[pt] A Tese tem como objeto de estudo o surgimento do Grupo dos 20 na Conferência Ministerial de Cancun (2003) e sua atuação nas negociações agrícolas da Rodada de Doha (2001) da OMC. A análise se concentra sobre o significado e implicações do ressurgimento da clivagem Norte-Sul nas negociações da Rodada pela perspectiva dos PEDs e do seu poder de influência sobre as negociações. A partir de uma perspectiva que explora processos de path dependency sobre o poder de influência dos países desenvolvidos nas negociações, explora os constrangimentos colocados para os PEDs reunidos no G-20, que, apesar de maior influência sobre o processo negociador, encontraram-se diante do crescente dilema das restritas possibilidades de manutenção da sua coesão. A análise ressalta que o avanço das negociações da rodada em direção a uma maior substância coloca em xeque sua união em torno da legitimidade do Mandato Negociador de Doha, que não encontra espaço propositivo para o estabelecimento de uma maior coesão entre os membros da coalizão. Nesse sentido, o trabalho explora a relação entre a nova institucionalidade da OMC e o papel do Grupo dos 20 como sintoma do ressurgimento extemporâneo da divisão Norte-Sul e da falta de alternativas desses atores na busca pela manutenção da coalizão e do seu aumentado poder de influência sobre as negociações. / [en] The thesis seeks to explain the meaning and the process through which the new coalition of developing countries, the G-20, was formed, in the preparatory phase of the negotiations to be held at Cancun Ministerial Conference of WTO (2003). The work analyses the role of this developing country coalition throughout the negotiations of the Doha Development Agenda from the perspective of the revival of the North-South dialogue and its implications for the influence of new emerging markets over the multilateral trade arena. Concentrating our focus on the negotiating process of the new institution, We argue that path dependency processes help to explain the dilemmas faced by the G-20 in striving for keeping its cohesion around the defense of Doha Mandate, centered in its right of development. Despite the fact that developing countries found themselves at the center of the negotiating proccess and entitled to exhert a higher influence on the progress of the negotiations, its defense of the legitimacy of the Doha mandate was increasingly put to test before the fragility of its cohesion when the negotiating proccess turned to the substance of a concrete agreement.

How can things so old be so new? The revival of debates on the fate of the liberal international order has reproduced discussions about what arguably are philosophical and theoretical tensions that have existed for a very long time. Taking a point of departure in Reinhart Koselleck’s Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society, this thesis aims to contribute with an understanding of how the contemporary crisis can be understood in the context of deep historical tensions, and the implications for the current debate. To fulfil this aim, I ask the question of how Koselleck’s analysis of the structures emerging from modernity can cast light on the tension between modernity and the current crisis of the liberal international order. These structures are used, with an emphasis on the need for historical context and a critical stance towards the attempt to establish universal truths, to analyse selected material from oft cited and prominent scholars of the debate. By analysing their ideas in the light of these structures, I have found that some suggested solutions to these tensions reinforce what creates the tension from the start. Another finding is that the debate, in some ways, is constrained by dichotomies and underlying universal metaphysical principles, which potentially can limit the possibility for potential change. My conclusion is that a continued renewed interest in these historical tensions hopefully can be a pathway to move beyond some of the constraints the current debate revolves around.