Dawisson Belém Lopes

No terceiro mandato de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, o presidente inau-gurou  nova  fase  da  política  externa  brasileira.  Um  projeto  foi  anunciado,  com  potencial para influenciar a inserção internacional do Brasil até janeiro de 2027. Este  ensaio  analítico,  dividido  em  três  seções,  revisita  as  promessas  de  política  externa da campanha, examina realizações e impactos preliminares da gestão, e realiza contabilidade política para avaliar se o saldo do primeiro ano foi positivo para governo e país.

The text traces Brazil's pacifist stance back to the early 20th century, rooted in a pragmatic approach to conserve resources and foster economic growth. It discusses the role of public opinion in shaping Brazil's response to the conflict, highlighting a pro-neutrality tendency within the populace. The article also analyses the continuity of Brazil's stance under two different presidents, emphasising that despite a change in leadership, there has been no structural shift in foreign policy concerning this matter. We then reflect on Brazil's evolving role on the global stage, considering its historical alignment with the West and the changing dynamics driven by factors such as China's rising influence and the BRICS grouping. The continuing conflict in Ukraine is portrayed as an illustrative case, providing insights on the prospective foreign policy conduct of Global South actors.

Far-right populist leaders often take office promising a revolution in policies. They project themselves as counterpoints to other political competitors and defend radical positions regarding a set of issues. These contents may include nationalistic–chauvinistic measures, antienvironmental attitudes, conservative postures toward human rights, and religious leaning. According to our framework, though, leaders will only be able to pursue sharp foreign policy changes in pluralistic societies if, first, they win internal disputes at policymaking venues. Second, some policies will depend on external support or, at least, the non-imposition of unsurmountable obstacles. An acute foreign policy change may occur if such “battles” are won—home and abroad. Otherwise, a few incremental and superficial shifts are the maximum outcomes these leaders can get. A within-case study on Bolsonaro's Brazil provides useful evidence for our argument.

In this article, we provide a framework to analyze the foreign policy overstretch of middle powers, that is, their recent tendency to expand foreign policy goals and ambitions beyond their capabilities. We propose that overstretch results from the interaction of permissive international environments and the collusion of domestic actors to produce foreign policy myths. These myths, in turn, justify unsustainable swelling of foreign policy expenditures until they are shattered. After laying out our theory, we test it against the case of twenty-first-century Brazil. First, we document how interest groups logrolled to foster and capitalize on a “myth of multipolarity,” which, once entrenched in elite discourse and public opinion, resulted in a tangible overgrowth of foreign policy. Second, we show the extent of overstretch across four indicators—number of embassies, participation in peacekeeping operations, membership in international organizations, and aid projects overseas—using the synthetic control method to compare Brazil with a plausible counterfactual.

For some time, foreign policy as an expression was perfectly interchangeable with diplomacy, given the degree of leverage enjoyed by diplomatic corps in Brazil's political system. However, there has arguably been some degree of discontinuity in this trajectory, which is noticeable from a couple of trends: Brazil's strategy toward Western powers vis-à-vis the rise of Asia,on the one hand, and democratization of foreign policymaking and the resulting tumultuous relationship between the foreign ministry and the presidency of the country, on the other. I posit that, from Fernando Henrique Cardoso to Jair Bolsonaro, this combination of factors prompted an epochal shift in Brazil's external relations, whose bottom line might be Itamaraty's demise as chief formulator while other governmental bureaucracies, political parties and individuals take over as the gravity centre, turning the contents of Brazil's foreign policy more responsive to social inputs, however less predictable and coherent over time.

The article questions if the participation of civil society actors in foreign policy making would lead to the democratization of foreign policy processes. The analysis is based on the comparison of three foreign policy participatory initiatives – the Civil Society Consultative Council, the Social and Participative Mercosur Programme and the Dialogue and Consultation System – which currently take place in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, respectively. The hypothesis to be tested is that participatory institutions modify representation in foreign policy by breaking with the monopoly of the diplomatic bureaucracy in foreign policy making on regional integration. For that, we develop a comprehensive model based on social participation indicators and assess the specifics of each participatory initiative by mobilizing documental sources and conducting face-to-face interviews with key actors for each initiative. We ultimately find that the democratic nature is rather correlated with the institutional design adopted by the participatory initiative under scrutiny.

In order to introduce this special issue of Contexto Internacional, we first seek to provide a panoramic understanding of the Latin American political landscape. Next, we consider the new (and not so new) development strategies adopted by Latin American states, and their implications for foreign policy and international relations. Following this, we offer a brief review of the literature on Latin American foreign policy analysis and some of the theoretical and methodological challenges facing the study of Latin American international relations, thus providing a context for a deeper understanding of the contributions to this special issue. Put differently, our objective is to provide readers with a general idea of the reasons why foreign policy has met, should have met, or has been expected to meet social demands in contemporary Latin America.

This article hopes to elucidate some specific features of twenty -first century South American political Bolivarianism by underlining the historical and institutional conditions that made the emergence of a Bolivarian conception of political economy possible, a concept supposedly put in practice by the Venezuelan (Chávez), Bolivian (Morales), and Ecuadorian (Correa) governments. Current socioeconomic and macroeconomic data on Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela (from 1999 to 2008, approx.) is scrutinized, in order to elaborate, by inductive means, a more accurate evaluation of the overall performance of Bolivarian governments.

Tradicionalmente relegada ao segundo plano das disputas eleitorais, a política externa começou a figurar, nas últimas duas décadas, como elemento importante do temário de candidatos à Presidência da República no Brasil. Se, em meados dos anos 1980, ouvia-se de um ilustre congressista brasileiro, em tom de galhofa, que “o Itamaraty só dá voto no Burundi”, agora a história parece outra. A hipótese que trazemos à voga neste ensaio é a seguinte: a política externa ganhou saliência na medida em que o eleitor médio passou a fazer conexão direta entre os resultados alcançados pelo governante incumbente nas relações exteriores do país e a sua sensação de bem-estar pessoal. Vai ficando mais nítida, ademais, a diferenciação normativa, também no campo das relações exteriores, entre os dois partidos políticos com projetos e recursos para conquistar o Executivo federal brasileiro – o Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) e o Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira (PSDB). O presente texto está assim estruturado: na sequência imediata, faremos rápida visita à literatura acadêmica, de modo a apresentar, ainda que sumariamente, o estado da arte; na segunda parte, resgataremos, brevemente, a cronologia das disputas eleitorais sob a Nova República, enfatizando momentos e tópicos de política externa que abasteceram as discussões; mais ao fim do capítulo, proporemos reflexão sobre a eleição presidencial de 2014, buscando entender os motivos que levaram a candidata Dilma Rousseff a menosprezar, em sua campanha à reeleição, as matérias de política externa e seguir, aparentemente, uma direção oposta à que se poderia predizer, dados o fluxo histórico recente e as possibilidades evidentes de exploração política do legado diplomático de Lula da Silva.

In this article we approach the evolution of a “foreign policy system” in Brazil, since the 19th century until current day, pointing out its permanent elements (as opposed to conjunctures). The notions of “aristocratic republicanism” and “bureaucratic estate” provide theoretical ground to the fabrication of a narrative that, in several ways, diverges from the ones which have structured the field of Brazilian Foreign Policy studies. Our main argument is that the Brazilian diplomatic stratum finds itself under pressure today, due to political democratization and also because modern international relations are growing more and more complex, what can mitigate the primacy the Brazilian national elite has always enjoyed in defining what should be understood as the national interest.

In this article, I assume that global intergovernmental organizations (GIGOs) function as enablers of interstate liberal politics by way of their multilateral institutional frameworks. To support this view, I recall and adapt the classical concept of ‘polyarchy,’ coined in the early 1950s by Robert A. Dahl. It consists of a two‐dimensional theoretical construct applicable for measuring the level of liberalization in modern political societies. It follows that the more actors who take part in politics, and the more such institutions allow political opposition, the more open a society (of states) is likely to be. I therefore assess and rate the level of polyarchization of 23 GIGOs that cover various issue areas and fit some specific criteria (for example, more than one hundred member states from at least three different continents). Methodology includes a scorecard developed to help achieve these research objectives.

"O artigo tem como principal argumento que as diversas maneiras pelas quais o princípio do multilateralismo foi apreendido e traduzido, durante os mandatos presidenciais de Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, pelas elites brasileiras formuladoras de políticas, é uma poderosa metáfora para explicar como o Brasil está acostumado a conceber a sua presença no mundo e os seus papéis políticos vis-à-vis outros países em desenvolvimento e países desenvolvidos. Além disso, a questão do multilateralismo lança luz sobre os diferentes significados práticos que os formuladores brasileiros de políticas, sob Fernando Henrique Cardoso e Lula da Silva, atribuem ao tão citado lema "democratização das relações internacionais".

This article has as a main argument that the diverse ways the principle of multilateralism has been seized and translated into policies during Cardoso’s and Lula da Silva’s presidential terms by the Brazilian policymaking elite is a powerful metaphor to explain how Brazil used to conceive of its presence in the world and its political roles vis-à-vis other developing countries and the developed ones. Moreover, the question of multilateralism sheds light on the different practical meanings Brazilian policymakers under Cardoso and Lula da Silva would ascribe to the oft-cited “democratization of international relations” motto. The conceptual relationship between “domestic” and “world-systemic” democracy also deserves some consideration in this article."

RESUMO

Fórmulas diversas têm sido experimentadas para a adequação entre a política externa e a condição democrática das sociedades nacionais, mas as dificuldades para acomodar os conceitos de forma harmoniosa permanecem consideráveis. Este artigo investiga, da dupla perspectiva ontológica e histórica, a plausibilidade de uma política externa democrática ser levada a cabo nos dias de hoje. Para tan-to, busca-se subsídio empírico nos países que associaram política externa com democracia, seja no hemisfério Norte, seja no Sul. Demonstra-se que a proposta da "política externa democrática" não mais representa uma contradição lógica insanável ou uma impossibilidade fática - como aparentava ser o caso em meados do século XX. Isso não impediu, todavia, a identificação de obstáculos de monta para a plena compatibilização entre as duas categorias em voga: política externa e regime democrático.

Palavras-chave: Democracia; Política externa; Diplomacia; Relações Internacionais.

ABSTRACT

Many different formulas have been attempted in order to promote smoother connections between foreign policy and democracy within contemporary national societies, but difficulties to accommodate them remain paramount. This article investigates, both from ontological and historical perspectives, how plausible it is nowadays to conduct a 'democratic foreign policy'. The argument relies on empirical data from countries that have actually associated in some way foreign policy with democracy, be they in Northern or Southern hemisphere. The author intends to demonstrate that the 'democratic foreign policy'proposal is no longer to be seen as a logical contradiction (an oxymoron) nor as an impossible political arrangement (a chimera), as it seemed to be the case in the 20th century. Nonetheless, one can still identify a myriad of practical obstacles when trying to make the two categories - democracy and foreign policy - work in tandem.

Keywords: Democracy; Foreign Policy; Diplomacy; Institutions; International Relations.

RÉSUMÉ

Plusieurs formules ont été tentées dans le but de promouvoir une adéquation entre la politique extérieure et la condition démocratique des sociétés nationales, mais les difficultés pour accepter ces concepts de façon harmonieuse restent considérables. Cet article examine, à partir de la double perspective ontologique et historique, la plausibilité de mener une politique extérieure démocratique dans les jours actuels. Il faut, pour cela, rechercher un subside empirique dans les pays qui ont associé leur politique extérieure à la démocratie, soit dans l'hémisphère Nord, soit au Sud. L'article démontre que la proposition d'une «politique extérieure démocratique» ne représente plus une contradiction logique incorrigible ou une impossibilité de fait - comme il semblait être le cas dans les années 1950. Cela n'a, néanmoins, pas empêché l'identification d'importants obstacles pour la pleine compatibilité entre les deux catégories en vogue: la politique extérieure et le régime démocratique.

Mots-clés: Démocratie; Politique extérieure; Diplomatie; Relations internationales.

Neste livro, o autor examina as relações entre democracia e política externa, tema para ele de indiscutível atualidade e importância, que, no entanto, tem escassa presença na literatura em língua portuguesa. A obra foca o Brasil após a redemocratização, em 1985, para avaliar se a política externa brasileira tornou-se mais democrática no novo contexto ou se, apesar de ter ganhado mais espaço na mídia nesse período, continuou sendo decidida exclusivamente pelo Estado.
A análise baseia-se em um resgate de perspectiva historiográfica do discurso e da prática de democratização da política exterior a partir de 1985, problematizando, no âmbito da teoria e dos conceitos, a relação entre democracia e política externa. E evoca o "republicanismo aristocrático" para tentar explicar a relutância à abertura do processo decisório sobre as questões internacionais do país - relutância que se contrapõe ao potencial da política externa para "alterar a consistência do relacionamento entre o Estado e seus cidadãos".
Para o autor, o debate faz sentido especialmente neste momento histórico em que as sociedades democráticas "internalizaram" a política internacional, em consequência da globalização. Agora, diz, essas sociedades precisam "externalizar o doméstico", e sem titubear, sob pena de perderem o passo na "acelerada marcha rumo à integração dos povos".
O livro ainda amealha diferentes pontos de vista sobre a política exterior do país desde o governo José Sarney (1985-1989),  reunindo entrevistas com os diplomatas Celso Amorim, Gelson Fonseca, Luiz Felipe Lampreia, Rubens Ricupero e Alexandre Guido Lopes Parola. Sem ser conclusivo, ele mostra que, na democracia, a política externa brasileira tornou-se menos hermética e ganhou mais interlocutores, mas permaneceu conservadora.

Ficha Técnica
Preço: R$ 52
ISBN: 978-85-393-0411-0
Assunto: Política
Idioma: Português
Páginas: 336
Edição: 1ª
Ano: 2013
Formato: 14 x 21 cm
Acabamento: Brochura com orelhas

Sobre o autor: Dawisson Belém Lopes é professor adjunto do Departamento de Ciência Política da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG).

SUMÁRIO
Prefácio: Embaixador Celso L. N. Amorim_XI
Agradecimentos_XVII
Relação de figuras, siglas e abreviações_XIX
Introdução_1
1 A análise da política externa brasileira em evolução_11
2 Os avanços e retrocessos nas propostas de democratização da política externa brasileira entre 1985 e 2010_31
3 Política externa e democracia: conexões in abstracto_83
4 Política externa brasileira e democracia: relacionamento difícil_141
5 Rearranjando fatores: uma hipótese (residual) para entender o Brasil_209
Conclusão – Uma nova estratégia de legitimação para a política externa brasileira?_269
Anexos_293
Referências bibliográficas_313

TEXTO DE APRESENTAÇÃO (ORELHAS)
Já se disse que, nas sociedades pós-industriais, o conflito social teria como eixo a tensão crescente provocada pela coexistência de duas tendências contraditórias: a de busca por igualdade e a de crescente burocratização – esta última caracterizada pela importância cada vez mais central assumida pelo componente técnico do conhecimento.
            No Brasil atual, ameaçado de desindustrialização, mais do que passível de ser classificado como uma sociedade pós-industrial, talvez em nenhum outro campo das políticas públicas a cargo do governo federal tal tensão tenha tanta visibilidade, pelo menos nos meios acadêmicos, como na política externa. Nessa seara, os dois principais partidos políticos advogam projetos distintos de inserção internacional para o país. A corporação diplomática, diante da crescente politização da política exterior, por vezes trai a sua aparência monolítica, revelando profundas clivagens intracorporativas. As decisões tomadas no plano internacional produzem impactos redistributivos domésticos de intensidade inaudita e o tema ganha as manchetes da grande mídia.
            Inúmeros e diversificados fatores convergiram, no último quarto de século, para reforçar a necessidade de tratamento da política externa brasileira como uma política pública, e não mais como seara exclusiva e monopólio de nossos diplomatas. No plano analítico, tal processo de desencapsulamento da nossa política exterior ganha, neste livro de Dawisson Lopes, o seu tratamento mais sistemático. Esta obra é dedicada ao questionamento da possibilidade de compatibilização entre política externa e democracia e à interpretação deste encontro conflitivo no Brasil da Nova República. Tais objetivos inevitavelmente implicam colocar em discussão a trajetória e as tendências ao insulamento por parte do Itamaraty. Nessa empreitada, o leitor é brindado com uma mescla de erudição e ousadia analítica, em uma tessitura argumentativa original e provocativa, que alia o método histórico ao comparativo, questionando o cânone e ao mesmo tempo retirando dele novas e promissoras chaves interpretativas, como a hipótese do “republicanismo aristocrático mitigado”.

            Se a tensão entre expertise e democracia (ou entre eficiência e representatividade) talvez possa ser pensada como constitutiva da produção da política externa em regimes poliárquicos como o brasileiro, esta importante contribuição de Dawisson Lopes está fadada a se tornar referência inescapável no debate acerca das gramáticas políticas das relações exteriores do país.

Carlos Aurélio Pimenta de Faria
Professor do Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências Sociais da PUC Minas.

RECOMENDAÇÕES
“Com lastro empírico e solidez analítica, este livro traça um amplo panorama histórico e teórico do sistema de formulação da política externa brasileira. O autor procura construir uma solução dialética entre os conceitos de democracia e de república em nossa história diplomática. Trata-se de uma contribuição valiosa para um debate ainda incipiente no país.”
Celso Amorim

“Quais os limites e as possibilidades da democratização da política externa brasileira? Para respondê-lo, o autor percorre narrativas próprias da história, da teoria social, da análise institucional, da cultura política e do desenvolvimento da política externa. O viés aristocrático é apontado como um dos principais empecilhos à maior porosidade da diplomacia brasileira aos insumos da sociedade civil.”
Maria Regina Soares de Lima

Middle powers such as Brazil have become relevant players in the world stage. In the wake of the 2008 global economic crisis, they displayed particularly impressive credentials—countries with large territories and huge populations, responsible for the major part of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth. As their relevance in international politics increases by leaps and bounds, so does their institutional investment. Not only by building coalitions and organizations of their own, middle powers also show considerable interest in those already available international institutional arrangements which conform the backbone of a post-World War II international system, such as the United Nations (UN) and the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the World Bank [WB], not to mention a latecomer, World Trade Organization [WTO], and a novel grouping, the Group of Twenty (G-20), brought to life as a multilateral response to the world’s financial crisis).

What can explain the turning of a social policy into an electoral triumph in the greater part of South America? Or the fact that some Caribbean countries have implemented conditional cash transfer schemes based on the experience of the Brazilian social welfare program (the “Bolsa Família”)? Or that the ideas of the Brazilian minister of Health for combating and treating HIV/AIDS have been spread to the African continent? Or the requests made to the former minister of External Relations, Antonio Patriota, by several leaders of Arab and Asian countries to form partnerships for agricultural cooperation with Brazil? Was the adoption of a food safety platform, inspired by the “Fome Zero (Zero Hunger)” scheme, the reason for the successful campaign of José Graziano da Silva that led to him being elected UN Director-General of Food and Agriculture (FAO)? This chapter aspires to explore, from a politico-institutionalist approach, the unexpected ways interdependence has provided Brazil with power leverage in Latin America during the early 21st century. Our aim is to support the hypothesis that the events listed above illustrate a regional and global trend in which Brazil has been a spearhead. After being regarded as “villains” in the 1970s and 1980s, in a period characterized by the impoverishment of the “welfare state” model and the triumphant rise of neo-liberalism, certain states have found their social policies serving as important “escape valves” and strategic instruments of government management for overcoming political and economic crises in the present or future. In addition, it is increasingly evident that there is a correlation within institutional democracies between comprehensive and successful social programs and electoral rewards for the policymakers concerned. This movement, which is apparently a concerted enterprise, has its roots in both systematic factors and regional and local areas. It is grounded on the following:
1) the reprocessing of the demands of social movements that acted in a transnational manner, and which notably took place in the second half of the 1990s;
2) a greater willingness to accept measures involving bilateral and regional cooperation, with Brazil as the driving force;
3) the strengthening “public diplomacy” displayed in Brazil’s foreign policy, particularly under the presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Este curso abordará as conexões entre política externa, educação superior e ciência na atualidade, buscando, ao cabo do investimento, compreender as engrenagens geopolíticas da dita Sociedade/Economia do Conhecimento no século 21. Para tal, visitam-se panoramicamente alguns debates filosóficos e epistemológicos sobre a natureza do conhecimento na Modernidade – nomeadamente: Mignolo e a colonialidade do saber; Latour e a racionalidade ocidental hegemônica; A Escola de Frankfurt (Marcuse e Habermas) e a ciência/tecnologia como ideologia; Schumpeter e o papel da inovação no capitalismo – e as suas manifestações empíricas, antes de se enveredar por práticas e políticas de atores nacionais ao redor do mundo, a fim de produzir mapeamento amplo das diferentes formas de instrumentalização e articulação estratégica de educação superior & ciência nos projetos de inserção internacional dos Estados.

This course seeks to promote informed reflection and shed light on the sociological foundations of foreign policy making, one policy that since the beginnings of the modern era has been shaped and implemented by an infinitely small part of a state’s society, nearly always on aristocratic – as well as oligarchical – grounds. Research problems will be drawn from a host of national and regional contexts – Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Russia, Japan, South Korea, India, the People’s Republic of China, and Australia – and discussed in the light of contemporary social thinking, namely the most prominent sociological works by Max Weber, Michel Foucault, Norbert Elias, Pierre Bourdieu and Erving Goffman, not to mention those International Relations scholars whose theoretical bids heavily rely on social theory – Hedley Bull, Alexander Wendt, Emmanuel Adler, Vincent Pouliot and Iver Neumann, to cite just a few names. Some of the issues to debate along the course will involve: (a) The socio-economic and cultural underpinnings of foreign policy making; (b) A country’s strategic quest for national autonomy while preserving territorial integrity and shaping an ‘internationalist’ decision-making elite; (c) The most diverse forms of social stratification and hierarchy manifesting inside a country, and the ways they keep the bulk of a country’s population from joining foreign policy deliberation; (d) The persistence within diplomatic corps, across different countries and regions, of a courtesan and male-oriented concept of public virtue; and (e) The distinct degrees of centrality enjoyed by diplomatic corps from country to country as a by-product of socio-economic and politico-institutional trajectories. In addressing these and other important questions, we aim to reach a deeper and broader understanding of the factors that have historically prevented foreign policy from being apprehended by democratic societies around the world as a problem of vital public concern.

O curso pretende promover reflexão informada sobre os fundamentos sociológicos da política externa – política que, desde o início da era moderna, vem sendo pensada e implementada por uma pequena fração da sociedade política nacional, a partir de referenciais normativos aristocráticos e oligárquicos. Os problemas para análise serão pinçados de distintos contextos nacionais – Brasil, Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, França, Noruega, Índia, China, Coreia do Sul, Argentina e Chile – e debatidos à luz das contribuições teóricas de Michel Foucault, Norbert Elias, Erving Goffman e Pierre Bourdieu. Com esta incursão pela teoria social contemporânea, pretende-se melhor compreensão de obstáculos que se põem, insistentemente, para a democratização da política externa na atualidade.

This course aims at providing students with a solid informational and conceptual background on regional politics in Asia-Pacific and Latin America with a view to enable formulations on the actual repertoire of options a country’s statesperson is faced with, especially when it comes to foreign policy scenario-planning and decision-making. On the Asia-Pacific end, it is the course’s intent to give in-depth treatment to the cases of India, Japan, South and North Koreas, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Indonesia and Australia, whereas in Latin America the cases of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela will be more closely scrutinized. In both regions, one may not turn a blind eye to the role played by the United States as a critical driver for regional and international dynamics. Therefore, this course pursues tentative answers to the following conundrum: Despite all the possibilities that involve the two regions in different dimensions and fields, why haven’t Asia-Pacific and Latin America engaged in even more fruitful exchanges and systematic cooperation over time?

O curso pretende contemplar aspectos salientes e problemáticos na literatura sobre as principais instituições internacionais contemporâneas, buscando avançar na discussão sobre os potenciais e limites das propostas de ‘democracia global’ (federalismo, confederalismo e policentrismo).  Nesse contexto, instituições serão concebidas como mediadoras da experiência democrática possível no âmbito de um sistema moderno de Estados territoriais e soberanos, cujos regimes políticos estão estruturados a partir de cadeias de hierarquia e autoridade legitimadas (quase invariavelmente) desde a perspectiva doméstica dos atores sociais. Além de enfrentar esse problema fundamental à própria constituição do campo de estudos sobre a democratização em escala mundial, o curso também almeja passar em revista a governança global dos processos políticos em determinadas áreas temáticas, particularmente nos campos da segurança coletiva, da saúde pública, da educação, da cultura, da segurança alimentar, das migrações humanas, do suprimento energético, do meio ambiente, das finanças e das relações laborais. Assim, ao conciliar o exame da questão da democracia global em abstrato com o cotejo das agendas globais por intermédio das normas e práticas incorporadas às grandes instituições internacionais, quer-se oferecer ao cursista uma mirada teoricamente sólida e empiricamente bem informada sobre o estado de coisas na atual política internacional.

The board of the Graduate Program in Political Sciences at UFMG opens registration on 03 April 2017 for the Selection Process of 02 (two) researchers in Political Science under CAPES National Postdoctoral Program. Applicants must do research and teaching activities at the graduate level. Applications must be sent by 11:59 pm, 10 April 2017. Applications for the opening will only be accepted by email to: selecaoppgcp@fafich.ufmg.br in *.pdf format identified as "Postdoc Application", by 10 April 2017.

This course will provide an understanding of key aspects of Brazil from distinct perspectives. The instructors are professors from UFMG (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), a leading Brazilian university. Lectures will cover the underpinnings of Brazilian politics, history, foreign relations, geography, law, economy, arts and culture.

O presente relatório consubstanciado de atividades, referente ao processo avaliativo do pleito de promoção do docente do magistério superior Dawisson Elvécio Belém Lopes à classe de Professor Associado da Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, está estruturado em quatro partes, sucedidas por um feixe de considerações finais.

This paper looks into two dimensions of the alleged 'democratization' of global governance, that is, the increase in the levels of participation (inclusiveness) and political opposition (contestation) of states within the ambit of intergovernmental organizations (IOs), on a comparative basis. Four of the main IGOs in the world - UN, WTO, IMF and World Bank - will be put into scrutiny with a view to diagnosing how polyarchic each one of them can be. Reliant on Robert Dahl's (1971) three-tiered classification of political regimes (polyarchy, competitive oligarchy, inclusive hegemony), this paper aims at establishing a typology in which IGOs could be better assessed and evaluated in what concerns their 'democracy-enhancing' capabilities for the Westphalian system of states in a scenario of global governance.

In this article, we assess the methodological approaches employed in articles published in Brazilian and global mainstream IR journals in order to observe the differences between the two. To this end, we compare the methodological tools applied in research articles published in the top two Brazilian journals (Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional and Contexto Internacional) vis-à-vis two other top international influential mainstream publications (International Organization and World Politics), from the year 2009 to 2019. By undertaking a Systematic Literature Review, we surveyed a total of 955 articles. Our research concluded that Brazilian IR scholarship differs from the mainstream literature because (1) most articles do not mention the mobilized methods during their analyses, (2) the field of IR presents more non- and post-positivist approaches, and (3) contrary to the mainstream outlets, quantitative methods are rarely employed in Brazil.

Colocarei em avaliacao neste artigo o argumento de que existe incompatibilidade entre o ideario politico de John Rawls e as perspectivas contemporâneas da democracia direta. Tento demonstrar como algumas dessas provaveis fontes de incompatibilidade sao meramente aparentes ou pouco significativas. Para tanto, passo em revista algumas das principais contribuicoes de Rawls a teoria politica contemporânea – nomeadamente, as seguintes obras: “A Theory of Justice” (1971), “Political Liberalism” (1993) e “The Law of Peoples” (1999). Ao cabo, apresento uma concepcao rawlsiana de democracia que, segundo alego, esta baseada no preceito do pluralismo etico-moral, sendo reconciliavel com a democracia direta que e praticada correntemente.

We provide a framework to analyze the foreign policy overexpansion of so-called emerging powers during the early 21st century. To do so, we look at the Brazilian case and how domestic actors colluded to foster the myth of an impending multipolarity, which served as the ideological basis for an unsustainable surge in that state’s international ambition. After reviewing the literature that analyzes the phenomenon of overexpansion in world politics, we proceed in four steps. First, we describe the evolution of the “multipolarity myth” in elite discourse and public opinion polls. Second, we trace how specific interest groups logrolled to foster and capitalize on the myth. Third, we document the increase of the diplomatic budget, Presidential trips abroad, state-backed investments overseas, participation in UN peace operations, and other indicators of expansion. Fourth, we use the synthetic control method, a statistical technique, to infer the extent of overexpansion by comparing Brazil ...

In this article we attempt to evaluate the current status of UN's political authority, by way of both qualitative and quantitative methods, as we posit the existence of a positive relation between UN's authority and a set of variables. After assessing data, we intend to generate debate on the limits and the ontological nature of the United Nations organization in contemporary international politics, as we support the hypothesis that the degree of political authority the UN is vested with is increasing in the course of the last six decades.

In this essay, we question certain evaluations - which, we believe, are canonic in International Relations - of United Nations performance. This organization has, since its origins, been simultaneously considered both as "chronically inefficient" and as demonstrating "exemplary efficiency". In order to show this, we employ two types of "episteme": the first, manifesting itself in articles that have been published since the United Nations was founded in 1945, takes a systematic look at the supposed "crisis" of the entity; the second is related to the reiterated attribution of the Nobel Peace Price to the U.N. over the course of the last six decades, for its alleged contributions to promoting peace and international security. From our point of view, this bipolar evaluation of U.N. performance reproduces a pattern for analysis of international organizations that is common to the rest of the academic discipline of International Relations. The Unit...

ISBN Q-fiTlSM-Sn-b NOTES ON SOCIAL MEASUREMENT Historical & Critical Social measurement, like physical measure-ment, is a persistent theme in human history. The ancient Greeks invented voting to ascer-tain the collective preference and chose their council ...

In this article, we provide a framework to analyze the foreign policy overstretch of middle powers, that is, their recent tendency to expand foreign policy goals and ambitions beyond their capabilities. We propose that overstretch results from the interaction of permissive international environments and the collusion of domestic actors to produce foreign policy myths. These myths, in turn, justify unsustainable swelling of foreign policy expenditures until they are shattered. After laying out our theory, we test it against the case of twenty-first-century Brazil. First, we document how interest groups logrolled to foster and capitalize on a “myth of multipolarity,” which, once entrenched in elite discourse and public opinion, resulted in a tangible overgrowth of foreign policy. Second, we show the extent of overstretch across four indicators—number of embassies, participation in peacekeeping operations, membership in international organizations, and aid projects overseas—using the s...