 Thank you very much first for the very kind words and as this is recorded I would like to take this opportunity to make a bit of a advertisement for the centre and with most of it to thank you very much Mark and for you all the staff of the centre for the wonderful time I'm spending here in Cambridge it's not finished yet so I'm just speaking in present the present time present tense it's a very stimulating environment and getting a lot from it and as you said the first accomplishment was this this book in international colonial law and I'm currently preparing the next book which would be a book on theory of international law and obviously this lecture is a kind of test for me I'm testing some IDs I'm very keen to see your reactions and comments at the end it probably didn't go unnoticed for you that in France we have a new president and for the first speech after his election Francois Hollande spoke about the return of the French dream so I don't know if my my lecture will be reflective of this French dream but at least I hope I can make you dream about the future of international law and I hope that this dream will be an awakened dream and I will not get you asleep before the end of the lecture that's my main challenge today but my insistence for that is that I think that what maybe you will have the impression that this is a discussion about words about theories and this is very abstract and very far from the reality but I would argue that theories and words matter and that it's very important to discuss about theories and I would like to take up the words of Philip Alex which are the opportunity and the honor to meet here in Cambridge which says reality is not what it is but what it is conceived to be and I think this is a very important idea and very full convergence with this statement so what is the purpose of this lecture today it starts from a question which is about the the links or the affiliation between the responsibility to protect and the cosmopolitan theory is there a link in between those two paradigm when I speak about the responsibility to protect I think I don't need to specify before such a knowledgeable assembly what it is I'm mainly referring to the outcome document of the General Assembly the 2005 summit of the General Assembly but also to the more thorough document which had been produced before by the Commission on the intervention and the sovereignty of states basically the references for me to speak about the responsibility to protect so are there any links between this responsibility to protect as it has been recently forged and the cosmopolitan theory if we look at it first sight we may answer yes obviously there is a clear link and those authors which avail themselves from the cosmopolitan philosophy would in general defend humanitarian intervention the idea that some states all the international community can intervene militarily to defend victimized civilians by their governments people who have been victimized who have been subject to mass crimes for instance just to mention one author if we think about Jürgen Habermas which I think we can classify as both a Kenshin and a cosmopolitan author he defended very dammantly the intervention in 1999 against Serbia in Kosovo to defend the people of Kosovo well so that's the that's the first impression we can get now what I want to try what I would like to try to do here is to go further and I would like to show that this link is not so obvious and in fact what I would like to do in the first part of this lecture is to show that not only this R2P as it is it has been conceived in recent times is R2P is the contraction for responsibility to protect is a foray into the cosmopolitan theory but also I think is probably a theory which would lead us to something which we don't want and which probably would not be so safe and so clear conception or conceptualization of humanitarian intervention so that will be my first part to try to analyze the foundations of the R2P and to show that it's not automatically linked to the cosmopolitan theory and in fact that it's foreign to the cosmopolitan theory what I would try to do then in a second part is to try to rebuild to try to rebuild what could be a sound cosmopolitan theory of humanitarian intervention on the basis of the cosmopolitan philosophy so let's start to by by analyzing the foundations of this responsibility to protect well I would say first I think it's a patchwork of doctrines I don't think it's very it is a very coherent concept to my view it is composed or it is a kind of patchwork of two doctrines of two main IDs the one being the idea of protection and the other being the idea of functional sovereignty let me explain those two the IDs the first is protection protection protection of the life of people protection of the security of civilians that's mainly what the R2P is about protecting the bodies the people in their in their life and in their inherent and basic needs for a decent life I submit that this is closely linked but I don't have the time to develop that to the concept of human security which has been developed in the 90s and which appeared as a banner for the foreign policy of Canada for sometimes and you have to remember that Canada pushed for the the creation of the Commission on intervention and sovereignty of states so there I think that there is a very clear link in between those two concepts what I would like to say here is that this concept of protection of life of the body of the person is totally foreign to the tension philosophy and to the cosmopolitan theory of philosophy which I think is much more about the protection of rights can's philosophy is about and can's definition of law is about had you reconcile the freedoms of all by imposing some coercion some limits to the freedoms of all how do you reconcile those freedoms how do you manage the states in order that all the rights be all the rights of all the people be reconciled so can't theory of knowing of law is not about protecting life it's about protecting the right to life it's not about protecting properties but about protecting the rights of persons to possess and secure their properties thus there has to be a military intervention in a foreign country and their cosmopolitan model it should not aim at the survival of the population or the protection of life of those people but at the protection of human rights or if you prefer it should aim at stopping the perpetration of crimes which have a massive impact on human rights this is not only a rhetorical change but it's a difference of paradigm if we are to try to understand this notion of protection and very particular philosophy I think we should better turn to hops rather than hops hops philosophy is really about protection what the people are looking for by giving up their rights to the leviathan is security is precisely protection and what motivates that's giving up of rights is the fear of their lives and hops defines the sovereign of the leviathan as the one I quote which is able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another it sounds a bit like Marine Le Pen don't you think and conversely the subjects have an absolute duty to obey the sovereign but this absolute duty ends where protection ends and this is very clearly stated in the leviathan which I quote again the obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long and no longer than the power last with by which he is able to protect them for the rights men have by nature to protect themselves when known else can protect them and by no covenant be relinquished so the true father of the R2P would thus be hops and not Kent if we accept this starting point we also have to take into account the critics which have been addressed through the R2P on this basis there are many two critical range of arguments which I would like to summarize here briefly a first range of critics would say that the R2P in focusing in focusing on the protection of life is setting aside the concern for rights so in a way security under a very her basic her basic framework security is bar gained against rights and unoffered as very I think convincing words to explain that when she shows that there has been a shift with the R2P from the idea of authority grounded on rights to an authority grounded on effective protection and she takes the example of the human rights courts judgment in behind me and Sarah Matty to show how the fact that the military operation was led in the name of humanity in a way immunized it from any accusation of violation of the rights going a bit further another range of arguments that avails itself from that avails itself from Michelle Foucault would insist that the protection of lies and not the rights means the birth at the global level of a kind of bio power which itself would be the logical consequence of the expansion of the capitalist rule the R2P would thus express a disciplinary power against states in order to manage life properly and Georgia Agamben has led the accusation with lots also of convincing words by showing that such kind of intervention which create bare life that is life without rights on the protects or protecting life are a danger for rights so protection I think should be set aside if we try to build a cosmopolitan theory of intervention of humanitarian intervention what now about what is now about the second concept which is functional sovereignty what means function sovereignty it means that sovereignty is conditioned to the fulfillment of certain given functions such a concept has been very well described in an old article 1910 published in the review general the international public by Antoine Rouget which is called the theory of intervention d'humanité very interesting article I really invite you to consult us this like what Antoine Rouget is saying is that the concept of functional sovereignty means that when that the sovereign can only use public force we implement some precise functions two functions are identified by Rouget maintaining a regular government and protecting the human rights of people the consequence is very clear in the words of Rouget when a state uses its force outside the functions of sovereignty it commits what Rouget calls a devaluation of sovereignty diversion I don't know exactly the translation having committed so to diversion the state is to be put under international control that is to say that its sovereignty is to be substituted by the sovereignty of another state or a group of states you think about it a second it's easy to see that this mechanism has a lot of similarities with the R2P where you think where the R2P says that there is a sovereignty as a responsibility means nothing else than a functional sovereignty sovereignty is conditioned by the fulfillment of the function of protection and when the state fails to fulfill that function then the international community is to take over that is to say to take control over the states substitute itself to the state in the fulfillment of this protected function now why do I think that this notion of functional sovereignty is is a problem to build a cosmopolitan theory I think the problem is twice this notion is both the poetic and it is also dangerous practically it is first a parisic because I think that if you believe in sovereignty or sovereignty being the principle of international which is not my place but I won't discuss that for the moment I think it would only complicate the discussion if you believe that sovereignty means something you believe that sovereignty means freedom basically that's one meaning of sovereignty sovereignty is a kind of transposition of the natural freedom of the individual and the state is far as a kind of natural person even though it's not natural person but that's that's the doctrine of sovereignty and there cannot be any natural person whose freedom is assigned some functions you only assign functions to artificial objects like international organizations for instance that are driven by a principle of speciality and that are limited to fulfilling that function you cannot only conceptualize a freedom which is function that cannot exist so it's in a poem the second thing and I think which is the most most probably the most important thing is that functional sovereignty is dangerous sovereignty also means not only doesn't only mean free means freedom it also means self-determination it also means independence from foreign intervention it also means the right of the people to give themselves their own government without any foreign intervention the major risk of the R2P as it is conceptualized is that it allows to decide whether a state should remain independent or not and the most worrying thing worrying is that this decision pertains to a body which is a security council we know takes a decision in a total arbitrary manner I would say discretionary manner to be more moderate so basically what the R2P means is that the security council can decide to the private state and the people of its independence and to submit it to be to an international control here again I think that the criticisms addressed by the post-modern philosophers are far so again I would propose to set aside this idea of functional sovereignty and with this I would propose that the notion of the responsibility to protect is not the right concept we need to theorize humanitarian intervention so now let me try to rebuild that proposal and that's a theory of intervention under or through a cosmopolitan perspective I have to say a few words to form the general framework general framework of the cosmopolitan theory before explaining the central concept which I think can help us which is federal execution I would summarize very briefly you know the thinking of cancer that this is very bro simplification I'm sorry for that of course I don't have time you know very well the story all the people are in the state of nature they have natural rights but unfortunately they cannot enforce those rights and they cannot secure those rights they are in the state of insecurity because there is no central government or there is no force or generally force of creation that would impose some limits to the freedom of all so that the freedom of each and everyone can be respected so what the people would do would be to decide to institute a commonwealth where by a central force the power of cohesion can impose some limits to the freedoms of all so that the freedoms of each and everyone can be respected but the problem says can't it's not the end of it says can't because the state of war state of war against of all against all continues to prevail at the international level the nations are continuing to make war to each other and the state of insecurity continues because of that war so the states themselves have to also fund a commonwealth of nations Kent is wondering what could be the best institution and it contemplates the possibility of a world state which he rejects why because it won't be manageable because it will be a world tyranny and he proposes instead a concept which I think is very useful which is central to my reflection which is the federation of free states federation of free states means may seems a bit mysterious if you have a federation only the federation is sovereign but not the member states so how can there be a federation of free states it seems to be a poetic again my submission here is that what can't mean is not that the federation of free state is a static notion it's about a process it's about a process from going to the natural state the state of nature to the civil state at the international level and this passage results from a dialectic between two conflictive imperatives the imperative of freedom and the imperative of cohesion states states have to remain free so that freedom of individuals is to be preserved and protected against foreign intervention at the same time there can be no freedom without a certain degree of cohesion so building a cosmopolitan perspective means finding at each and every moment a balance between freedom and cohesion if the theory of free states is the central motion which I would like to use theory fear the federation of free states as a process and not to be taken at a certain moment in time not to say that there is today a federation of free states that is existing because that anyway that would be a contradiction in terms but that there is a process on going to build a federation of free states if this is the central concept then we have to use the tools of the theory of federation to try to explain and to try to describe what we see in the reality today and in particular to try to explain the phenomenon of humanitarian intervention one tool which I would like to put forward here is the tool of federal execution so it doesn't mean that's the translation from the French it doesn't mean capital punishment because I say that because then when I try to Google lies the federal execution that's the only thing I got somebody's been executed the federal execution in this is this is really an expression this is a notion which is part of the theory of the federation is something which is discussed in the manuals where there are some reflection few minutes where we have some reflections about how a federation included in the United States for instance the do do work the crucial question to which this this notion is trying to give an answer is the fact how can possibly independence and self-determination be preserved while accepting the principle of military intervention we have seen that in my opinion the R2P does not give any satisfying answer that question again it is Kant's releases on this when he deals with the modalities of the just war against the unjust enemy all nations discount to unite against the unjust enemy whose conduct affects the interest of all nations of them all those nations united should deprive the culprit of the power to act in a similar way again however this does not entitle them that is to say this coalition of nations opposing the unjust enemy to divide up the offending state among themselves and to make it disappear as it were from the face of the earth so this will be an injustice against the people who cannot lose their original right to unite in a commonwealth and in France to form a republic to found the Republic they can only be made to accept the people of that state and only be made to accept the new constitution of a nature that is unlikely to uncourage these war-like inclinations everything is said there I could stop there in fact I was finished because I'm nearly there so but basically what can says here is that there is a limit the clear limit in the just war because what are we talking about what are we talking about is basically just war theory and the R2P is a new version of the just war theory there is a clear limit which is put to the power of the federal of the federal institution of the federal entity when it intervenes militarily to stop the violation of the federal covenant how do you express that in law with the concept of the notion of federal in execution this concept has been I think very clearly explained by a French publicist whose name I think is a bit forgotten whose name is Leon Duguy it was a French publicist of the first half of the 20th century he was in a way the master of somebody who is much more well known to us international lawyers which is Jean Vercel and Leon Duguy has made a very clear theory of the federation and in particular federal execution what he explained is that the the members of the federation the members of the federation are created or the institutions of the members of the federation are created by an act to which the federal entity federal government if you like has not participated and this act which could be for instance a local election local election electing the government of the federal of the constituent of the member of the federation this act of election is something that gives its autonomy through the constituent part of the federation it's autonomy towards the federal government so the constituency of the federation the member of the federation as its own attorneys as its own legitimacy and thus the relation between the federal level and the constituents is not one of hierarchy the federal institutions cannot command through the government of the members there's no relation of comment but still the federal institutions have a role to play towards the federal government the federal institutions have to play a role in terms of being the guarantors of the federal government so it means that the federal institutions have a right to control to exercise a certain kind of control not command but a certain kind of control on the institutions of the of the members of the federation when the members of the federation are not fulfilling their obligations so as the federal government control explains to give allows the federal entity to substitute itself to the member who failed to implement crucial provisions of the covenant like the obligation to respect human rights for instance which I guarantee at the level of the federation the federal entity will in other words execute that's why is federal execution the federal entity will execute the federal obligations in the place of the member of the federation which has failed to do so however to come back to cons the member of the federation keeps its right to constitute itself as a republic the people retain their rights to serve their termination they still have the right to decide upon their laws and institutions provided the provisions of the federal government are respected and that's the meaning of the words of current who says the people should not be stripped of their rights to unite themselves in a common way they should only the only right of the federal institution in the ways to impose a constitution at the level of the member of the federation that would respect the federal government so let me sum up by trying to apply and conclude by trying to apply those ideas to existing international institutions today's international society is constituted in the federation of free states and again I insist I'm not saying that we have a federation not that the UN is a federation I'm not saying that the present state of the world gives us the manifestation of something which is comparable for instance to the United States of America no I'm not saying that I'm saying that the world is into a process of constituting constituting a federation federation of free states is a dialectic it's a process on the one hand the free states on the other hand the federation this federation as a constitution which is partly composed of customary rules general principles of law and of the United Nations Tata it sets up both substantial rules and institutional arrangements among those institutions are the Security Council on which I will obviously focus today and when the Security Council is called to react to genocide crimes against humanity or crimes of war we have to understand that it's not called to act or to react to a failure to protect human life it is called to react to a serious breach of the constitutional order of the international federation its reaction is one of the guarantor of this constitutional order and in this case as a guarantor of human rights of citizens of the federation rights which have been grossly violated by these crimes on this basis and on the very well-known legal basis that almost article 39 of the charter the Security Council can decide article 39 and the following of course 42 in particular can thus decide a military intervention when it is so needed to make cease the trouble and to reestablish the primacy of the federal constitutional order what the Security Council is thus deciding as a federal body entrusted with an executive power is to substitute the international community to the government of the state in the fulfilment of its federal obligations the military intervention must stop and the crimes are stopped military intervention and stopping of crimes might involve a change of government when the government leaders themselves are the criminals which is something that the R2P does not say but it might happen that not only the government is not able to protect but is also the one who is persecuting its own people however it should be it should be made clear that such a change of government does not impair the right to self-determination of the people on the contrary each change of government should lead to a new process of self-determination allowing the people of this country to establish democratic institutions which I think have been more or less the practice since then the last remark so I'm not only proposing to change things I'm understanding to also understand what has happened in the past the last remark during the phase of control and substitution the preservation of the right to self-determination also means that the constitutional human rights of the citizens of that country must be enforced and guaranteed by the federal administration which I think is still a big challenge today because it means basically that the federal administration or its representatives in for instance the countries which are leading the intervention and which are administrating in a provisory manner the country those institutions have to be led have to be accountable in terms of human rights I won't say no more I've already said too much I hope I've kept you awakened I hope I've created some perspectives of new dreams by this model theoretical framework which I think might allow us to better understand the past again maybe to better conceive the future but I of course let you judge whether it's an appropriate model or not and I look forward to your comments and discussion thank you very much