Suchergebnisse

Since the late 19th century, the international scene has witnessed several waves of globalization that have transformed regulation and cooperation between nations. The current wave – that economists have defined as "globalization 4.0" – is shaped by an industrial revolution that combines digital, physical and biological transformations. Digital technology has a deep structural impact on public and private goods such as health, education, transportation or energy, which changes the terms of the global condition. It disrupts both the organization of societies and the relation between individuals and globalization. Compared to previous waves of globalization, globalization 4.0 affects the international system and runs throughout the global social fabric by increasing throughout the world the level of inequalities and by triggering subsequent polarization and fragmentation. In this global context, our current modes of cooperation and regulation are facing growing issues of legitimacy and efficiency, that are not entirely new, but that are now becoming particularly acute. Those issues of legitimacy and efficiency are furthermore complicated by a shared experience of disconnection from globalization – the rise of the globalization's so-called "left-behinds" – that could be characterized as a form of anomy at the international level. This complex challenge has not yet been fully embraced by the major institutions of global governance. There have been however responses at the sub-global level: connectivity politics, launched by China and followed by the European Union, is one illustration of the new paths that might be taken by global policy makers.

Since the late 19th century, the international scene has witnessed several waves of globalization that have transformed regulation and cooperation between nations. The current wave – that economists have defined as "globalization 4.0" – is shaped by an industrial revolution that combines digital, physical and biological transformations. Digital technology has a deep structural impact on public and private goods such as health, education, transportation or energy, which changes the terms of the global condition. It disrupts both the organization of societies and the relation between individuals and globalization. Compared to previous waves of globalization, globalization 4.0 affects the international system and runs throughout the global social fabric by increasing throughout the world the level of inequalities and by triggering subsequent polarization and fragmentation. In this global context, our current modes of cooperation and regulation are facing growing issues of legitimacy and efficiency, that are not entirely new, but that are now becoming particularly acute. Those issues of legitimacy and efficiency are furthermore complicated by a shared experience of disconnection from globalization – the rise of the globalization's so-called "left-behinds" – that could be characterized as a form of anomy at the international level. This complex challenge has not yet been fully embraced by the major institutions of global governance. There have been however responses at the sub-global level: connectivity politics, launched by China and followed by the European Union, is one illustration of the new paths that might be taken by global policy makers.

This article looks at contemporary Japanese nationalism in the context of growing far-right movements within democratic societies around the world, notably in Europe and North America, and the general rejection of the "happy globalization" narrative that has shaped the international order since the end of the Cold War. Japan, which witnessed the birth of the "borderless world" metaphor in the 1990s, is now contributing in its own way to the early twenty-first century worldwide longing for strong borders and an aggressive military posture. The rise of ultra-conservatism in democratic societies cannot be reduced to a "Western problem"; by taking into account the political transformation of a country such as Japan it is possible to consider a truly global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences.

This article looks at contemporary Japanese nationalism in the context of growing far-right movements within democratic societies around the world, notably in Europe and North America, and the general rejection of the "happy globalization" narrative that has shaped the international order since the end of the Cold War. Japan, which witnessed the birth of the "borderless world" metaphor in the 1990s, is now contributing in its own way to the early twenty-first century worldwide longing for strong borders and an aggressive military posture. The rise of ultra-conservatism in democratic societies cannot be reduced to a "Western problem"; by taking into account the political transformation of a country such as Japan it is possible to consider a truly global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences.

La frontière, en tant que principe organisateur des relations internationales, a une histoire. Il faut tenir compte de celle-ci pour comprendre pourquoi, vu d'Europe, la notion de " dépassement des frontières " peut sembler une sorte d'idéal politique à atteindre, alors que vu d'ailleurs ce n'est pas nécessairement le cas. Le contraste des perceptions est, en l'occurrence, particulièrement net entre les anciennes puissances impériales européennes et les nations qui ont subi la domination de ces dernières. La signification de la souveraineté n'est historiquement pas la même chez les unes et les autres. L'homogénéité du discours sur le " village global " ou le " monde sans frontières " tend à faire perdre de vue cette différence fondamentale entre les trajectoires nationales. Elle n'en pèse pas moins dans la façon dont les Etats, européens et non-européens, se positionnent face à la mondialisation contemporaine.

La frontière, en tant que principe organisateur des relations internationales, a une histoire. Il faut tenir compte de celle-ci pour comprendre pourquoi, vu d'Europe, la notion de " dépassement des frontières " peut sembler une sorte d'idéal politique à atteindre, alors que vu d'ailleurs ce n'est pas nécessairement le cas. Le contraste des perceptions est, en l'occurrence, particulièrement net entre les anciennes puissances impériales européennes et les nations qui ont subi la domination de ces dernières. La signification de la souveraineté n'est historiquement pas la même chez les unes et les autres. L'homogénéité du discours sur le " village global " ou le " monde sans frontières " tend à faire perdre de vue cette différence fondamentale entre les trajectoires nationales. Elle n'en pèse pas moins dans la façon dont les Etats, européens et non-européens, se positionnent face à la mondialisation contemporaine.

Peut-on partager le même récit de l'histoire dans toutes les régions du globe ? En quoi, par exemple, peut-on dire que la seconde guerre était bien « mondiale » ? Au-delà du choix de termes partageables, il s'agit aussi de savoir si l'on peut fonder des normes à partir d'une histoire commune ou si les visions antagonistes nationales, culturelles ou régionales des événements du monde restent insurmontables.

A review essay on books edited by (1) Mabel Berezin & Martin Schain, Europe without Borders. Remapping Territory, Citizenship and Identity in a Transnational Age (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U Press, 2003); & (2) Alain Dieckhoff, The Politics of Belonging, Nationalism, Liberalism and Pluralism (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2004).