The institutionalization of public debate in France : communication and regulation Social demand for consultation and participation in public decisions is topical and is more and more considered as a reference in the organization and issues of political activity. The rise of a deliberative ideal which highlights the dimensions of power and exchange touches a society affected by democratic tensions. In the context of this requirement deliberative (Blondiaux and Sintomer, 2002), the idea of a different kind of communication is displayed, and initiatives, mainly arising from the concept of the new governance after the Conference in Rio de Janeiro multiply appropriating new communication rules based mainly on the promotion of dialogue and on participation of citizens in the debate of public affairs. Innovative modalities of communication proliferate. The challenge is to introduce new standards and to favour the appearence of actors promoting better social intermediation. From this point of view, the process of public debate organized by the National commission for public debate (CNDP), an independent administrative authority, can really help to understand one facet of these new relationships between citizens and the public administration. This model of public debate is a recent exercise in the register of political culture. A new generation of public debate (Dacheux, 2005) appears which transforms the common sense of the actors and produces a culture of public debate leading to new forms of citizenship promoted by the society of knowledge. These new forms of participation are trying on one hand, to reconnect trust between citizens and decision makers at local, national and transnational and on the other hand, to develop the articulation of scales of citizenship. Such conditions are favorable for the emergence of the montage of scales of governance (Gaudin, 2002) which allow proceeding with the modernization of the state (government, institutions) but also to its transformation in its relations with society.By encouraging French citizens to discuss as part of a socio-technical international project on nuclear research, public debate "ITER in Provence", provides in a way circumstantial, fertile ground for the study of issues of the diffusion of these normative devices of innovative communication that play a fundamental role in the sharing of norms, hybrid rules, new practices irrigating contemporary public space. In fact, the functions of mediation (Lamizet, 1997) of this public debate procedure, will allow to articulate frames of reference and new cognitive images in order to regulate relations. So this to highlight the dialogical dimension of the proceedings of the public debate ITER in Provence as a privileged scene of interactions, performances, meaning and norms and, for the membership decision on the project under discussion and, for ownership of a change in logic between the state and citizens. The public debate as it is institutionalized by law in France is a set of processes and communication technologies (Mucchielli, 2006) of information transference to citizens, of feedback from citizens, but also of feedback from citizens on the State which seeks to regulate the socials activities. So, one of the findings which can be drawn from what is at stake in this space through the process of public debate is the existence of a social contract. Indeed, this process induces a phenomenon for contracting between the actors on the ITER project and more generally, it's appropriation of new standards which is disclosed by the public debate. It's a rule repository which reconfigures the organization of the social system aiming at ordering new relationships between citizens and institutions, administration, etc., a change of representations of relations between the state and society and a communication code change and relationship between the citizens and administration. The State is modernizing and invites at the relationship with more dialogue and listening, particularly in its relationship with civil society; this is the relational and communicational aspect of this report. It's a matter of communication. But what about in practice? How do these participatory devices allow they to identify than a system of standards which carry values and actions, is running? What are the practical impacts of this device in terms of influence on the practices and common sense of the actors? What are the effects of public space? What is at stake in the debate?Eminently social object, with its context, its challenges and its players, the procedure of public discussion illustrates the complexity of our contemporary world and opens reflection on the nature and effects of these new hybrid devices which allow taking the measure of what characterizes them. So, the analysis of the normative processes of the procedure of public debate allows identifying changing in the conditions of legitimacy of public action (P. Pharo, 1990).The study of public debate thus requires a methodology facilitating direct access to the terrain and to its actors: participant observation organized according to an experimental protocol based on three constraints: description, comparison and contextualization. This observation consisted on attending public meetings organized by public debate ITER, in the PACA region and in Paris. Furthermore, analysis of the holding of public debate ITER was made from an interactionist approach which allows, in the terms of the theatrical metaphor and of the interpretive paradigm proposed in particular by Goffman, to approach the debate in its various aspects.An interdisciplinary approach is therefore justified fully: first because of the specificity of the object in relation to the challenges that it contains for the analysis of economic objectives and power, related to the central place that represent the information, the knowledge and the communication in the debate; on the other hand, due of the communicational stake of public debate whose the "scope" and the "effects" on public space can helping to understand than process information-communication established by the government, play a major role in the evolution of representations and of collective sociopolitical practices and further that this public mediation process carries with it a series of repositioning of organizational patterns and regulation of human activities (Rumpala, 2010).