Au-delà de la souveraineté biopolitique : Schmitt, Arendt, Foucault et les usages de la violence dans la politique internationale

Dans cet article, nous avançons que la souveraineté biopolitique et la théorie politique de l’état d’exception, souvent dérivées de la pensée de Carl Schmitt, ne constituent pas des indicateurs analytiques satisfaisants si nous voulons comprendre la politique de l’utilité globale des corps, du contrôle sur la vie ou le vivant et la violence des autorités abusives qui semblent aujourd’hui dominer les pratiques en relations internationales. Pour mieux apprécier la singularité du moment présent, nous suggérons qu’une approche théorique inspirée de la pensée politique de Hannah Arendt et correspondant aux politiques de violence absolue et totalitaire ainsi qu’à la terreur est nécessaire. En revisitant la pensée d’Arendt sur la violence et la politique agonale, nous reconceptualisons les pratiques souveraines en tant que « souveraineté agonale ».In this article, we argue that biopolitical sovereignty and the political theory about the state of exception, often derived from the thought of Carl Schmitt, are not sufficient analytical indicators if we seek to understand the politics of global utility of bodies, control over life or the living, and abusive authority and violence that appear to dominate International Relations practices today. To better capture the singularity of the international present, we suggest that an Arendtian political theoretical approach, more carefully tuned to the politics and policies of absolute or totalitarian violence and terror, is necessary. By revisiting Arendt’s thought about violence and political agony, we reconceptualize sovereign practices as matters of « agonal sovereignty »

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia

International audienceImportance Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, Setting, and Particpants This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.Results Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0433180

Effect of anakinra versus usual care in adults in hospital with COVID-19 and mild-to-moderate pneumonia (CORIMUNO-ANA-1): a randomised controlled trial

International audienc