Orientador: Luis Fernando Ayerbe / Banca: Rafael Duarte Villa / Banca: Reginaldo Mattar Nasser / O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com Unesp/Unicamp/ Puc-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas" / Resumo: Esta pesquisa tem por objetivo fazer uma análise da política estratégica dos Estados Unidos para a América do Sul, do governo Clinton ao governo Bush. O trabalho versa sobre os principais temas que configuram as abordagens estratégicas norte-americanas para a região, dentro de um contexto mais amplo das mudanças pelas quais passaram a segurança internacional no final da guerra fria. Os Estados Unidos, ao não mais encontrarem no sistema internacional um adversário tradicional ou compatível com seus delineamentos estratégicos, tiveram que redesenhar e redefinir suas prioridades para a segurança nacional. Dessa forma, ameaças transnacionais foram, gradualmente, abordadas como uma das novas prioridades para garantir a segurança nacional do país. Com relação à América do Sul, partindo das estratégias norte-americanas para o Hemisfério Ocidental, os temas elencados nas políticas para a região são: o tráfico de drogas, a promoção da democracia, abertura de mercados, tráfico e produção de drogas, corrupção, lavagem de dinheiro e terrorismo. Estes temas percorreram todos os planejamentos estratégicos do governo Clinton, através de sua agenda multilateral, dentro do contexto da estratégia de Engajamento e Expansão, a qual buscou vincular os países aos temas sensíveis à sua segurança nacional, através de vários encontros Hemisféricos. No caso da América Latina, as Cúpulas das Américas e suas reuniões específicas, como as Reuniões de Ministros de Defesa das Américas, foram meios de se obter esta vinculação política. Estes temas permaneceram presentes no governo George W. Bush, entretanto, a abordagem estratégica para a região enfatizou a possível ligação entre estas questões presentes, como o tráfico de drogas, lavagem de dinheiro e corrupção; ao terrorismo internacional, o qual sobe ao topo das prioridades da política estratégica norte-americana / Abstract: This research aims to analyze the strategic policy of the United States to South America, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. This paper discusses major issues that shape strategic approaches within the U.S. for the region within a broader context of changes which came to international security at the end of the Cold War. The United States, which no longer met in the international system a traditional adversary compatible with its strategic designs, had to redesign and redefine its priorities for national security. Thus, transnational threats have been gradually addressed as one of the new priorities to ensure national security of the country. Regarding South America, departing from North American strategies for the Western Hemisphere, the topics listed in the strategic policies for the region are: drug trafficking, maintenance of democracy, open markets, trafficking and drug production, corruption, money laundering and terrorism. These subjects went through all the strategic plans of the Clinton administration, through its multilateral agenda, within the context of the Strategy of Engagement and Expansion, which sought to bind the countries to sensitive issues to its national security through various hemispheric meetings. In the case of Latin America, the Summits of the Americas and its specific meetings such as the Meetings of Ministers of Defense of the Americas were ways to get this linking policy. These themes remained present under the George W. Bush's administration, however, the strategic approach to the region emphasized the possible link between these issues in the region, such as drug trafficking, money laundering and corruption, to international terrorism, which rises to the top of the priorities of US strategic policy / Mestre

The first of the dual purposes of this work has been to describe the research that has been done regarding the root causes of terrorism and second, using a general causal theory and examining the political dimensions of it, to discuss whether or not general causal theories (grand-theories) are helpful for researchers and policy-makers when reacting to social developments in the form of terrorism. The essay is a qualitative literature analysis and I have based my studies on mostly new books treating root causes of terrorism. I have concentrated on discussing international terrorism and how political dimensions may impact the occurence of this form of political violence. The conclusions I have made is that there is no widespread consensus among researchers and scholars as to what really causes terrorism. Neither can the general model examined in chapter 5 be used to predict when and where terrorism will occur next. The author of the model says that different types of political systems may act as catalysts for terrorism, although some democracys are targeted by terrorists and some are not. That strongly indicates to me that there is no strong causality between type of political system and terrorism, at least not between type of political system and international terrorism. The above leads me to believe that there is no way of constructing a grand-theory that can explain all occurence of terrorism. There will always be factors that cannot be charted and that no one can predict. If one were to continue mapping the political factors that catalyst terrorism one would do well by looking at the relationship between policy and the occurence of terrorism. What political factors do the countries that have been attacked have in common? Instead of trying to manufacture grand-theories explaining why terrorism occurs I conclude that researchers and scholars studying the political causes of terrorism ought to approach terrorismstudies in an intense empirical way, analyzing specific cases in depth. Policy-makers would also be better off analyzing the specific political factors of their time and geographical location rather than trying to adopt a view that all terrorism can be charted and prevented in a universal way.

The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the Security Council has opened a new avenue for law-making at the international level by adopting resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which create new norms of international law or modify international norms already in force (the normative resolutions). The normative resolutions analyzed in this study pertain to the areas of counterterrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction. The new approach of the Security Council has been examined in light of the Third World Approaches in International law (TWAIL), as well as from the viewpoint of mainstream lawyers. Furthermore, 15 years of State practice relating to the implementation of these normative resolutions has been studied with a view to determining whether subsequent State practice confirms the exercise of a law-making function by the Security Council. Despite some incremental success in promoting international standards in the fight against terrorism, this thesis illustrates that the Security Council has not succeeded in introducing a new viable form of law-making. The Security Council’s authority to exercise such a function is now under serious doubt and its legitimacy questioned, as its normative resolutions were improperly initiated and adopted under the influence of a Permanent Member of the Security Council. Furthermore, the Security Council’s intervention in areas that are already highly regulated runs the risk of contributing to the fragmentation of international law—a phenomenon that undermines the coherence of international law. Currently, the Council’s normative resolutions are facing serious challenges at the implementation stage and several proceedings before national and regional courts have either directly challenged the normative resolutions, or questioned their enforceability. The Security Council is under continued pressure to further revise its practice or potentially face additional challenges before national, regional, and even international courts which may annul or quash relevant implementing measures. Thus, in light of relevant State practice, it is almost inconceivable that the Security Council would repeat its use of normative resolutions as a means of law-making in the future. Nevertheless, the increasing powers of the United Nations Security Council also stimulates an increasing demand to hold the United Nations accountable for the possible wrongful acts of its principal organ, particularly when its decisions harm individuals. It is argued that in the absence of a compulsory judicial mechanism at the international level, non-compliance with the Council’s decisions is the only viable way to challenge the Security Council wrongful acts. Yet, non-complying State or group of States should clearly identify their actions as countermeasures vis-a-vis ultra vires acts of Security Council and seek support from other like-minded States to avoid being declared recalcitrant, which may be followed by Security Council sanctions.

The thesis examines the international law pertaining to the use of force by states, in general, and to the use of force in self-defence, in particular. The main question addressed is whether the use of force, which was purported to be in self-defence, by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, beginning on 7 October 2001, was lawful. The thesis focuses not only on this specific use of force, but also on the changing nature of conflict, the definition of terrorism and on the historical evolution of limitations on the use of force, from antiquity until 2006. In the six chapters which trace the epochs of international law, the progression of five inter-related concepts is followed: limitations on the resort to force generally, the use of force in self-defence, pre-emptive self-defence, the use of forcible measures short of war, and the use of force in response to non-state actors. This historical analysis includes a particular emphasis on understanding the meaning of the 'inherent right of self-defence', which was preserved by Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter. This analysis is then applied to the use of force against Afghanistan which occurred in 2001. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US and the UK notified the United Nations Security Council of their resort to force in self-defence under Article 51. Each element of Article 51 is analysed and the thesis concludes that there are significant doubts as to the lawfulness of that decision to employ force. In addition to the self-defence justification, other possible grounds for intervention are also examined, such as humanitarian intervention, Security Council authorisation and intervention by invitation. This thesis challenges the common assumption that the use of force against Afghanistan was an example of states exercising their inherent right to self-defence. It argues that if this particular use of force is not challenged, it will lead to an expansion of the right of self-defence which will hinder rather than enhance international peace and security. Finally, this thesis draws on recent examples to illustrate the point that the use of force against Afghanistan could become a dangerous precedent for the use of force in self-defence.

No description available.