Abstract
Globalization is perceived in two ways, in relation to its origin or causality: first, it is the expansion - diffusion from a center, of all kinds of progress and supposed progress achieved or in the process of being achieved by advanced countries in every respect (industrialization, technology, finance, even human rights?) towards a periphery made up of less advanced, not to say underdeveloped countries; it would then resemble the manifestation of a "moving force", in a field where unequal forces are deployed under the control of an implacable logic of the "balance of power". A second way of seeing it is as a voluntarist, hegemonic construction, apparently more concerned with the unity of the world's destiny, and consequently with the solidarity that would bind all countries (and all human beings?) together. In either vision, the current mode of governance does not seem to correspond to what it should be, when we consider its conception and functioning. Should the functioning and agenda of a global governance concerned with safeguarding the common destiny of humanity in all circumstances be all-encompassing, or should it focus more on the essential core? And if it is to devote itself to the essential core, i.e. to become a genuine global governance, should its essential agenda still be concerned solely with the physical threats to the planet? Shouldn't the concern for the harmonious and balanced development of all regions of the world place at the heart of the agenda of such governance, the desire to mitigate the negative effects permanently caused by the imperturbable reign of the balance of power?
