New Discussion over Non-Western theories of International Relations in Latin America

2021 ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Arkadiy Eremin
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-347
Author(s):  
Hugo Agra

O artigo analisa um tema pouco abordado na literatura brasileira de relações internacionais: a atuação das políticas externas do Brasil e do México para a criação do Grupo de Contadora (1983), Grupo de Apoio à Contadora (1985) e do Grupo do Rio (1987). Esses grupos tiveram papéis importantes nas tentativas de estabilização dos problemas políticos, econômicos e sociais da América Central a partir dos anos 1980. O artigo está dividido em quatro partes: i) compreensão da criação do Grupo de Contadora, do Grupo de Apoio à Contadora e a atuação do Brasil e do México, ii) destaque aos principais objetivos desses dois grupos, iii) explica o “dilema” das políticas externas do Brasil e do México diante das ações estadunidenses para a América Central e iv) e descreve a criação e os objetivos do Grupo do Rio. Por meio de uma pesquisa explicativa, onde é fundamental reunir informações sobre vários assuntos para entender de forma mais abrangente um tema específico, o artigo faz uso de fontes secundárias que analisam as relações internacionais da América Latina e os processos decisórios das políticas externas do Brasil e do México na década de 1980, além de algumas fontes primárias, como documentos oficiais dos acordos celebrados e declarações presidenciais disponíveis em arquivos dos sites eletrônicos da presidência ou chancelaria dos países. Conclui-se mostrando que os dois países foram fundamentais para o processo de estabilização política, principalmente na região centro-americana, não só pela importância histórica, política e econômica de cada um, mas também pelo fato de que a formação desses grupos foram importantes para dirimir litígios, acelerar a resolução de conflitos entre os países do continente, além de ter sido um período de aproximação e fortalecimento da relação bilateral Brasil-México.         ABSTRACT: The article analyzes a theme little addressed in the Brazilian literature of international relations: the performance of the foreign policies of Brazil and Mexico for the creation of the Contadora Group (1983), the Contadora Support Group (1985) and the Rio Group (1987). These groups played important roles in attempts to stabilize the political, economic and social problems of Central America from the 1980s onwards. The article is divided into four parts: i) an understanding of the creation of the Contadora Group, the Contadora Support Group and the actions of Brazil and Mexico, ii) highlighting the main objectives of these two groups, iii) explaining the "dilemma" of the foreign policies of Brazil and Mexico in the face of US actions for Central America, and iv) describing the creation and objectives of the Rio Group. By means of an explanatory survey, where it is essential to gather information on various subjects in order to understand more comprehensively a specific theme, the article makes use of secondary sources that analyze the international relations of Latin America and the decision-making processes of the foreign policies of Brazil and Mexico in the 1980s, in addition to some primary sources, such as official documents of the agreements signed and presidential declarations available on the archives of the electronic sites of the presidency or chancellery of the countries. It concludes by showing that both countries were fundamental to the process of political stabilization, especially in the Central American region, not only because of their historical, political and economic importance, but also because the formation of these groups was important to settle disputes, accelerate the resolution of conflicts between the countries of the continent, and was a period of rapprochement and strengthening of the bilateral relationship between Brazil and Mexico. Keywords: International Relations; Latin America; Contadora Group; Rio Group.       Aprovado em: setembro/2019. Recebido em: agosto/2020.


1926 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-30
Author(s):  
Percy Alvin Martin

To students of international relations it has become almost a commonplace that among the most significant and permanent results of the World War has been the changed international status of the republics of Latin America. As a result of the war and post-war developments in these states, the traditional New World isolation in South America, as well as in North America, is a thing of the past. To our leading sister republics is no longer applicable the half-contemptuous phrase, current in the far-off days before 1914, that Latin America stands on the margin of international life. The new place in the comity of nations won by a number of these states is evidenced—to take one of the most obvious examples—by the raising of the legations of certain non-American powers to the rank of embassies, either during or immediately after the war. In the case of Brazil, for instance, where prior to 1914 only the United States maintained an ambassador, at the present time Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, and Japan maintain diplomatic representatives of this rank.Yet all things considered one of the most fruitful developments in the domain of international relations has been the share taken by our southern neighbors in the work of the League of Nations. All of the Latin American republics which severed relations with Germany or declared war against that country were entitled to participate in the Peace Conference. As a consequence, eleven of these states affixed their signatures to the Treaty of Versailles, an action subsequently ratified in all cases except Ecuador.


Author(s):  
Mathis Lohaus ◽  
Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar

Abstract To what extent is International Relations (IR) a globalized discipline? We investigate the geographic diversity of authorship in seventeen IR journals from Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America, and the United Kingdom. Biographical records were collected for the authors of 2,362 articles published between 2011 and 2015. To interpret the data, we discuss how publishing patterns are driven by author incentives (supply) in tandem with editorial preferences and strategies (demand). Our main findings are twofold. First, global IR is fragmented and provincial. All journals frequently publish works by authors located in their own region—but the size of these local clusters varies. Geographic diversity is highest in what we identify as the “goldilocks zone” of international publishing: English-language journals that are globally visible but not so competitive that North American authors crowd out other contributions. Second, IR is being globalized through researcher mobility. Many scholars have moved to pursue their doctoral education and then publish as expats, returnees, or part of the diaspora. They are joined by academic tourists publishing in regions to which they have no obvious ties. IR journals thus feature more diverse backgrounds than it may seem at first sight, but many of these authors were educated in North America, the United Kingdom, and Europe.


Author(s):  
Andrei Polejack ◽  
Luciana Fernandes Coelho

Ocean science is central in providing evidence for the implementation of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention. The Convention’s provisions on transfer of marine technology to developing countries aim at strengthening scientific capabilities to promote equitable opportunities for these countries to exercise rights and obligations in managing the marine environment. Decades after the adoption of the Convention, these provisions are under implemented, despite the efforts of international organizations, such as IOC-UNESCO. Latin America and the Caribbean struggle to conduct marine scientific research and seize the opportunities of blue economy due to the limited access to state-of-the-art technology. Ocean science communities in these countries are subject to constraints not foreseeing in international treaties, such as unstable exchange rates, taxation, fees for transportation, costs of maintenance and calibration of technology, challenges to comply with technical standards, and intellectual property rights. Action is needed to overcome these challenges by promoting a closer tie between science and diplomacy. We discuss that this interplay between science and international relations, as we frame science diplomacy, can inform on how to progress in allowing countries in this region to develop relevant research and implement the Convention. We provide concrete examples of this transfer of marine technology and ways forward, in particular in the context of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030).


Author(s):  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Georg Sørensen ◽  
Jørgen Møller

This chapter examines post-positivist approaches in international relations (IR). Post-positivism rejects any claim of an established truth valid for all. Instead, its focus is on analysing the world from a large variety of political, social, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gendered perspectives. The chapter considers three of the most important issues taken up by post-positivist approaches: post-structuralism, which is concerned with language and discourse; post-colonialism, which adopts a post-structural attitude in order to understand the situation in areas that were conquered by Europe, particularly Africa, Asia, and Latin America; and feminism, which argues that women are a disadvantaged group in the world, in both material terms and in terms of a value system which favours men over women. The chapter concludes with an overview of criticisms against post-positivist approaches and the post-positivist research programme.


1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip C. Jessup

Territorial disputes are commonplace in the history of international relations. The United States has had its share—the northeastern boundary with the British territories after the Revolutionary War, “54:40 or fight” in 1845–1846, the Alaskan boundary arbitration in 1903, and many others— including El Chamizal. This “thicket” or “brierpatch” was one in which the friendly relations between the United States and Mexico were entangled for almost a century. “The Chamizal conflict has not been a major factor in United States-Mexican relations, but has been a constant emotional irritant which has plagued both nations and had frequent reverberations throughout Latin America.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
Julio César Díaz Calderón

Resumen. Este artículo presenta un estudio de las figuraciones del “homosexual” en América Latina. Se inspira en el trabajo de Cynthia Weber sobre teoría queer en Relaciones In­ternacionales y en el análisis latinoamericano queer de Carlos Figari. Se propone una manera plural de contestar a tres interrogantes: ¿quién es el “homosexual” en América Latina?, ¿qué es el Estado-nación moderno que se presupone “soberano”? y ¿cómo el “homosexual” participa en la construcción del Estado-nación “soberano”? Las dos primeras preguntas no se contestan, pero se explora su potencial para los estudios “queer” y de Relaciones Internacionales.Para contestar la tercera pregunta se introduce una figuración plural del “homosexual” que rompe con la dicotomía entre normal y perverso en el contexto latinoamericano: Juan­Ga/Aguilera. Se justifica por qué JuanGa/Aguilera crea un Estado-nación soberano plural que complica (quizá hasta hace imposibles) las nociones tradicionales dicotómicas de soberanía. Se utiliza este resultado para dar una serie de perspectivas de investigación que abre el en­tendimiento de las figuraciones plurales como hombre soberano, tanto en los estudios lati­noamericanos de teoría queer como en los de Relaciones Internacionales.Palabras clave: Queer, Relaciones Internacionales, sexualidad, homosexualidad, sober­anía, política internacional.Abstract. This article presents a study about Latin American figurations of the “homo­sexual”. It was inspired by the work of Cynthia Weber in Queer International Relations (Queer IR) and the Latin American Queer analysis of Carlos Figari. It proposes a new pluralistic way to answer to three interrogatives: who is the “homosexual” in Latin America?, what is the modern nation-state that is assumed to be “sovereign”? and, how does the “homosexual” participates in the construction of the “sovereign” nation-state? The first two questions are not answered, rather they are explored for their potential to produce new insights to Queer and IR theories.To answer the third question, it will be introduced a new plural figuration of the “homo­sexual” that breaks apart with the either normal or perverse dichotomy: JuanGa/Aguilera. It is justified why JuanGa/Aguilera creates a plural “sovereign” nation state that makes more difficult (even impossible) to sustain traditional binary understandings of sovereign. This last result will be used to give new research possibilities that can be achieved in Latin American Queer Studies and International Relations through the understanding of plural figurations of sovereign man.Keywords: queer, International Relations, sexuality, homosexuality, sovereignty, inter­national politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document