Resumo A história das solidariedades transnacionais é relativamente recente. Ela é inseparável de uma maior interação entre as sociedades europeias no início do século 19 e da emergência de um sistema internacional. A solidariedade se torna então um “fato social” e não mais, apenas, um valor moral. Sua transnacionalização, que enfrenta problemas de definição, se desenvolve dentro de condições precisas. A partir de uma perspectiva sócio-histórica, o estudo das solidariedades transnacionais é dessa forma duplamente instrutivo para os internacionalistas. Ele se ampara em fenômenos sociais que se apresentam como marcadores e fatores de transformação nas relações internacionais contemporâneas.

Abstract The history of transnational solidarities is fairly recent. It is intimately linked to the convergence of European societies at the beginning of the 19th century and to the emergence of an international system. Solidarity then becomes a social reality and not just a moral value. Its transnationalisation - which faces challenges in terms of definition - occurs under specific political circumstances. Studying international solidarities from a social and historical perspective is therefore doubly informative for internationalists. It captures social phenomena which present themselves as both markers and factors of change in contemporary international relations.

Résumé Les Nations Unies contribuent à inventer le Sud dans ses manifestations variées. De même, au fur et à mesure qu'il se constitue, le Sud devient principe d'organisation, point de repère et guide pour le positionnement: ce bloc souhaite de se transformer soi-même à l'intérieur des Nations Unies et d'y promouvoir des changements. Mais si l'ONU a offert aux pays du Sud la reconnaissance politique, un forum pour s'exprimer et s'affirmer, ainsi que des moyens pour se faire écouter et pour modifier l'ordre international, elle n'a pourtant pas réussi à intégrer complètement dans son sein ces acteurs dont la représentation demeure imparfaite et les demandes insatisfaites. Les bénéfices qu'apportent les Nations Unies au Sud sont ambivalents du fait que cette organisation corrige les formes de la domination sans pour autant la supprimer.

Abstract The United Nations contributes to the invention of the Global South in its various manifestations. In parallel, the Global South is converted, as it is constructed, into a principle for organization, reference and positioning at the United Nations. It also aspires to form a factor for change in and by the international body. Although the UN has offered countries in the Global South political recognition, a platform for expression and self-assertion, and measures to make themselves heard and to alter the international order, it has not succeeded in fully integrating these parties. Their representation remains imperfect, and their demands unmet. As such, the benefits granted by the United Nations to the Global South have been ambivalent: the organization corrects the forms of domination, but does not put an end to them.

Resumen Las Naciones Unidas contribuyen a la invención del Sur en sus diversas manifestaciones. Paralelamente, el Sur se convierte, a medida que se va constituyendo, en un principio de organización, de referencia y de posicionamiento en Naciones Unidas. También aspira a constituir un factor de cambio en y de la organización internacional. Aunque la ONU haya ofrecido a los Estados del Sur el reconocimiento político, una tribuna de expresión y de reivindicación, medios para hacerse oír y modificar el orden internacional, no ha logrado integrar totalmente a estos actores. Su representación sigue siendo imperfecta; sus reivindicaciones, insatisfechas. Por lo tanto, los beneficios que aportan las Naciones Unidas al Sur han sido ambivalentes: la organización corrige las formas de la dominación, pero no les pone fin.

Approaches to diplomacy tend to be restrictive because of an exclusively interstate insight. Indeed, historically, the state monopoly over diplomacy has always been challenged by private actors. Today, it is defied both from the inside because of growing public fragmentation (every ministry tends to lead its own foreign policy; subnational authorities develop their diplomatic relations) and from the outside (the business sector and civil society play a growing role on the international scene). This proliferation of actors has transformed diplomatic methods. Beyond the binary division between "old diplomacy" - bilateral, secret and resident - and "new diplomacy" - multilateral, public and itinerant - this article shows that diplomacy has to adapt to number and complexity. Therefore a more global conception need now be considered. Diplomacy today is a system of multiple actors using diverse methods in order to coordinate positions of common interest in a competitive and sometimes hostile environment.

Abstract Approaches to diplomacy tend to be restrictive because of an exclusively interstate insight. Indeed, historically, the state monopoly over diplomacy has always been challenged by private actors. Today, it is defied both from the inside because of growing public fragmentation (every ministry tends to lead its own foreign policy; subnational authorities develop their diplomatic relations) and from the outside (the business sector and civil society play a growing role on the international scene). This proliferation of actors has transformed diplomatic methods. Beyond the binary division between “old diplomacy” – bilateral, secret and resident – and “new diplomacy” – multilateral, public and itinerant – this article shows that diplomacy has to adapt to number and complexity. Therefore a more global conception need now be considered. Diplomacy today is a system of multiple actors using diverse methods in order to coordinate positions of common interest in a competitive and sometimes hostile environment.