Estados Unidos-Brasil: da transição de presidentes à diferença de atuação na América Latina

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virgílio Caixeta Arraes

The article deals with the final phase of Lula da Silva’s foreign policy toward the United States (2009-2010). The topics dealt with are Dilma Rousseff’s candidacy to the Brazilian presidency; the Brazilian borders considering US presence in Colombia; Brazil’s permanent membership to the United Nations Security Council; hosting of international sporting events under the auspices of ‘playful diplomacy’; attempt to reach a diplomatic understanding of Iran’s nuclear program and Haiti’s earthquake.

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-195
Author(s):  
Michael D. Rosenthal

For many years, the United Nations Security Council expressed its concerns about the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear program, doing so in the context of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. With the intent to resolve its concerns, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015. The Resolution endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that had been concluded on July 14, 2015, by China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, and Iran (the E3/EU + 3). Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA are closely intertwined. Their implementation will result in strict limits on Iran’s ability to produce weapongrade nuclear material. On-site verification and monitoring of these limits by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will provide assurance that Iran is observing them. Resolution 2231 and the JCPOA also provide for a step-by-step removal of sanctions imposed on Iran for its past failure to resolve concerns about its nuclear program. Past concerns about “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear program, while neither misplaced nor necessarily fully assuaged, were put aside, being outweighed by the prospect that the JCPOA offers, “a comprehensive, long-term and proper solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.”


Author(s):  
Ben Saul

Calls to legally define “terrorism” arose in the context of the extradition of political offenders from the 1930s onwards, with many unsuccessful efforts since then to define, criminalize, and depoliticize a common global concept of “terrorism.” It was only after the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 that many states began enacting national “terrorism” offences, spurred on by new obligations imposed by the United Nations Security Council. National laws remain nonetheless very diverse. At the international level, an elementary legal consensus has emerged that terrorism is criminal violence intended to intimidate a population or coerce a government or an international organization; some national laws add an ulterior intention to pursue a political, religious, or ideological cause. There remain intense disagreements amongst states, however, on whether there should be exceptions for certain “just” causes and, as a result, the conceptual impasse continues, even if it has narrowed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-281
Author(s):  
Stefano Recchia

Abstract Research suggests that military interveners often seek endorsements from regional international organizations (IOs), in addition to approval from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), to reassure international and domestic audiences. Toward that end, interveners should seek the endorsement of continent-wide regional IOs with the broadest and most diverse membership, which are most likely to be independent. In practice, however, interveners often seek endorsements from subregional IOs with narrow membership and aggregate preferences similar to their own. This should weaken the reassurance/legitimation effect significantly. I argue that such narrower regional endorsements are sought not so much to reassure skeptical audiences, as to pressure reluctant UNSC members to approve the intervention by putting those members’ relations with regional partners at stake. To illustrate this argument and probe its plausibility, I reconstruct France's successful efforts to obtain UNSC approval for its interventions in Côte d'Ivoire (2002–2003) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2003) at a time when the United States was hesitant to support France because of the two countries’ falling-out over the Iraq War. For evidence I rely on original interviews with senior French and US officials.


2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Edward Philips

AbstractJapan's quest for a permanent United Nations Security Council seat could be expected to lead to an increased importance for foreign language and area studies in Japan, as it did in the United States. This is particularly the case with Japan, an insular nation proud of its homogeneity with little history of immigration. Despite the inherently greater difficulties for Japan in trying to understand the outside world, there has been little increase in attempts to understand the outside world when compared to the efforts made by the United States, which started with several advantages over Japan. The example of African history is a case study of Japan's failure to interact with the wider world of international scholarship and its perpetuation of discredited ideas.


1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jules Lobel ◽  
Michael Ratner

In January and February 1998, various United States officials, including the President, asserted that unless Iraq permitted unconditional access to international weapons inspections, it would face a military attack. The attack was not to be, in Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s words, “a pinprick,” but a “significant” military campaign. U.S. officials, citing United Nations Security Council resolutions, insisted that the United States had the authority for the contemplated attack. Representatives of other permanent members of the Security Council believed otherwise; that no resolution of the Council authorized U.S. armed action without its approval. In late February, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan traveled to Baghdad and returned with a memorandum of understanding regarding inspections signed by himself and the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister. On March 2, 1998, the Security Council, in Resolution 1154, unanimously endorsed this memorandum of understanding.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-482

On December 23, 2016, the United States abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council resolution that condemned Israeli settlement construction, thereby allowing the resolution to be adopted by a vote of 14–0. Israel's response was swift and disapproving.


Author(s):  
Bakare Najimdeen

Few years following its creation, the United Nations (UN) with the blessing of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to establish the UN Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO), as a multilateral mechanism geared at fulfilling the Chapter VII of the UN Charter which empowered the Security Council to enforce measurement to maintain or restore international peace and security. Since its creation, the multilateral mechanism has recorded several successes and failures to its credit. While it is essentially not like traditional diplomacy, peacekeeping operations have evolved over the years and have emerged as a new form of diplomacy. Besides, theoretically underscoring the differences between diplomacy and foreign policy, which often appear as conflated, the paper demonstrates how diplomacy is an expression of foreign policy. Meanwhile, putting in context the change and transformation in global politics, particularly global conflict, the paper argues that traditional diplomacy has ceased to be the preoccupation and exclusive business of the foreign ministry and career diplomats, it now involves foot soldiers who are not necessarily diplomats but act as diplomats in terms of peacekeeping, negotiating between warring parties, carrying their countries’ emblems and representing the latter in resolving global conflict, and increasingly becoming the representation of their countries’ foreign policy objective, hence peacekeeping military diplomacy. The paper uses decades of Pakistan’s peacekeeping missions as a reference point to establish how a nation’s peacekeeping efforts represent and qualifies as military diplomacy. It also presented the lessons and good practices Pakistan can sell to the rest of the world vis-à-vis peacekeeping and lastly how well Pakistan can consolidate its peacekeeping diplomacy.


Author(s):  
Grégoire Mallard

As the critical sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program demonstrate, the implementation of sanctions against nuclear proliferators has led to the creation of a global system of surveillance of the financial dealings of all states, banks, and individuals, fostered by United Nations Security Council resolutions—a new and unprecedented development. This chapter asks: Which actors have been in charge of designing and implementing sanctions against nuclear proliferators? Which legal technologies have they developed to regulate global financial transactions? Answering these questions generates a better understanding of key processes in global governance: the increasing role of the Security Council as a global legislator; the “financialization” of global regulation, with the increasing role played by international and US domestic financial institutions that were historically foreign to the field of nuclear nonproliferation; and the judicialization of the enforcement of sanctions, which is accompanied by the multiplication of secondary sanctions against sanctions-evaders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document