Whether my point of view is correct or not, as long as we continue to see examples of this, we will continue to go around in circles and fail to distinguish between legality and legitimacy. It is therefore impossible to decide on an absolute position on this issue while waiting for someone else to tell us what is best for the individuals and families involved in mining. Let us hope that our leaders will one day be able to bring together more satisfactorily what is legal and legitimate in the mining sector for the benefit of society as a whole. The post-truth regime is one in which certain central categories of modernity seem inadequate: that of truth as correspondence, that of truth as confirmation, and that of truth as sincerity. This reflection aims to propose a passage from the category of truth to the category of legitimacy in order to rethink (replace?) those of correctness, objectivity, relevance. The advantage that the concept of legitimacy potentially offers over that of truth is related to the reference to a given context (where truth tends to be a universal ideal), to an element of social recognition (where truth does not depend on recognition; it is valid in itself) and to a procedural dimension (in which truth does not become truthful), This makes speech management more flexible without sacrificing its deregulation. The question of narratives: Narratives are mainly used to legitimize statements in order to give them a preliminary framework of plausibility. Therefore, in order to assess the legitimacy of discourses, it is crucial to identify and analyze the narrative that contains them as a framework. Thinking about the truth of statements justifies an atomistic thought: each statement has (or does not have) its truth. Thinking about the legitimacy of statements rather implies a broader vision of the network of statements that make them acceptable (or unacceptable), the frameworks of meaning that justify them. In this context, I consider it fundamental to bear in mind the multidimensional character of the judgment of legitimacy or its dependence on a network in which the following elements are at stake: Finally, I will focus on the interpretative dimension, which presupposes legitimacy, and give the interpreter a much more strategic role than in the « old » truth-based paradigm.
I believe that rethinking the category of legitimacy is crucial and strategic to rethink (replace?) the category of truth, rectitude, objectivity and to manage the « digital truth regime ». Footnote 4 Legitimacy is a useful concept that can solve not only the legal problems associated with post-truth and fake news, but also the problem of veracity in the post-truth regime in general. Finally, we know that the distinction between legality and legitimacy has already been made (I refer here to Schmitt [10]) by defining the entire distance between a formal and empty criterion and a criterion that finds its basis not in form, but in a « relevance » that has a historical-cultural basis. Nevertheless, one cannot speak of legitimacy without recalling the tripartite division that Weber [11] sketches for the possible roots of the legitimization of power: legitimation can be traditional, charismatic and rational. This distinction is a great impetus in today`s reflection on truth. I allow myself to reinterpret it by saying that truth can find legitimacy in a supposedly rational level of reality corresponding, in relation to the (charismatic) personality of the stranger or in relation to the system of beliefs, values and traditions of a particular culture. In each of these cases, it is not a question of objectivity, but of relationship with. Legitimacy is something that must be recognized to be effective. It depends on some kind of interpretation that must recognize the adequacy of a set of rules and the subject guaranteeing those rules. This interpretation can be influenced by tradition, charisma or rational reason. In any case, it is not a subjective and individual interpretation, but something that implies intersubjective recognition.
A legitimation recognized by a single person would not be a legitimation (perhaps even the other side of a « self-assertion » in the sense of Blumenberg [14], not fully realized); A standard that seems legitimate only to a citizen, a scientist who would be perceived as reliable by a single person, would be cases of personal preferences, personal « passions », and not cases of common appreciation. Nothing prevents a scientist from gradually gaining the trust of an increasing number of people; And so their position would be legitimized by social sharing (just as nothing prevents the legitimacy of this scientist from falling into crisis if others discovered that their positions are indefensible), but this has to do with the procedurality of legitimacy, which is ongoing and is never definitively stable. As it is not an abstract element, but a variable function that depends on subjects, contexts, traditions and charism, legitimacy can always be revised and always needs motivation. It needs a new foundation every time: it never remains self-evident forever, as the values of truth strive to do. In my opinion, it is entirely appropriate to reformulate the problem of truth in terms of the legitimacy of the current post-truth regime, where we find very specific characteristics: the search for peace has been pervasive throughout history, and given the pervasive nature of the concept, the ideas and means of realizing it have been as diverse as possible. Some simply wished to submit by force; others stressed the effectiveness of arbitration or international tribunals; Some considered it useful to establish international organizations, possibly with a collective security system; Some have even thought of creating a regional integration body to tame the sovereignty of states; Still others stressed the need for human security to eradicate abject poverty and other everyday threats. Today, some argue that the current imperative is to win the war against transnational terrorism. This list, which is only abbreviated, reflects the fact that peace issues correspond to the problem of the day and to the intellectual and political position taken to deal with these issues. Some authors emphasize violent means for peace, while others emphasize less violent means such as consultation and cooperation in international organizations and the strengthening of the rule of law. The latter idea, less violent, may also imply a shift in the concept of peace towards one that emphasizes the importance of positive peace that coincides with the abolition of structural violence. Despite the diversity mentioned above, it seems that we could see some trends in the process of global security and peace, especially if we leave aside the problem of structural violence.
First, the global peace process has developed around the axis of justice, which means setting legal norms on major international issues and orienting the behaviour of States towards those norms. The history of attempts to prohibit war is clear evidence of this, from the quiet regulation of war to the general prohibition of violence. Secondly, this global process is also characterized by the concept of legitimacy, which has become increasingly necessary as a means of achieving peace. Efforts to obtain Security Council authorization for the use of force by States illustrate this trend. And thirdly, the institutionalization of the peacebuilding process is under way, which means that international peace and security have been progressively pursued at the multilateral level, but not to the complete exclusion of bilateralism. The important point in this context is that the first requirement of legality and the second requirement of legitimacy, when combined, almost inevitably lead to this third requirement of multilateralism. To legalize and legitimize their behavior, states tend to rely on multilateral frameworks such as the United Nations. This is not to say that multilateralism in its current form is a panacea for the success of peace at any time and in any place.
For example, it is patently wrong to claim that the United Nations plays a decisive role in the prevention or resolution of all international or national conflicts. Instead, the observation implies that multilateralism is more than just friendly relations between States; It is an antithesis of unilateralism and therefore contains the demand for universally respected legality and widely supported legitimacy.