The term “governance” therefore corresponds to this new international system, one that is still difficult to describe. We know only that it is more flexible, that its political and economic spaces are no longer isolated from one another, that more actors are involved and that many more of them may play a decisive role, and that its issues are partly new, variable, and often unstable compared to those of traditional Cold War confrontations.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the novelty of this world has sparked off numerous studies on how one should think of and govern this world. The dominant theory pushed a vision based largely on the demise of the state. Large states appeared to be tied to the former world order, and to its downfall. They had their militaries, their bureaucracies, and their economies – all of which were run more or less following the political logic of the 20th century. This period seemed to end with a blossoming of civil initiatives made possible by the explosion in communication technologies. We were thus going to give up on the idea of big government at the global level, the United Nations’ traditional and incipient vision. Instead, the idea was that government would give way to governance, a dynamic system in which multiple actors, new or transformed, would act in a positive manner to balance the system: civil societies in their various manifestations, non‑governmental organizations (NGOs), transnational corporations, companies, and of course states. But the latter would henceforth play a virtually marginalized, exploited role. This idea corresponds poorly to the reality of a decade dominated by the largest state power (the United States of America) and marked by more-or-less classic conflicts, even if their environment changed: conflicts that were mostly between states or arose from the disintegration of states. Nonetheless, the image of a world system that is self-regulating, the majority of forces impartially interacting in ways that are both active and counterbalancing, has dominated political thought for nearly two decades.

Boosted by the boom in international exchanges, corporations played a central role in this theory. As the first representatives of globalization, they symbolized the beginning, the development, the power, in short, the intelligence of civil society. The patterns in this new world had to be organized around them and their interpretation of the international community’s needs – principally, economic development. But once again reality did not mirror this, yet the theory endured. At the end of the first decade of the new century, however, this first post-Cold War period is coming to a close. And along with it will go all the theories that wanted to believe – despite signs to the contrary in the form of continual confrontations within the international community – in global self-regulation by infra- or supra-political actors and levels – with the role of the state being thus marginalized.

As for what will follow this period, we have only today’s reality. The international system barely resembles the dreams of the early 1990s. Multilateral institutions are making little headway, despite some notable progress. States are universally asked to intervene, though often on new terms and therefore must redefine the direction of their actions and their capacity to influence the world. NGOs are certainly more advanced than they were in previous decades, but they are not at the center of international action. In a world that is both open and extremely divided, they are without doubt too diverse to be considered a single actor. Companies that yesterday were viewed as “governing” bodies run into the arms of the state as soon as crisis breaks out. And the challenges are massive, as is to be expected in such a highly interconnected world: economic, health, migration, energy, environmental, and terrorist challenges, as well as those related to arms proliferation, education, development, the spread of technology, etc. None of these issues can be dealt with merely on the basis of the good will of civil society, whose actors would work in a dispersed structure, even under the leadership of “citizen corporations.”

One result of the current phase of globalization is the expansion of the idea of public good, of common interest – at the very least because today’s dangers threaten to affect ever larger segments of humanity. The clearest example is perhaps the health challenge. Throughout the history of humanity, major epidemics have depended on forms of communication that connect, and forms of quarantine that isolate, human societies. Their geography and their rate of progression are today completely disrupted by revolutions in human communication. Health is, of course, an individual, social good. Yet it is also a global challenge. It is thus necessary to work towards a system that allows timely response to such global challenges – in addition to traditional challenges that continue unabated, as current events prove daily.

We inevitably find ourselves faced with the necessity to define a contemporary role for the state. However diverse and unequal they may be, and however often they may be criticized, states are the only actors that are able to accomplish three essential tasks for our rudderless world. First, they define the public good for their respective populations – even though they are not alone in doing so and even though they sometimes do a poor job. Second, while states are not the only forces that determine how human societies move towards democracy, it is they that can (unilaterally or collectively) lay down the ground rules for the “production of democracy” by civil society. Third, only states can draft the rules for the functioning of a relatively homogeneous human society: their cooperation and mutual understanding makes the international situation easier to comprehend, and allows it to be deciphered and redirected.

It is not a question of denying or writing off the role of social initiatives, which may impose themselves on these states and have been at the heart, throughout modern history, of remarkable progress. Rather, it is a matter of reconsidering the balance between diverse political actors, domestically and internationally, while restoring the position and importance of a state-led approach to world problems. This will, of course, be a new approach, since our global environment is also new.

Can states carry out this “self-revolution” and reconsider their place in the world – in short, can they drastically reassess and reinvent themselves? If they do it alone, the answer is clearly no. Nor will inter-state organizations help them, since they believe that they themselves are the drivers of global governance. The impetus for the requisite reassessment and reinvention cannot be expected to come from established political institutions. Though the need to study the necessary organization of the world is clear, existing institutions are not up to the task. It is in this context that the initiative for the World Policy Conference was born.

The World Policy Conference aims to bring together the key forces of research and action in our globalized world, along with political leaders from across the globe, to address the issue of global governance. It aims to create a forum for debate in which, beyond contending with current challenges, possible choices and decisions will be drawn up in order to steer the world. How do we see the world? What direction should we take for its development? What concrete ideas should we implement to manage it? Here political leaders are regarded as the leaders not only of their respective national “territories” but also as co-leaders in the running of the world, whatever the size of their country or the weight it carries.

This conference, organized by Thierry de Montbrial, is the result of years of theoretical and practical reflection on current international relations and of regular contact with top global leaders. It also rests on the debates and research of the Ifri, the institute he founded nearly 30 years ago. It is for this reason that the Ifri is dedicating a special issue of Politique étrangère to this event. Politique étrangère, which celebrated its 70th anniversary two years ago, is France’s oldest international relations journal. In anticipation of the first World Policy Conference, this special issue touches on the themes of the working groups that will accompany the conference’s plenary sessions, which will be organized around the heads of state and governments that will be present in Évian, France, in October 2008.

These ideas will not solve the world’s problems. They represent options and are likely to be reexamined at subsequent annual meetings of the World Policy Conference. Nevertheless, the articles presented in this special issue of Politique étrangère should make clear our ambition to address, over the long term, today’s major issues and actors. This issue also testifies to the fact that the need is vast, indeed global, and strives to place local issues, as serious as they are, into a global perspective.

In this special issue, world-renowned experts and Ifri’s researchers are thus taking the first step: they offer their ideas, their leitmotive, which the orchestra at the World Policy Conference will take up and vary as it sees fit.

Translated by: Gabrielle Kaprielian.