Distribution électronique Cairn pour les Editions de l'EHESS. © Editions de l'EHESS. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

, communism was embodied in an International that was organised by and centred on Moscow. This was known as the Third International, the Communist International or the Comintern, which existed from 1919 to 1943. Communism also spawned a new internationalism which connected people around causes from Harlem to Moscow, Hamburg to Buenos Aires, Marseille to Durban, London to Shanghai; it gave rise to global moments of protest and struggle, and myriad diverse organisations of many different acronyms. This internationalism proved to be, through its revolutionary, anti-fascist and anti-imperialist scope, both more enduring and more global than the International which had given it life. In what ways did the Comintern serve as a 'start-up' for worldwide projects and struggles which have left their imprint on the contemporary world, in particular outside of Europe? In this article we try to offer some answers to this question. We should note from the beginning that our inquiry would not have been possible without recent innovations in the field. Communism is transnational, but we needed the perspective of transnational history to be able to think about it as such. For a long time works on communism (as on other topics) had been bound by a nationally-minded framework, a mode of analysis which favoured country-by-country studies of national parties and organisations

When Stalin demanded in 1944 that all Soviet Union republics be admitted to the UN, he revealed a conception of sovereignty that diverged from the usual perception of Soviet diplomacy as exceedingly centralised. Soviet theories and practices of sovereignty consisted indeed in a mix of contradictory elements, illustrating the communist criticism of bourgeois international law, but also a willingness to re-use parts of it and tailor them to new political needs. This article focuses on this elastic approach to sovereignty, its legal expression and diplomatic rationale. Particular attention is paid to the sovereignty of Union republics, central to Soviet legal rhetoric, that led them to be active in the international arena in the 1920s and after 1944, and develop state institutions that would smooth up the transition to independence after 1991. KeywordsSoviet Union − sovereignty − federalism − subjects of international law − paradiplomacy − Ukraine − Communism − law of treaties 1 Flexible Sovereignties of the Revolutionary State "We now suggest to enable Union republics to establish direct diplomatic relations with foreign states and sign treaties with them", Soviet People's Commissar -1X

No abstract

Cet article analyse le réveil des frontières intérieures des États comme autant de leviers politiques. On y remettra d’abord en cause l’opposition trop simple entre des frontières d’empire et une frontière de l’État-nation en montrant que la fabrique des États a laissé partout de multiples jointures. On se demandera ensuite s’il faut être nationaliste pour faire sécession ou ne pas l’être pour accepter de vivre dans un État multinational. Enfin, entre passé et futur, on évoquera en quoi les frontières intérieures, vieux héritages, sont plébiscitées aujourd’hui, pour refonder une démocratie de proximité.