All over Paris large posters are reminding French citizens of their human rights conquests and their freedom to write and express themselves without the fear of censorship.

Whatever happens next, the decision of the House of Lords concerning Pinochet constitutes a fundamental revolution. Two weeks ago we all felt like "British Lords", to use the expression of the former May '68 leader, turned into a media star French politician, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

And after Jack Straw's decision to give authority to proceed with the request of the Spanish authorities for Pinochet's extradition from the UK, the moral leadership of the present British government, whatever the denunciations of Baroness Thatcher, is reinforced.

As we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Human Rights universal declaration, should we feel triumphant and optimistic at the progress of humanity towards a global order under the scrutiny of an International Court of Justice? At long last, universalism and extra-territoriality are being recognised as conditions for the efficient administration of justice. Sovereignty is slowly giving way or at least fighting a rearguard battle.

Or should we remain more prudent, sceptical if not cynical at the spectacle of a legal breakthrough that contrasts sharply with an international reality that continues to be dominated by violence, tribalism, ethnic cleansing or at least selective and manipulative emotions?

It would be so easy, for example, to denounce the lack of coherence, if not the deep contradictions, between the French support for the decision of the House of Lords concerning Pinochet, and the decision to receive in Paris President Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the former Zaire, whose human rights violations record beats that of Pinochet. It is so easy to say that governments support human rights as long as their recognition does not contradict important national interests.

In reality, we are witnessing the tension between contradictory logics. On the one hand, there is the process of globalisation whose full consequences we are just beginning to discover, on the other hand there is a continuing implicit acceptance that human rights criteria are variable.

What is acceptable behaviour for a continent or a country cannot be required from, not even considered for, a less "civilised" part of the world. To mobilise world emotions how many dead or starving black Africans do you need, compared to a Kosovar or a Bosnian? This process of selective expectations constitutes one of the main obstacles to the making of a more stable world order. But this implicit form of racism should not hide more fundamental changes. We still tend to think in traditional sovereignty terms, yet we will not be able to block the irresistible effects of globalisation on the human rights debate.

Globalisation does not simply mean inter-dependency, the reduction of the role of the state to the benefit of other actors, be they large companies or civil society, the redefinition of the notion and currencies of power. Globalisation means that a dictator will have nowhere to hide in our global village. It means universal accountability and responsibility. The creation of an International Court of Justice can only help to exert a deterrent effect on the systematic use of terror and human rights abuses by some regimes identified with particularly gruesome dictators. The Milosevics of the world will find it difficult not only to travel abroad, but that may represent a less desirable outcome, simply to abandon or leave power.

Globalisation may also mean knowing what one would prefer to ignore or pretend ignoring. Yesterday, in a world without satellites, you could claim to ignore dramatic evolutions taking place on your doorsteps. To justify his silence during the second World War the Pope could say he was unaware of the reality or dimension of the Holocaust. Today's massacres are not only taking place in front of our collective eyes in our global world. In some cases, we can in fact follow them live second by second, thanks to the growing precision of our satellites. Not to know will soon become a privilege of the past. To justify abstention other reasons or pretexts will have to be invented, knowing that one cannot intervene everywhere and at all times.

In the meantime we will be standing for a long time to come in between two worlds, in a transitory phase, characterised by the existence of a gap between international law, and the emotions of a world public opinion. Yet a global world may lead to contradictory reactions. The more global we are becoming, the less international we may want to be; the images of multiple horrors could be leading to interventionist stances or isolationist reflexes. Thanks to the decision of the British Lords we are witnessing an undeniable progress of humanity. But progress is bound to be slow and confused. In the months to come we will need a combination of vigilance and common sense.

Dominique Moisi is deputy director of IFRI (French Institute for International Relations) and editor of Politique ΘtrangΦre