Orientador: Héctor Luís Saint-Pierre / Banca: Rafael Duarte Villa / Banca: Samuel Alves Soares / O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com a Unesp/Unicamp/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas". / Resumo: A incorporação do conceito da estratégia preemptiva ao documento de Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA em 2002, e a suposta aplicação dessa estratégia na Guerra do Iraque em 2003, fez com que os debates teóricos sobre guerras preventivas e preemptivas fossem reabertos. Em termos gerais, as guerras preventivas podem ser entendidas como o "início de uma ação militar em antecipação a ações danosas que não ocorrem no presente nem são iminentes". A análise da definição de guerras preventivas mereceu enfoque especial para embasar o estudo das três correntes teóricas principais sobre o tema nas Relações Internacionais, quais sejam: a proibição geral das guerras justas (bellum justum); o status quo legal (direito internacional) e o realismo político. Esta proposta de sistematização do debate nos parece a mais apropriada, por abranger as principais linhas argumentativas teóricas sobre o tema objeto da pesquisa. As abordagens sobre a proibição geral das guerras justas; sobre o status quo legal e realismo político, equivalem às denominadas abordagens moralistas, legalistas e realistas, respectivamente. Cada uma dessas três correntes prioriza uma dimensão de análise dentro da qual se levanta uma problemática sobre as guerras preventivas. De igual forma, constituem foco desta pesquisa as questões levantadas; para os adeptos do bellum justum a questão se coloca nos seguintes termos: as guerras preventivas são justas, isto é, são legítimas? Para os adeptos do status quo legal será: as guerras preventivas podem ser legais? E as levantadas pelos adeptos do realismo: as guerras preventivas são úteis? Com essas questões em mente apresentaremos os argumentos que cada corrente seleciona para respondê-las, esperando que joguem luz sobre as guerras preventivas. / Abstract: This research, on the theme of theories of preventive wars in international relations, focuses on the questions described next. For the followers of bellum justum: are preventive wars just, that is, legitimate? For the followers of the legal status quo: can preventive wars be legal? For the followers of political realism: are preventive wars utile? With these inquiries as its center, it aims to present the arguments that each of these lines of thought select to answer them. The incorporation of the concept of preemptive strategy in the USA's National Security Strategy document, in 2002, and the presumed application of this strategy in the Iraq War in 2003 caused the reopening of the debates about preventive and preemptive wars. In general terms, preventive wars can be understood as "the start of a military action in anticipation to harmful actions that do not occur in the present and are not imminent". Here, the definition's analyses of preventive wars received special attention, in order to create the foundation for the study of the three main lines of thought in the theme of International Relations: the blanket prohibition of just wars (bellum justum), the status quo (international law) and political realism. This debate's systematization proposal seems more appropriate because it embraces the main theoretical argumentative lines regarding the research's subject. The approaches referring to the just wars' general prohibition, the legal status quo and political realism are equivalent to what is called respectively moralist, legalist and realist approaches. Each one of these three lines of thought give priority to a determined analysis' scope, in which a determined problem about preventive wars is raised. The likely outcome of this specific research is to help clarify specific topics regarding preventive wars. / Mestre

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:27:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-06-15Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:36:25Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 palaciosjunior_amc_me_mar.pdf: 813863 bytes, checksum: d22bc93dce433e95371358f0a482dcf0 (MD5) / A incorporação do conceito da estratégia preemptiva ao documento de Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA em 2002, e a suposta aplicação dessa estratégia na Guerra do Iraque em 2003, fez com que os debates teóricos sobre guerras preventivas e preemptivas fossem reabertos. Em termos gerais, as guerras preventivas podem ser entendidas como o “início de uma ação militar em antecipação a ações danosas que não ocorrem no presente nem são iminentes”. A análise da definição de guerras preventivas mereceu enfoque especial para embasar o estudo das três correntes teóricas principais sobre o tema nas Relações Internacionais, quais sejam: a proibição geral das guerras justas (bellum justum); o status quo legal (direito internacional) e o realismo político. Esta proposta de sistematização do debate nos parece a mais apropriada, por abranger as principais linhas argumentativas teóricas sobre o tema objeto da pesquisa. As abordagens sobre a proibição geral das guerras justas; sobre o status quo legal e realismo político, equivalem às denominadas abordagens moralistas, legalistas e realistas, respectivamente. Cada uma dessas três correntes prioriza uma dimensão de análise dentro da qual se levanta uma problemática sobre as guerras preventivas. De igual forma, constituem foco desta pesquisa as questões levantadas; para os adeptos do bellum justum a questão se coloca nos seguintes termos: as guerras preventivas são justas, isto é, são legítimas? Para os adeptos do status quo legal será: as guerras preventivas podem ser legais? E as levantadas pelos adeptos do realismo: as guerras preventivas são úteis? Com essas questões em mente apresentaremos os argumentos que cada corrente seleciona para respondê-las, esperando que joguem luz sobre as guerras preventivas. / This research, on the theme of theories of preventive wars in international relations, focuses on the questions described next. For the followers of bellum justum: are preventive wars just, that is, legitimate? For the followers of the legal status quo: can preventive wars be legal? For the followers of political realism: are preventive wars utile? With these inquiries as its center, it aims to present the arguments that each of these lines of thought select to answer them. The incorporation of the concept of preemptive strategy in the USA`s National Security Strategy document, in 2002, and the presumed application of this strategy in the Iraq War in 2003 caused the reopening of the debates about preventive and preemptive wars. In general terms, preventive wars can be understood as “the start of a military action in anticipation to harmful actions that do not occur in the present and are not imminent”. Here, the definition’s analyses of preventive wars received special attention, in order to create the foundation for the study of the three main lines of thought in the theme of International Relations: the blanket prohibition of just wars (bellum justum), the status quo (international law) and political realism. This debate`s systematization proposal seems more appropriate because it embraces the main theoretical argumentative lines regarding the research’s subject. The approaches referring to the just wars` general prohibition, the legal status quo and political realism are equivalent to what is called respectively moralist, legalist and realist approaches. Each one of these three lines of thought give priority to a determined analysis` scope, in which a determined problem about preventive wars is raised. The likely outcome of this specific research is to help clarify specific topics regarding preventive wars.

Le différend entre la France et les Etats-Unis sur le règlement de la question irakienne a provoqué une crise diplomatique majeure entre les deux pays, jugée par certains comme la plus sérieuse dans l’histoire des relations bilatérales. Le dossier irakien a cristallisé les positions diplomatiques des deux alliés et mis en lumière deux lectures d’une grande question internationale. Pour la France, il a été l’occasion de défendre des principes, de faire entendre sa voix et de partager sa vision d’un monde multipolaire fondé sur la quête d’un règlement pacifique des différends. Pour les Etats-Unis, cette question relevait d’un enjeu de sécurité nationale, dans une Amérique profondément traumatisée par les attentats de septembre 2001. La rupture franco-américaine a résulté de facteurs structurels anciens : la concurrence entre deux modèles politiques et diplomatiques qui se veulent universels et le déséquilibre entre une puissance française, déclinante, qui aspire à préserver ses sphères d’influence sur la scène internationale, et une puissance américaine, ascendante, devenue, depuis l’effondrement du bloc soviétique, l’unique superpuissance à la tête d’un monde unipolaire. L’affrontement bilatéral du printemps 2003 a ainsi révélé les caractères intrinsèques qui opposent la diplomatie française et la diplomatie américaine et dévoilé leur conception très éloignée qu’elles se faisaient du nouvel ordre mondial et de la place qu’elles aspirent à occuper sur l’échiquier international / The disagreement between France and the US over the Iraqi issue led to a serious diplomatic crisis between the two countries, considered by many analysts as the most serious one in the history of bilateral relations. The Iraqi case crystallized the diplomatic positions of both allies and revealed two different reads of this major international issue. For France, this case was the opportunity to defend its principles, to get itself heard by the rest of the world and to share its vision of a multipolar world, where disputes would be peacefully settled through international organizations. For the US, that issue fell under a matter of national security, in a country deeply traumatized by ‘9/11’. The split between thetwo countries resulted from historical structural causes : (i) the competition between two political and diplomatic models that present themselves as universal, and (ii) the imbalance between France’s declining power aspiring to preserve its spheres of influence over the world and America’s ascending power that has become, since the end of the Cold War, the only superpower. The bilateral confrontation of 2003 revealed the distinctive patterns of both French and American foreign policies and exposed their different views and models of the new world order, as well as their ambitions on the international scene