Now the problem is to consider how these non-state actors are playing on the international arena. How do they interplay? And the new international game is quite different from the traditional international game. In the traditional international game, states were the only authorized players, the only legitimate players, and in the traditional international system, the principle of the action was shaped by sovereignty and power. That’s to say nation-states were playing as sovereign actors in a clear vision of optimizing their own power and achieving the national interest. With the new international arena the situation is quite different, because when we have different kinds of actors we have different kinds of strategy, and of course the sovereignty principle is no more the shaping principle of the international arena. The international arena is from now committed to different kinds of strategy which are interplaying. For the observers but especially for the actors the previsibility of this situation is very difficult, that’s why we have to take into account two new orientations. The main principle of non-state actors is autonomy as I mentioned in my previous lecture, that’s to say the non-state actor has in mind to protect its own autonomy. And the second principle he has in mind is to control a new kind of cooperation with the other actors. Autonomy is a crucial point of the new international relations. If you take into account some non-state actors like local actors, towns, counties, regions, inside the state, those local actors are promoting their own autonomy on the international arena, and so their emancipation from the control of the sovereign nation-state. This has been pointed by Brian Hocking when he was looking at the strategy displayed by local actors in Australia. But we can find many other examples and I mentioned in my last lecture the case of NGOs, for whom the main purpose was to protect their own autonomy when playing on the international arena. Cooperation is something very important and this cooperation has to be considered at a horizontal point of view, that’s to say between transnational actors. But also on a vertical point of view among nation-states, that’s to say negotiation, cooperation between a state and its society, as Robert Putnam pointed out about the famous two-level game in international relations, a level among nation-states, and a level between nation-state, each nation-state and their own society. That’s why now we are facing a new world in which domestic and international are mixed, we are in an "intermesticworld". But we have to go further; we have to try to understand how these different kinds of actors are interplaying. In the traditional world order, there was a unique kind of actor, which was the nation-state. Nation-state had the monopoly of international relations, and international relations were relatively simple to understand as they were made of a competition between similar actors, and especially during the 19th or the 20th century, when these nation-states were very close to each other belonging to the same culture and to the same level of economic development. Now nation-states are diversified but nation-states have to compete with two other kinds of actors: identity entrepreneurs and transnational entrepreneurs. So three kinds of different actors are competing and interplaying in our present international arena: nation-states, transnational entrepreneurs and identity entrepreneurs. We know what nation-state does mean and how to define it, we know that nation-states are based on the citizen commitment, and are promoting a political representation. Now if we move to the second angle of our triangle: transnational entrepreneurs, we consider transnational entrepreneurs as inclusive entrepreneurs mobilizing individuals coming from everywhere around the world in a kind of global market. These transnational entrepreneurs that we took into account in the previous lecture, these transnational entrepreneurs are including multinational corporations, but also NGOs, but also transnational media for example. And now if we move to the third angle of our triangle: identity entrepreneurs. Identity entrepreneurs have to be discriminated from transnational entrepreneurs as they are exclusive. That’s to say they are appealing to a special part of the world, that’s to say those who are sharing the same identity. This identity is close to the other, and the appeal of the identity entrepreneur is based on community, that’s to say religious community, linguistic community, ethnic community and so we can differentiate, discriminate between those identity entrepreneurs who are based on primary allegiance and transnational entrepreneurs who are based on utilitarian allegiance. These three angles are really the expression of these three kinds of competing actors on the international arena. They have not the same identity, they don’t have the same identity, they don’t have the same allegiance, they don’t use the same kinds of mobilization instruments, they don’t have the same strategies, they don’t have the same values, they don’t have the same goals. Now the main point of the present international enigma is how to combine these different kinds of identity, these different kinds of values, these different kinds of goals, these different kinds of instruments, these different kinds of process. The anarchy of the present international arena is mainly resulting from this combination of different kinds of logic which didn’t exist in the traditional world order, and precisely if we take this triangle into account we can obviously observe that there is a permanent tension inside this triangle. The three angles are in tension with each other, that’s to say nation-states are in tension with transnational actors because transnational actors are challenging the borderlines, transnational actors are challenging the state sovereignty. This is the common tension between an actor coming from a market and an actor coming from political community, but there is the same tension between nation-states and identity entrepreneurs because identity entrepreneurs challenge the citizen commitment. They consider that the first allegiance, of an individual is not to the nation-state but to its own community: religious community, ethnic community, linguistic community. And the identity entrepreneur considers as a traitor those one who are committed to their nation-state before being committed to their community, to their <i>Gemeinschaft</i> as the German sociologist Tönnies said. Now there is also a tension between identity entrepreneurs and transnational entrepreneurs, because there is a tension, a common tension, a trivial tension, between market and community, between <i>Gesellschaft</i> and <i>Gemeinschaft</i> so this tension is expressing the main dynamic of our present international arena. But in the meantime, if they are in a permanent tension these angles, these kinds of actors are condemned to coexist and even to cooperate for a very simple reason: none of them is able now to rule without taking into account the two others. That’s to say the present international dynamics is depending on the ability of these actors to cooperate, to make transactions, and the real present dynamics in international relations is how to combine identity dynamics, with state-nation dynamics, how to combine state-nation principles with transnational entrepreneurs principles. This is in the mix of these three kinds of actors, three kinds of strategies and principles that we can find the new international order. If these actors are able to coexist and more to cooperate, we are proceeding in a peaceful way. If they are not able to find a common denominator and a common interest we are in a conflictual situation. But you see that this new kind of conflict is no more the result of a competition among states but of a tension between states, transnational actors and identity entrepreneurs.
