the G8, the different groups of States existing at the supranational level and the States themselves are aggregates of various interests that it is their responsibility to administer, the national interest is only one interest among others at the supranational level. Deal of interest has a name: the management, or management. In politics, this practice is called governance. Behind this concept, in the gap between the State and the Government, to frame such as economic rationalization of the Government and an administrative technification of the State. Third, the concepts of "system" and "structure" means more in its vocabulary than the frame, the environment, environment, favourable general conditions. Adjustment of the structural, institutional and human environment to the rules of the market, such will be the primary role of the national and international public institutions in the eyes of the G8[30]. They no longer have to be under their heritage, the régisseuses of all regulatory and normative world, but simple organizers of a game in which the market is going to be the arbitrator. Law, in this perspective, will constitute the strength of the public power constraint but the instrument of delimitation of its field of intervention and modulation of the market environment. Structural policies of the G8 will focus in this sense on three major mechanisms: competition, the adaptation of supply and demand and the liberalization of investment and markets. Fourth, tasks kingly police, in the sense that the word has the 17th late 18th century in support of the increase of the survival, health and activity of the population, the G8 wants that State and international institutions do have mainly two: the survival of the population and its development work. Specifically, the last function as G8 subject to public institutions and Governments, it is the management of events and people falling out of the market and the prevention and correction of the shortcomings of the. Here operative distinction, in the eyes of the G8, is more between the State and non-State, but between market and non-market, between the State and the Government. The first became recognizable by its external to the market, the second to the effectiveness of the prevention of accidents of the market. Public institutions cannot ensure that the survival of the population, the "good life" is conditioned to access to the labour market. Then, the fringe of the population which seems always to the limit of the market is left to the care of social services. It is more for the public sector keep alive but to strengthen, educate, convince, attempting to reintegrate individuals in the market[31]work tirelessly. This investment in human capital at the uncertain dividends later appears in the statements made by the G8. It still oscillates between a supported by the public authorities and by private actors. However, the market is not so automatically beneficial that one might think. Theories of the self-regulating market based on utopian assumptions such as the absolute rationality of economic agents and the pure and perfect competition. The different reality often sounding like a failure of these[32], the G8 abstract constructs intends to adapt this reality to the market, as I tried to explain previously, and the other by caution, adapt the market to this reality. The G8 will load the Government channel, regulate, regulate, in short, to discipline the market. It is the last aspect of this redefinition of the public institutions and Governments to which he is engaged. Mitigation of the concomitance of the territory, of the State and of the law, should not find widespread transnationalization, that on the death of the Leviathan under the blows of the market on the one hand and the society on the other, according to a dual phenomenon of integration and secession. It would probably also challenge the triptych in vogue with face-to-face business and civil society under the State arbitration. This is not only a contained stripped of its means of regulation juridico-political to the economic regulations of each and symbolic of the other. In a market order, the seats are also unambiguous and frozen. Stakeholders are interrelated, one is always visible in the other, and neither could survive alone. More importantly, the State, civil society, the capital, are inoperative abstractions. Behind these monolithic concepts used wrongly in the singular, the combinations of actors, their groupings, their means, their strategies and their effective demand to be apprehended in their movement and their multiplicity. This is the main difference between an international space and supranational space. A world of market This is the line of conduct of the members of the G8: rely essentially [...] the mechanisms of the market, supplementing it if required by governmental measures[33] ». The market in question is not so much the market in general - this exchange of private interests which has always coexisted companies although very long on a small scale - that the self-regulating market: to the task of ensuring order in the production and distribution of goods and services, themselves controlled prices. It assumes the motive of profit on the part of individuals; the opening of the field of competition at all the pretenders; the currency functioning as purchasing power and prices as indicators; markets for all sectors of activity, on which the supply of goods available at a given price will be equal to the application at the same price. markets finally that are connected and form a single large market; all production intended for sale on the market, all revenues from this sale, the authorities failed to intervene to the margins of this mechanical[34]. The world of market G8 designs as the impassable human horizon is intelligible from four key perspectives: as order, as a whole, such as logic and truth. Order, all, logic and truth The heart of laws, treaties, pacts and institutions, it is, at bottom, over and over again, less peace than the restoration and maintenance of a certain order. A in some ways, the ideal of a global political organization which ran from the 17th to the 20th century faced the reality of the European balance. Since the end of the second world war, this is no longer the big case, and the balance which is broken in the early seventies, lost stability which led to the creation of G8 and it intends to find, is that of the world market. The instance is indeed, since its debut, obsessed with the search for a balance less for blocks of Eastern and Western markets. So, order that draws the G8 statements statements is not an international order but a supranational game, in the sense where public institutions are more the heart but the actors among others, the right a standard among others, and political values such as the sovereignty or integrity of the principles among others. A large set of freedoms and interests subject to the rules of the market, that is, the standards and contracts. Governance would summarize this displacement of a State Government in the world to its simple management. "Rule the world without Government[35] , it would be to administer it without these constraints attached to State figure that is, the territory, the legitimacy. The purpose of the development of the productive forces, of the balance of powers or the freedom of trade is no longer peace or the increasing wealth of the State but the proper functioning of the self-regulating global market, and therefore the backup of the heart of the supranational field: capitalism. There is as a reversal of the purposes and the means. It would therefore be an error of interpretation to give the G8 the title of "Executive Board of the world". This global role of understanding, direction, coordination and control, it is the market that it is according to his Chief adjuvant. It would also be a mistake to see in "global governance" a Government of the world or globalization. They are not to be governed and administered. G8 has taken note of the death of the King and is limited to the stewardship, deals with economy because everything flows from and returned. The market space constituted the leaven of a public sphere connecting domestic communities in so-called "primitive" societies. In the 18th century, the idea that there is a self-regulating market had led to distinguish between sphere economic and political sphere, the first becoming independent of the second and the law recognizing a sphere of individual autonomy. In the 20th century, this idea will be accompanied by the affirmation of a rule of the economic sphere on the area of law and sovereignty policy[36], but also on the individual and natural - spheres and more capacity for a resolution of the problems of the seconds by means of the first. The legal space itself is tiered to new fees for the benefit of the right of trade and as emptied of its substance[37]. Global market point of salvation, for the nature, or individuals; and the G8 to applaud this triple annexation by the market of nature, society and public institutions that promoted relentlessly. Nature, first, double integrated in a system supply and demand, costs and benefits, has in itself or purpose or reason for its repair and its preservation as for example markets full[38]. In a sense, his best chance of survival is probably, according to this view, be privatized until his last cell, the oxymoron of "sustainable development" means, in the mouth of the G8, the dream of a virtuous markets also synthesis various as those of labour, resources, energy, pollution, technologies, goods and services. Market economy calls such a society of resources and investment, where public space has given way to private space, or at least a non-political public space. More than market or a market society, should speak of a business corporation. A certain limit of the G8, the individual speech he even is more a living being but instead of crossing of two flows of investment. One, entering, makes him a product[39]. The other, outgoing, a consumer, or rather a producer, an investor, because consumption is still production - individual fun and collective wealth. In short, the individual is a company with own resources, its "human capital", with perpetual horizon "employability[40] , a sort of solvency, way to be always on the market regardless of its developments. Third, if the discipline locked and restricted, the security apparatus by the G8 determines a level from which the laissez-faire is preferable. It is here less question of calculation of costs between repression and the neglect of the offence that a sanction permanent through the market itself, and in this case by the price. At the individual level, the order cannot continue without a certain appearance of justice. The market as a system of distribution and distribution established in the sense a dual mechanism of justice: immanent self and his peers, reward and sanction by the transcendent market control. Fourth, there is a brain of globalization, if there is a common across continents language, if it is a global common sense, this is no longer the or the State, which has lost the monopoly of information and the intelligibility of the world, it is, according to the G8, the market. The market as the formation of the only objective truth that is, price, as a place of conflict resolution, such as incubator of the innumerable and complex information provided by its various actors, as a mechanism of information processing learn and, ultimately, the walk from the market in history. A world of market even in the light of the principles of the market, it is product market his own truth, that his prophecy auto-justifie, to auto-réalise and to auto-vérifie, constituting a both common and historical meaning. Participating fully in the production of this dominant rationality, the G8 for example invites to reread the supranational history according to the grid of intelligibility of the market and to detect between the lines of the cold war, or at least his last two decades, an economic war. Reason of the supranational field It is not only to experience here, sketch and conclude an economic vision of space and history supranational, but although my opening assumption of an economic reason of this story and this space. The history of the space Western since the early Middle Ages, which I presented as the long ownership of the dimensions economic, social and political life, can also be read, with for example, Braudel as "entering progressive in the rationales of the market, the business of capitalist investment until the advent of an industrial revolution which cut in two the history of men."" [41] " Between the 16th century and until this cut, the mercantilists participate in the emergence of patterns of thought developed around the concepts of balance of the powers and authorities, monetary and economic competition between States. Since the 14th century, the world economy was dominated by cities. It was in Venice, Antwerp, Genoa, Amsterdam. From the middle of the 18th century, this will not be London than England. These are the United States since 1929. Market power, thus nationalized, may appear in the eyes of the physiocrats as a constitutive parameter of the State power, even that flowers an independent market control of urban but dependent on Government authorities. Supranational space is international, it is the place of trade between States, but also their multiple rivalries battlefield. The extra-national market, as a principle of extension of a no longer dependent on Europe for a balance of powers but a collective enrichment, spearhead of economic nationalism, principle of institutional construction and society, will inform peace and international projects which consist in all of broad reflections on the opening and the Organization of a global market, only guarantees of perpetual peace in Europe. And when even the sinews of war is always economic, the muscle remains essentially military. In the 19th century, the Congress of Vienna and its sequel the hundred years peace, where wars are also rare that short, both will reconstitute the old model of the balance of power and devote the link between peace and trade to ensure trade even in times of war. Financial capitalism, which is truly taking off until the middle of the century, appears as a major peace advocate. The distinction is between economic and political Governments objectives. The monetary circulation, balance of trade, colonial empires or even control of the seas are all ways to ensure the power - but not first profit. The 20th century, had predicted Lenin, a century of wars and revolutions. Periods of international conflict tearing his first half are preceded, incorporated and succédées a return to protectionism in the aspects of a customs war. After the second world war - or should we say international-, supranational centralization appears also necessary to ensure peace that national centralization was yesterday for the conduct of the war and the economic recovery of the country today. Although international cooperation and the intensification of trade Thunder again in the third quarter of the 20th century, they appear to be confined to the role of adjuvant of the power of the new blocks and the undertaking of safeguarding of peace. The general framework of intelligibility of supranational of the second half of the 20th century relations is often confined to the cold war and globalization, the first belonging, according to a majority of observers in the field of armed rivalries, the second within a more strictly economic competition. However, it is possible to only see as two sides of one and the same economic war - in the sense that its means and its purposes are essentially economic. From the 1970s the military war, horizon until then behaviour of inter-State relations, change configuration. Fire nuclear the having made very hypothetical at the global level, it seems to withdraw in the "periphery" dear to the neo, as if the sheer scale of the military means exceeded the warlike purpose that conflicts were more possible than the margin between or against second-rank powers or even between members of a same nation. It is is also little by little désétatisée, and the constitution of supranational entities in charge of peace between nations could promote the questioning of this prerogative sovereign[42]. It is, finally, "économicisée", as if the war could not be anything other that a primarily economic competition, a war between producer countries and consumer countries, between all economic regional, between groups of interests, coups trade agreements and interposed domestic firms, on the battlefield of markets and exchanges, the means of production called as weapons of war. Until the monetary crisis of 1971, the Western control an important world trade where the prices of raw materials are both low and stable. If international space becomes little by little a space supranational, would first, rather than globalization, speak of regionalization. To the alliances military of the 1950s and 1960s were added, and soon substituted, economic agreements. Copy of these new clusters, the G7, the difference of the League and the United Nations, does not ensure peace between all but to strengthen a camp in war by soft triangular trade and the European fortification. In the third world the newly independent territories outfitted former colonial spaces as a hermit crab shell empty. Nine years after its incorporation, the non-aligned movement to weapon of G77, and in the early 1970s multiply the nationalizations, hatch one after the other cartels of raw materials (cotton, sugar, rubber, cocoa, café…). The "oil crisis" is less due to the strengthening of a cartel of sellers to the weakening of the influence economic and political of the cartel of purchasers and the establishment of a market for oil in particular prices and energy in General. These are producing "underdeveloped" countries that lead the "developed" countries consumers in the field of economic war less covering the possession of natural resources that the constitution of an annuity on one side and on the other the security of supply. The new international order is decidedly economical. The setting in light of the coherence of these new groups of variable geography interests who categories of first, second and third world, as well as of economic interest, which will mean more strictly trade but also energy, currency, the work… In the first half of the 1980s, the paralysis of the OPEC affects other cartels, which have disrupted such as phosphate, soy, coffee, copper and cocoa. His arrival in power, in March 1985, Gorbachev is the modernisation of the Soviet economy, and it passes through cooperation with the countries Western high technology providers. The cold war is about to be won by economic exhaustion of one of the combatants. The Round Uruguay, which runs from September 1986 to April 1994, broadening the scope of the GATT for agriculture, intellectual property and services, preparing the advent of the centerpiece of the new economic system. The difference the IFIs and the GATT, the World Trade Organization does not belong to the world Organization for peace, and sounds as the admission that the first is no longer a component of the second. Now, friends of friends of friends are our friends, and my friends being potentially my enemies, each country is, in a way or another and although to varying degrees, the obligor from all others, and its potential competitor. This competitive market economy became the regulatory mechanism of supranational relations. Nor in the form of a competition between States on the model of the rivalry between England, the Germany, the Spain and the France between the 16th and 19th centuries, but between groups of interests including the States are just elements. Throughout its history, capitalism is fed this supranationality which weakens the State regulation, which away from the producer to the consumer, which dissolves solidarity, which allows to easily jump from one market to another according to the anticipated profit. This supranationality which means that the law, the State organizations are phenomena among others. This supranationality which says that the policy has a posteriori, that democracy and peace are side effects of prosperity. This supranationality, that he was promoted in place of internationality, as is the great work of the G8. To return to our hypothesis, the idea that economic warfare is the supranational space matrix is plausible, and some observers not only within the limits of the last third of the 20th century[43]. It appears however that the political objectives overall prevailed on the economic measures until the 1970s, not because the public control of the supranational field. It seems that there were also, and finally, in the absence of a real complexity of international relations, a change in their reading that made the grid of intelligibility proposed by the cold war unfit to understand the last quarter of the 20th century. This would be the mystery of globalization that the promise of a finally reunited human community was granted at a time when humanity is to understand human potential that appears to open the generalized globalization of trade and communications cache entry into a world actually borders and the finite resources in the form of complex networks with multiple and multifaceted, ramifications so that infinitylimited to its economic reality, locked in each of its individual atoms; and that on the horizon impassable raw long of death by arms replaced, not not trade but beautiful and well, peace for a majority of humans humans, this economic death called poverty. References "History of the G8", official website of the Evian Summit, 2003 J. Chirac, "Press conference at the end of the first day of the G8", Evian, June 2, 2003 In this sense, monetary stability, energy security and trade liberalization form since the creation of the g-8 the hard core of displayed concerns. Strictly political issues are, initially, absent from the declarations of G7, despite a warming of the geopolitical context after the lull in the 71-73 years. When they appear at the end of the 1970s, they are of marginal considerations. The speech of the G8 is moral vocation (speech of proclamation of general principles and statement of a vision, positioning, understanding and branch of imposition of moral and finally justification) and signage (speech programme more specifically policy, informative, practical, costed, dated). It is complete, in the commercial area, the traditional instrument of the law. He result is a normative frame both coherent and circular which the General drawing claims, it seems, to common sense. This monopoly of the meaning of globalization is recognized by the same opponents G8, and the second assessment and the contre-discours seem so car sentenced to hang hard up the locomotive of the best listed grammar. "We encourage said precisely the economic statement of 1988, the establishment of informal processes that would facilitate multilateral discussions on issues of mutual interest and promote the actions necessary cooperation. (G7, "Economic Declaration", Toronto, 21 June 1988) Since its inception, the G8 has launched supranational instances private such as the missile technology control regime, in order to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the FATF, to counter the criminal use of the financial system; the G24, which aims to provide technical and financial support to the countries of Eastern Europe to help in their transition to a market economy; the g-20 and the FSF to ensure the stability of the international financial system; NEPAD to discuss with Africa; the DOT Force to reduce the global digital divide; the Group of security and nuclear security, which aims to provide technical information and policy advice on the dangers of security and safety in the use of nuclear energy; the Forum for partnership with Africa, to coordinate assistance to the continent; the CTAG (counter-terrorism action group); the Forum for the future, so NEPAD applied to the broader Middle East and North Africa; the the infrastructure Consortium for Africa, platform to negotiate obtaining most important funding on the part of donors for projects and infrastructure in Africa programs; or even the Global Initiative to combat nuclear terrorism. The G8, according to this route, having put hands on the democracy of market-security-pros triptychprosperity, could rhyme with three-way system which defined the cosmological unity of the Indo-European people. Specifically, according to Dumézil, Indo-European civilization is its unity in the triad sacré-sovereign, defence-Warrior, fertility-producer. (See g. Dumézil, myth and epic, vol. I: the ideology of the three functions in the epics of Indo-European peoples, Paris: Gallimard, "Library of the Humanities", 1968) The power of the g-8, are first, according to the books are devoted, figures. Its members have respectively more than 40% and more than 50% of the voting at the World Bank and IMF, represent two thirds of global GDP and lived twenty-seven thousand billion of annual GDP, are home to the headquarters of the multinationals of the world major, realize 50% of imports and exports of goods and services in the worldtogether the two first Anglophone cultural powers of the world, hold four of the five permanent seats on the Security Council and are the main creditors of poor countries of the world, who repay nearly $ 400 billion annually. However, no single test cannot justify the composition of the G8. The economic and industrial setting, China, the India and the Brazil would now be entitled to a place within the G8, and the Italy, the France and the Canada could seek to integrate the G77. According to the financial criterion, or the France, the Italy or the Russia should be. Democratic? Outside the Russia. Cultural? Although the G8 is based on the anglo-saxon cultural outreach and the weakening of the francophone countries, but should at least include a Spanish-speaking country or at least Latin America such as the Brazil and a Muslim country like the Indonesia. If this is the demographic criterion, the India, China and the Indonesia have their place, alongside the United States and the Russia, but not the other. If the military test, the Germany and the Japan, two countries without an army in 1975, should not have done the party… G7, "Release", Halifax, June 16, 1995 G8, "for growth and a responsible market economy." "The G8 Declaration", Evian, June 2, 2003 "We believe, announced Canadian Prime Minister in 1995, that the time is appropriate a review - by the United Nations and their Member States - of the future role of the organization.". […] The maintenance of peace is a vital function of the United Nations. "Yet, the concept of peacekeeping is no more in the Charter of the United Nations and the terms of terrorism and organized crime. (J. Christian, "Remarks by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien", Halifax, June 17, 1995) What is not without consequence on the logic of power. "It is obvious, writes in this regard Bertrand de Jouvenel, that the power plays in society an any other role that he or the laws, defining standards of conduct or merely to enforce." (B. de Jouvenel, of power.) Natural history of its growth, Paris: Hachette Littératures, «Pluriel», 1972 [1945], p.339) As explained by the Finance Ministers of the G7, releases, "indicating coordinated actions", are used to "send signals appropriate economic agents". This signage for the G8, from year to year, both to affirm a vision to oversee its implementation Act. Therefore, there is no place, in my view, to distinguish between a moral discourse for cosmetic purposes, otherwise, dilatory, and a programmatic speech in the direction of policy makers, but between different signals and different waves. (G7 Finance Ministers, "Strengthening G - 7 Cooperation to Promote Employment and Non-Inflationary Growth", Report to the Tokyo Summit, July 8, 1993) According to the official website of the G8 in Evian 2003. ("Issues on the G8", 2003) Since the end of the USSR, it is only to apply to the role of spokesperson for the "mainstream of international opinion", dixit a declaration of 1998. He talks about himself, and for everybody, "universal values" and "global values." To cite only a few examples, the G8 regularly puts forward "the universal principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law" and "universal aspirations for prosperity and security." It reaffirms in this sense, in 2004, with regard to the reform of the Middle East: "the values in the partnership that we propose are universal." Human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, economic development and social justice are universal aspirations that are listed in the relevant international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of human rights. "(G8,"Regional statement", Birmingham, May 15, 1998;) G7, "Tokyo Summit Political Declaration: Striving For A More Secure and Humane World", Tokyo, July 8, 1993; _ "Press release", Halifax, June 16, 1995; G8, "Partnership for progress and a common future with the region of the broader Middle East and the North Africa", Sea Island, June 9, 2004) Term which is forty-four times in the official statements of the G8. Some examples of important principles according to the personal representatives for Africa of the G8: "Need a global and coherent approach with measures regarding resources, trade, conflict, the improvement of the capacities and governance." We must strengthen our partnerships with a greater number of countries adhering to the same vision of NEPAD and who have the capacity to make progress quickly. We conclude by suggesting areas where a more important and effective action is required if we are to realize the vision of our partnership with Africa. "The report thus employs sixty times the term"partnership"and"partner", fifty-two times the"ability", thirty-two times the terms"effectiveness"or"effective", thirty-four times the term"security", 27 times the words"management"and"manage", eighteen times the term"governance", seventeen times the term"coordination", seventeen times also the terms"private"and"business", fourteen times the term"transparency", thirteen times the term"responsibility ". Next, the term "State" is used only seventeen times, the terms "rights", "law" and "legal" fifteen times, and not once the terms "sovereignty", "legitimacy", "independence", "citizen", "people" and "nation". (Personal representatives for Africa of the g-8 action Plan for Africa - joint report on the State of progress of work", London, 1 July 2005, emphasis added.) G8, "Release", Okinawa, 23 July 2000 It reads thus, in 1992: "political freedom and economic freedom are closely linked and reinforce each other […]". Conditions have rarely been as favourable to establish lasting peace, ensuring respect for human rights, the principles of democracy, ensure freedom of markets, overcoming poverty and preserve the environment. ». (G7, "Political declaration", Munich, July 7, 1992) In the G8, the notion of "mutual interest" statements applies to the members of the G8 countries, to developing countries, the countries of the Soviet bloc, the oil exporters, to newly industrialized countries of Asia, donor countries and the recipient countries of the development assistance, etc. G7, "Economic Declaration", Ottawa, July 21, 1981 Reference to the title of the Economic Declaration of 1996. In this context, recalled the Economic Declaration of 1984, "strengthen the open and free trading system [is] in the mutual interest of all, industrialized economies and developing." It reads, in a 2005 Declaration, that "it is important for each of our countries and the world around that the world economy is strong." (G7, "economic news release: successful globalization for the benefit of all", Lyon, 28 June 1996; _ "Economic Declaration", London, June 9, 1984;) G8, "World economy and oil" Gleneagles, July 8, 2005, p.1) Y. Dezalay and b. Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Emergence of a New International Legal Order, University of Chicago Press, 1996 CF. g. Teubner (Ed), Global Law Without State, Aldershot: Dartmouth Pub Co., 1996 According to a report of the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations endorsed by the General Assembly, "States may not […]". not be able to only work. We need an active civil society and a vibrant private sector. "(F. a. Hayek, law, legislation and liberty.) Tome 3: Political order of a free people, Paris: PUF, "Free trade", 1983 [1979], p.167. General Assembly of the United Nations, "in larger freedom: development, security and respect for all human rights", "in larger freedom: development, security and respect for all human rights", report of the Secretary General, 24 March 2005, http://daccessdds.UN.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/270/79/PDF/N0527079.pdf This statement would be to qualify in the centrality given to the legal instrument and State regulation by number of civil society organizations. Members of the G8 means in this sense designate "in each of [their] countries, points of contact to facilitate the exchange of ideas and knowledge, while acknowledging that the participation of the private sector in the design of these partnerships is one of the main means of ensuring a stowage effective between higher education and the needs of the world of innovation society.". (G8, "Education in the service of innovative companies of the 21st century", St-Petersburg, July 16, 2006) In 2004 for example, G8, in the countries of the South, means "help establish links between companies to promote commercially viable projects and implement relationship investors, exporters and service providers in more limited sectoral meetings and meetings of entrepreneurs" (G8, "G8 action Plan: applying entrepreneurship to the eradication of poverty")(, Sea Island, June 9, 2004) G7, "Economic Declaration." "Working together for a stronger growth and a more secure world", Munich, July 8, 1992 "Our economies, says the Economic Declaration of 1992, are all hindered by structural rigidities which limit our potential growth rates. Encourage competition. Need to create a more favourable environment for private initiative. Need to reduce the excess of regulations that stifle innovation, the entrepreneurial spirit and creativity. "(G7,"Economic Declaration.") ("Working together for a stronger growth and a more secure world", Munich, July 8, 1992) For example, read nine years apart: "Measures that expand access to education and training of high quality and to ensure a more rapid reaction of the markets to economic conditions will allow our populations to better adapt to all types of structural changes." And then in 2006: "We will prepare our respective populations to take advantage of the change with a continuous acquisition of knowledge." We will strengthen the links between learning, training and the labour market […]. Population and workforce education is of vital importance. "(G7,"Release", Denver, 22 June 1997;) G8, "Education in the service of innovative companies of the 21st century", St-Petersburg, July 16, 2006) In 1982 for example, the French President drew this disturbing portrait of humanity: "in the world in crisis, our seven countries are not spared and the trend is not improvement: since the Ottawa Summit, five million men and women have lost their jobs, in one and the other of us." Stagnant production, investment and trade, protectionism threatens currencies settled in disorder, interest rates reach levels preventing any creative growth of employment. Selfishness becomes the rule. "In the countries of the South, survival conditions worsened: 30 million beings human died of starvation." (F. Mitterrand, "report of the President of the Republic [French] at the Summit of industrialized nations: technology, employment and growth", Versailles, 5 July 1982) G7, "Economic Declaration", Ottawa, July 21, 1981 The 1992 economic statement summarizes "the foundations of a market […] economy: privatization, land reform, measures to promote investment and competition, social protection of the population." (G7, "Economic Declaration.") ("Working together for a stronger growth and a more secure world", Munich, July 8, 1992) CF. r. Rhodes, "The new governance: governing without government", in Political Studies, Vol. 44, September 1996, pp. 652-667; H. Reinicke, Global Public Policy: Governing without Government?, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1998 The G8 statements themselves obey the distinction between the economic sphere and the political sphere, and systematically favour the first on the second. Members of the G7 meeting in Denver in 1997 claimed in this respect that "the regulatory framework should be better harmonized in the evolution of the market." (G7, "financial and economic challenges global: statement of seven at the Denver Summit", Denver, June 21, 1997) For example, the statement economic 1989 States that the "climate change [endanger] the environment and therefore the economy", and the 2007 climate change and energy security are "two interrelated major issues" (G7, "Economic Declaration", Paris, July 16, 1989;) G8, "Growth and responsibility in the global economy", Heiligendamm, June 7, 2007) In this sense, note the Economic Declaration of 1996, "investment in human is also vital as capital investment." (G7, "economic news release: successful globalization for the benefit of all", Lyon, June 28, 1996) The Ministers of finance, economy, G8 employment and labour held in London, in February 1998, a Conference on growth, employability and inclusion. Two years earlier, Chirac admitted: "this concept of employability, that I decline to use because I find that the word is very ugly, but that is the idea, i.e. training permanent, had made great progress." F. Braudel, material culture, economy and capitalism, 15th-18th centuries. Volume 1: The structures of everyday life: the possible and the impossible, Paris: Armand Colin, 1979, p.7 On privatization of war, there is for example the use of mercenaries for the conduct of the war, humanitarian associations for the management of the civilian population in the war zone, especially refugees, as well as to private companies for the tasks of reconstruction and exploitation of acquired resources. The military forces, of original national, are also placed more and more often under supranational command, and regionalized defence policies. In 1942, a report of the League of Nations stated that "trade was constantly seen as a form of war, as a large part of battle, rather than as a cooperative activity which the extension was to benefit all." This second form was the premise on which the conferences that succeeded the war basèrent their recommendations - a premise accepted by all in theory but repudiated by almost all in practice. She was repudiated in practice because, as the issue of opportunity on occasion, it became too obvious that the Government did not use its bargaining power was always in second position. "(League of Nations," Commercial Policy in the Interwar Period: Proposals International and National Policies ", Geneva, 1942, p.120) Blog de géostratégie et de géopolitique en rapport avec les problèmes sécuritaires des nations, le développement économique, l'Actualité, l'Histoire du monde, les conflits en l’Europe, Amérique, Asie, Afrique, et leurs enjeux stratégiques.