Search

De nombreux évènements des dernières années ont rappelé avec fracas ce que certains ont appelé le « retour de la souveraineté ». Pandémie, immigration, guerres civiles, luttes territoriales ou montée des populismes sont autant d’enjeux qui rappellent que la souveraineté n’est pas un objet politique du passé. La souveraineté fait ainsi l’objet d’un intérêt scientifique et politique renouvelé dans un contexte où l’espace national est de plus en plus revendiqué, mais également de plus en plus contesté. Sur le plan scientifique, le concept de souveraineté fait également débat dans sa capacité à rendre compte, ou non, des modes d’organisation sociale et politique actuels. Sur le plan politique, ce concept fait aussi controverse entre ceux pour qui il sert à fédérer l’opposition au processus de mondialisation et ceux pour qui son usage est signe d’archaïsme, voire de violence politique. Ces multiples controverses renvoient à plusieurs questions explorées dans cet ouvrage : La souveraineté constitue-t-elle un absolu de l’organisation politique ou est-elle une simple catégorie historique ou contextuelle ? Son statut est-il indissolublement lié à l’État ou la rencontre de la souveraineté et de l’État est-elle conjoncturelle ? Pour tenter de répondre à ces questions et pour en poser de nouvelles, cet ouvrage entend étudier la notion de souveraineté dans sa relation avec les différentes conceptions du pouvoir ainsi que les différentes formes de communauté politique. Pour cela, il donne une large place aux approches interdisciplinaires et comparatives tant historiques que spatiales.

Hybrid warfare has been a popular concept/term referring to contemporary warfare and modern challenges. This concept has gradually gained popularity in the defence community since it was first publicly used in 2005. However, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 had a large-scale impact on both the content and popularity of the concept as the West almost unanimously regarded Russia’s invasion as a model for hybrid warfare. Despite the increasing number of critiques and criticisms concerning the novelty and validity of the concept, NATO, which may be regarded as representing the Western defence community, has used the term in its strategic documents and summit declarations. Since concepts are important in shaping our understanding and capabilities, NATO’s use of such a controversial concept has raised certain questions. In this context, this thesis aims to explore what the concept of hybrid warfare means to NATO and why NATO has used it through the eyes of NATO officials themselves, who have sufficient expertise and experience regarding the concept. In other words, by taking a phenomenological approach and interviewing twenty officials, this study aims to explore the essence of the phenomenon of “hybrid warfare” through the experiences of those NATO officials who witnessed the rise of the term’s use at NATO during the Ukrainian crisis and its subsequent aftermath. Additionally, strategic theory is used as the basis for valuation throughout the thesis as it represents the common characteristics of all wars and is crucial for understanding any emerging concept. This research confirmed that hybrid warfare is not an operational concept, it is rather a strategic communication tool that NATO has used mainly for internal as well as external purposes. The term hybrid warfare was a convenient term to make sense of what happened in Crimea and to disguise the strategic shock experienced by NATO. However, NATO has continued to use the term for various purposes; for instance, to, (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2021

What you see outside the Council of the EU with Member States publicly displaying seemingly irreconcilable positions is not the image you get when entering this institution where the formal rules and informal norms of a distinctive diplomatic system govern interstate negotiations that are organised to manage conflicts and build consensus between national delegations. The dissertation uses a praxeological angle, diplomatic lenses, and the theoretical optics of situational normativism to look inside the black box of legislative negotiations in the Council. It analyses how compromises are manufactured, and the reasons why some Member States manage to win more than others. The dissertation draws on eleven independent variables that bear on the efficacy of national negotiation strategies to offer normative propositions aiming at increasing the bargaining satisfaction of Member States. They should realise notably that in the Council you can ultimately win if you decide to lose; that being isolated might actually help; and that the European Commission can tactically be a friend with benefits., (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2019

Democratization studies have produced relevant diagnoses of the outcomes and challenges to democracy. As a general rule, these studies have privileged the role of domestic conditions, as an explanans of democratic transformation and promotion. The present thesis dialogues directly with this literature, assuming that international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), play a key role in protecting democracy in world politics. Focusing on the European Union (EU) and Organization of American States (OAS), this thesis investigates the conditions in which IGOs participate of democratic-protection policies in periods of transition a democratic discontinuity or breakdown. We would argue that three conditions are sufficient for IGOs to engage in protecting democracy. First, at the domestic level, elite actors must move toward democratization during transitional period or attempt a coup d’état in cases of discontinuity/breakdown. Second, at the international level, IGOs must coordinate their actions with an autonomous agency (the International Secretariat) in a decision-making arena that includes various member states. The present study has used the combination of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Causal Process-tracing (CPT) to select typical cases and verify the empirical causal mechanisms that led those three conditions toward the intended outcome. It has analyzed the role of IGOs during the Czechoslovakian, Bulgarian, and Haitian periods of transition, as well as cases of democracy discontinuity/breakdown in Hungary, Romania, Peru, Paraguay, Guatemala, and Honduras. The findings show that the analytical model has considered the role of conditions in all cases of transition for both organizations, as well as all cases involving the breakdown of democracy and OAS action. The European Union behaves differently in cases of democratic discontinuity because the EU democracy-protection regime represents an intervenient variable, especially given the o, (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2019

Les recherches menées ces dernières annéessur la question de la gouvernance sous ses différentes formes font apparaître deux trajectoires qui, d'une manière différente, conduisent à faire retour sur la question de l'Eta, voire sur la notion d'Etat elle-même dans le monde actuel, dans un sens qui interroge le politologue: l'(inter)dépendence de l'Etat ou des Etats.

The financial crisis that hurt the European Union in 2008 became an opportunity window for EU Brussels-based think tanks in order to reinforce their role on the European scene and their influence on the output of European public policies. Given that the emergence and development of EU Brussels-based think tanks is relatively new, there are few research documents on this specific type of actor. Therefore, this dissertation analyzes how, and to what extent, EU Brussels-based think tanks have an influence on the output of a specific European public policy, the European Banking Union. In order to carry out this research, two case studies have been selected – because of their representativeness – Bruegel and the European Policy Centre. Through data analysis and interviews, this dissertation will demonstrate the specific role played those EU Brussels-based think tanks and variables that allow an organization to have impact on policy output., (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2018

Au cours des dernières décennies, les relations internationales ont profondément évolué : décolonisation, éclatement des grands blocs, apparition de nouveaux acteurs étatiques et organisationnels, voire privés, etc. De grands textes politiques ont jalonné cette évolution et de nombreux instruments juridiques ont donné forme à cette mutation du monde et de l’Europe. Les uns comme les autres constituent des balises importantes pour la compréhension et l’analyse des relations internationales et européennes contemporaines. Il est donc apparu opportun de mettre un outil simple et maniable à la disposition tant du praticien que de l’étudiant en droit et en relations internationales. Le praticien trouvera ici réunis nombre de textes d’usage courant dans son activité professionnelle, rendus facilement accessibles par une table des matières et une table chronologique. Les étudiants poursuivant un programme incluant une dimension internationale disposeront quant à eux d’un instrument leur permettant de découvrir la nature, la portée et le contenu des grands textes politiques qui marquent l’évolution des relations internationales autant que des règles juridiques qui les gouvernent. Ce recueil est complété par un site internet (www.legis.be) proposant une grande série de documents complémentaires (textes internationaux, extraits de textes constitutionnels de nombreux États relatifs aux relations internationales ou textes de droit interne belge pertinents en la matière), de liens ou d’accès à des moteurs de recherche spécialisés qui constituent autant de prolongements interactifs du recueil.

In February 2008 became a fully independent state. But almost ten years after that, recognition of Kosovo remains a problematic and divisive case for international community. As we see independantist movements rising throughout Europe, it seems relevant to study Kosovo's recognition by european member states. The purpose of the thesis is to determine which factors take decisive part in the decision to reognize or not this country. The following factors are tested : respect of international law, searching for regional stability, links with Serbia, suivism of great powers and internal separatist threat. In order to determine the impact of these different factors, this thesis study the international recognition policy of Kosovo of ten members states : the three great European states (Germany, France and United Kingdom), the five states European who refused to recognize Kosovo (Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia, Romania, Spain), and Belgium and Bulgaria. In the end, this thesis point out that the fear, in some member states, to see an official recognition of Kosovo stimulate internal separatist movements. This fear leads to a refusal of recognition if the member state made a link between his own situation and Serbia's one. This link is a central concept of the thesis. It open the way to an integration of proximity with Serbia and domestic political situation in an original model., Survenue en février 2008 l’indépendance du Kosovo reste un cas aussi particulier que problématique qui divise la communauté internationale. A l’heure où des volontés indépendantistes se font jour en Europe, il nous a semblé pertinent d’étudier l’attitude de plusieurs États européens quant à la reconnaissance du Kosovo. L’objet de la thèse consiste à déterminer quels facteurs interviennent de manière décisive dans la décision de reconnaître ou de ne pas reconnaître ce pays. Les facteurs testés sont les suivants : la volonté de respecter le droit international, la recherche de la stabilité régionale, la proximité avec la Serbie, le suivisme par rapport aux grandes puissances et la présence d’une revendication interne d’indépendance ou d’autonomie. Afin de déterminer l’importance respective de ces facteurs, la thèse étudie la politique de reconnaissance à l’égard du Kosovo de dix États membres : les trois grand États européens (Allemagne, France, Royaume-Uni), les cinq États ayant refusé de reconnaître le Kosovo (Chypre, Grèce, Slovaquie, Roumanie et Espagne) ainsi que la Belgique et la Bulgarie. Au final, cette thèse montre l’aspect central de la crainte, chez certains États membres, de voir une reconnaissance encourager des mouvements séparatistes internes. Il apparaît que cette crainte conduit à un refus de reconnaissance du Kosovo si l’État membre fait le lien entre sa propre situation et celle de la Serbie. Ce concept de lien, central dans la thèse, permet d’intégrer la proximité avec la Serbie et la situation politique interne dans un modèle original., (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2017

The complex nature of the European Union has mainly been theorized through the governance process. In a global perspective, the concept of governance refers to an interdependence between State and non-State actors. The aim of this article is to investigate theoretical perspectives about actions of think tanks in a governance process. I shall be focused on think tanks, analyzed as knowledge organizations. Therefore this article shall investigate the stratégies developped by think tanks in order to create a power dependency in the European governance.

At the end of the Cold War and under the influence of globalisation, China has adopted the strategy of new regionalism to maintain its peaceful development. It considers East Asia as priority of foreign relations and Northeast Asia as gravity of the region. It has been working to unify Northeast Asian countries, and to make the integration process in East Asia more effective. It believes that more unified Northeast Asia and East Asia will serve as platform to its peaceful development in the globalised world. The objective of this research is to study the relevance between new regionalism and China's peaceful development. This research is an empirical study. It uses the theory of new regionalism to analyse China’s regional strategy of cooperation in Northeast Asia and East Asia. It adopted qualitative design, and uses both primary and secondary sources. It is a combination of historical, descriptive, comparative, and analytical methodologies, and the method of discourse analysis is used to comment China's new thinking on regionalism. The findings of the research are: China’s strategy of new regionalism, which is a multilateral and multidimensional approach, helps significantly its peaceful development in the age of globalisation. It has also accelarated the building up of East Asia Community (EAC) and the formation of a new world order. Through this research, the author intends to encourage China to continue its ‘Good Neighbour Policy’ and to invite East Asian countries to cooperate more closely, widely, and deeply., (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2017

At the time of its resurgence during the last decades of the 20th century, the concept of governance, used by some as a feature of a political solution and by others as a criterion for analysis, was presented as something unchangeable and likely to serve as a lasting reference parameter. However, in particular due to different types of developments on the international stage, the normative dimension of governance most of all will be subject to re-assessment and to changes which even go so far as to question its legitimacy. This leads to us question ourselves regarding the impact of these changes on the normative capacity of governance. This article is based upon the hypothesis that that capacity has today reached the point of exhaustion, due in particular to governance being represented in multiple ways.

The analytical and critical investigation of the concept of good governance is the topic of this paper. The main lines of inquiry singled out here regard the theoretical analysis of the concept, the exploration of its semantics and evolution within the discourse of the main international political economic institutions (i.e. the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, along with the OECD and the UN as forums of discussion, specialized agencies and, above all, as policy-makers). The concept’s normative principles and empirical consequences are also assessed, and we critically deconstruct its ideological connotations. The last part of this essay focuses on a critique of the concept, considered as a key tool in the neoliberal consensus according to some scholars, and we evaluate the potential opening of a window of opportunity triggered by the entry of the concept of inequality within this discourse for the paradigm shift away from hegemonic neoliberal consensus.

On the basis of his former publications, of his contribution to researchers structures and of his practice for the benefit of the community, the author stresses the inadequacy of means but also the dispersion of legal instruments and of political dynamics in various sectors of the fight against maritime criminality. This situation does not make it possible any more the international community to react at the speed of events to dam up phenomena likely to induce disintegrating effects (singularly at economic, social and human levels) against which it will be even more difficult to fight tomorrow. The current model must thus be reconsidered. It is advisable to partly seek the ways of a new political dynamics beyond the usual processes of negotiation which would be likely to lead here to the adoption of a new Treaty especially forwarding the catalog of the failures of its predecessors. Consequently alternative negotiating processes and soft Law will not be to neglect., (POLS - Sciences politiques et sociales) -- UCL, 2015

For a long time, the question of the nature of power has been subject to debate between the various trends of theories of international relations. Such a question was not only limited to the field of international relations. It was and still is a fundamental paradigm of political science (see f.eg Heywood, 1997). However, in the field of international relations the debate was most often presented as a confrontation between the realist school of theories of international relations, advocating the principle of power mainly defined in terms of constraint and military force (Morgenthau, 1993), and the liberal school supporting the idea of a more diverse nature of power (more specifically based on economic resources …)(Keohane and Nye, 2001). The end of the cold war opened the hypothesis that such a debate was obsolescent, considering that economic relations became the dominating issue in a world rid of great powers rivalry. Nevertheless the evolution of the international system since then reveals a growingly complex picture of what is going on in the contemporary world. The international system is torn between simultaneous and contradictory trends and aspirations : the reality of anarchy and a aspiration to order, growing pressure between global issues (economic, energy, environmental…) and challenges on the one hand and persisting disagreements on the needed solutions, tensions between integration in an international regime (Krassner, ) and sovereignty reflexes , the fragmegration phenomenon underlined by James Rosenau (Rosenau, 2003) , the ambiguity in State’s relationship with governance (Vercauteren, 20 … The aim of this paper is to assess the impact of emerging powers on the transformation of power.

In the field of international relations the debate on power was most often presented as a confrontation between the realist school of theories of international relations, advocating the principle of power mainly defined in terms of constraint and military force (Morgenthau, 1993), and the liberal school supporting the idea of a more diverse nature of power (more specifically based on economic resources …)(Keohane and Nye, 2001). The end of the cold war opened the hypothesis that such a debate was obsolescent, considering that economic relations became the dominating issue in a world rid of great powers rivalry. Nevertheless the evolution of the international system since then reveals a growingly complex picture of what is going on in the contemporary world. The international system is torn between simultaneous and contradictory trends and aspirations : the reality of anarchy and a aspiration to order, growing pressure between global issues (economic, energy, environmental…) and challenges on the one hand and persisting disagreements on the needed solutions, tensions between integration in an international regime (Krassner, 1983 ) and sovereignty reflexes , the fragmegration phenomenon underlined by James Rosenau (Rosenau, 2003) , the ambiguity in State’s relationship with governance (Vercauteren, 2014)… Such a context seems to reinvigorate the debate on the nature of power in today’s world, especially with the view to the impact of the Emerging Powers phenomenon.

For a long time, the question of the nature of power has been subject to debate between the various trends of theories of international relations. Such a question was not only limited to the field of international relations. It was and still is a fundamental paradigm of political science (see f.eg Heywood, 1997). However, in the field of international relations the debate was most often presented as a confrontation between the realist school of theories of international relations, advocating the principle of power mainly defined in terms of constraint and military force (Morgenthau, 1993), and the liberal school supporting the idea of a more diverse nature of power (more specifically based on economic resources …)(Keohane and Nye, 2001). The end of the cold war opened the hypothesis that such a debate was obsolescent, considering that economic relations became the dominating issue in a world rid of great powers rivalry. Nevertheless the evolution of the international system since then reveals a growingly complex picture of what is going on in the contemporary world. The international system is torn between simultaneous and contradictory trends and aspirations : the reality of anarchy and a aspiration to order, growing pressure between global issues (economic, energy, environmental…) and challenges on the one hand and persisting disagreements on the needed solutions, tensions between integration in an international regime (Krassner, 1983 ) and sovereignty reflexes, the fragmegration phenomenon underlined by James Rosenau (Rosenau, 2003) , the ambiguity in State’s relationship with governance (Vercauteren, 2014)… Such a context seems to reinvigorate the debate on the nature of power in today’s world. According to Stephen Walt in a recent article in Foreign Policy (Walt, 2014), “great power politics still matters a lot”. This assertion raises a question: what power? In another article in the same issue of Foreign Policy, George Parker seems to provide an answer when he

Tout au long de la guerre froide, le système international était caractérisé par une rivalité bipolaire entre deux superpuissances autour desquels s’étaient organisés des blocs d’alliance. En dehors de cette configuration, un mouvement des Etats non-alignés entendait bien manifester sa volonté de rester en dehors de cette structure dominante. Depuis la fin de la guerre froide jusqu’à nos jours, la hiérarchie des puissances dans le système international a connu d’importante mutation, notamment avec l’apparition des puissances émergentes. Ce phénomène traduit dans le fond une évolution de la nature de la puissance contemporaine et, partant du rapport des Etats à la paix ainsi qu’à la guerre et aux enjeux de sécurité. Ce dernier point est d’autant plus important qu’il est marqué par de profondes mutations C’est donc à une profonde modification des rapports de l’Etat à la paix et à la sécurité que l’on assiste depuis ces deux dernières décennies. C’est à cette question qu’est destinée la présente communication qui, partant de l’évolution de la nature des enjeux de sécurité et de la nature de la puissance, évaluera alors les nouveaux rapports de l’Etat à la paix dans le monde contemporain.

When the end of the cold war happened in 1989, the question of the nature of power seemed obsolescent. It was until then subject to debate as it was considered as a fundamental concept of international relations. Such debate which in some aspect gave the picture of an intellectual rivalry between the main trends of theories of international relations had been going on for decades. It was mainly presented as a confrontation between two nearly irreconcilable schools of thought, the realist approach advocating the principle of power mainly defined in terms of “hard power” (Morgenthau, 1993) based on means of constraint and military force, on the one hand, and the liberal approach advocating the principle of a more diverse nature of power (more specifically based on economic resources…) impacted by phenomenon such as interdependence (Keohane and Nye, 2001) The end of the cold war not only affected the perspective of the question of power. It also revealed trends and phenomena such as globalization and governance which appeared as data’s and paradigms to be henceforth taken into consideration in the analysis of international relations. In this context, the issue of global governance became more and more salient. More specifically, the question of governance – as defined by the World Bank as “… the way in which power is exercised in the management of the economic and social resources of a country for its development” (World Bank , 1992, 1) - seemed first to induce a paradigm shift from “government” to “governance” (Vercauteren, 2014). It was propagated in a context in which economic affairs were considered as the dominating issues in the world system. It was somehow summarized by the phrase attributed to Bill Clinton during his first presidential campaign in 1992: “It’s the economy stupid!”. Since the beginning of the 21rst century, the advent of the emerging countries phenomenon (called as the BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) opens the hypothesis of

Dans le domaine de la recherche en sciences politiques, la période actuelle est caractérisée par l’épuisement progressif de l’efficacité cognitive des catégories d’analyse qui rendent compte de « l’acte de gouverner » (souveraineté, pouvoir, puissance…) et des institutions ou régimes qui les mettent en formes : (État, gouvernement…). Catégories forgées pour l’essentiel à partir du XVe siècle ou qui prennent leur sens contemporain à partir de cette période, elles semblent inadéquates pour appréhender ce que nous vivons.. Cette inadéquation engendre deux effets opposés mais qui peuvent être simultanés : masquer ou au contraire surestimer les transformations actuelles qui semblent affecter les « arts de gouverner ». Dans ce contexte, il convient de s’interroger sur la portée véritable, la signification et l réalité des transformations qui se produisent sous nos yeux.Les transformations concernent-elles les finalités, les mises en forme, les discours, les pratiques ? Tout cela ou certains aspects seulement, tous les États dans le monde ou certains d’entre-eux ? Pourquoi alors ne pas sortir de la démarche classique consistant à traiter chacune de ces catégories d’analyse de manière isolée pour entrer résolument dans une approche considérant l'ensemble des catégories sous la forme d’une « configuration » dont chacune des composantes est en interaction avec les autres et dont l’ensemble figure les différentes manières de gouverner, les institutions qu’elles mettent en place, les discours qu’elles énoncent. Pour cela, il est nécessaire de dépasser les découpages disciplinaires qui sont à la fois les producteurs et les résultantes de ces catégories d’analyse et de ne plus focaliser sur l’une d’entre elles, par exemple l’État, mais au contraire prendre un objet large, les différentes modalités de l’acte de gouverner, pour l’apprécier dans son historicité plutôt que dans une pseudo naturalité.

Durant la décennie qui suivit la fin de la guerre froide, la survenance du phénomène de puissance émergente n'a pas manqué d'avoir un impact sur les relations internationales en général, et plus particulièrement sur les organes décisionnels des instances de gouvernance globale. Ce faisant, cet impact traduit non seulement une redistribution de la puissance dans le monde contemporain mais également un questionnement de la nature même de la puissance. Dans cette perspective, l'objet de la présente contribution consiste à identifier les stratégies développées par les puissances émergentes et à en retirer les enseignements sur la question de l'évolution de la nature du pouvoir dans les rapports mondiaux.

This paper analyses the question of what sovereignty refers to in contemporary world. Starting from Robert Keohane’s article entitled “Ironies of Sovereignty: the European Union and the United States”, this paper investigates the evolutions and characteristics of sovereignty in the EU and the USA through the contribution of Norberto Bobio’s typology, and how sovereignty can be affected by the different conceptions on the State. This leads to evaluate the convergence between the European Union and the United States on the conception of sovereignty. Based on such comparison, this article raises the hypothesis of a “multilevel sovereignty” of States facing growing common pressures from the international systemRecebido em: 16 julho 2015Aceito em: 04 outubro 2015

The initial concept of governance, as specified by the World Bank in 1992 and inspired in a normative perspective by the « Washington Consensus », was the bearer of a perspective of the withdrawal of the State in a processus to which different kinds of actors were invited to provide answers to the deficit of legitimacy and effectiveness encountered by several countries. More recently, in 2010, the adoption by the members of the G20 of the « Seoul Consensus » marked a new stage in the conception of governance, thus moving away from the approach of the « Washington Consensus ». The objective of the present paper is to analyse the reasons for the transition from one Consensus to another and to specify more particularly what this evolution involves for the role of the State in Governance. To this end, this analysis investigates the limits of Governance applied according to its initial design and identifies some changes in the international system, including the arrival of emerging powers in a context of multiple crises in order to identify the repercussion on States. All of these elements lead us to reconsider the role of the State in global governance, particularly in the light of the « Seoul Consensus ».

Global governance in the current international system seems to be characterized by a paradox: a governance navigating between, on the one side, limits endured or accepted of actions of the States on the international scene, limits which seem to open the way to the global governance, and, on the other side the weakness of the results from the international organization which symbolizes the symbol of global governance, the UNO. Such a paradox has an impact on the debate on the international normativity. It arises while numerous analyses (McCarthy & Jones, 1995) underline the erosion of the capacity of governments to be the exclusive authorities of normativity on the international scene. In this perspective, two critics are raised: an erosion of the capacity to create norms, and an erosion of the capacity to have them respected. How, in this context, to analyze the question of international normativity with such the paradox underlined earlier? The aim of the present contribution is, in a first part, to clarify, from the observation of the transformation crisis of the State, the phenomenon of the shift from « government » towards « governance », and the contradictions and ambiguities revealed by such a shift in States behavior. These elements enable in a second part to define the phenomenon of “governemance” and to evaluate its impact on the question of international norms, a normativity which can be approached from a formal as well as informal perspective.

Au cours des dernières décennies, l’Etat en crise de sens et de recomposition a fait face au phénomène de glissement du « gouvernement » vers la « gouvernance ». Ce faisant, la question du sens de l’Etat, à défaut de pouvoir trouver réponse, a laissé pendante cette question au profit d’une focalisation sur les processus de décision et d’action politiques. Le « pourquoi » devait laisser la place au « comment ». Le glissement du « gouvernement » vers la « gouvernance » constituait d’une certaine manière un moyen pour l’Etat de retrouver une légitimité érodée voire affaiblie. Ces évolutions et tendances se sont alors accompagnées de discours de l’Etat justifiant celles-ci : il est moins question de « gouverner », notamment dans une perspective de légitimité démocratique, que de « gérer » dans une finalité d’efficacité source elle-même de légitimité. Cependant, les limites de la gouvernance ont généré à leurs tours des remises en cause de celle-ci, affectant par-là même les justifications jusqu’alors avancées par les acteurs publics. L’Etat se trouve alors face au dilemme posé par le recours à la gouvernance : celle-ci sensé contribuer à la relégitimation de l’Etat peut en devenir un obstacle. C’est ce dilemme qui sera investigué dans la présente contribution à travers une question : en quoi l’Etat moralisateur est-il affecté par la gouvernance ?

This paper analyses the question of what sovereignty refers to in contemporary world. Starting from Robert Keohane’s article entitled “Ironies of Sovereignty: the European Union and the United States”, this paper investigates the evolutions and characteristics of sovereignty in the EU and the USA through the contribution of Norberto Bobio’s typology, and how sovereignty can be affected by the different conceptions on the State. This leads to evaluate the convergence between the European Union and the United States on the conception of sovereignty. Based on such comparison, this article raises the hypothesis of a “multilevel sovereignty” of States facing growing common pressures from the international system.

On 1st December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. This latter has substantial impact on the European governance, largely due to central institutional changes such as the reinforced role of colegislator of the European Parliament or the new status of the Council and its President. As outlined in the title, this draft will analyze the (European) governance through the Lisbon Treaty. The concept of governance is defined as a « co-production mode of decision-making among different types of actors » (Bartolini 2011:11). Those modes of decision-making could be different according to the context and the institutional arrangements. This (European) governance will be analyzed through a specific actor willing to contribute to policy-making : the think tank. For a long while neglected in the political science literature, think tanks have – since the last decade – begun to be recognized. Therefore this draft aims to study think tanks defined broadly as permanent organizations that attempt to influence public policy by mobilizing research. The focus will particularly be on the strategies put in place by think tanks in order to exert an influence on the institutional change in the governance of the European Union (EU), focusing on the executive powers of the European Commission (EC). Building on the typology1 of euro-specific think tanks2 (provided by Stone & Denham 2004, Boucher & Royo 2012), this draft will revolve around a governmental3 think tank – currently called Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA); and around the strategy the think tank of the EC mobilizes to have an impact on the executive powers of this latter implemented through the Lisbon Treaty. This draft aims to picture the role of this specific governmental think tank and to understand which are the strategies of this think tank in order to have an impact on the Lisbon Treaty, and specifically on the powers of the EC. The purpose of this draft is the analysis: - of a specific actor – a governmental