O século XXI iniciou para a Federação Russa marcado por sensíveis mudanças, tanto no âmbito doméstico como na política externa adotada pelo país, muitas delas implementadas com o intuito de reverter os efeitos perversos de escolhas feitas durante o Governo Yeltsin (1991-1999). No plano externo, o objetivo principal da Rússia passou a ser a retomada do posto de grande potência no sistema internacional. A fim de atingir tal meta, a política externa do primeiro Governo Putin (2000-2008) e do Governo Medvedev (2008-2012) foi pautada pelas seguintes características: defesa da multipolaridade, eurasianismo, pragmatismo, a utilização da geoeconomia na política externa e maior assertividade. Nos primeiros anos do século XXI, a multipolaridade defendida por Moscou vai se tornando realidade. Com vistas a ser um dos polos desta nova configuração sistêmica de poder, o segundo Governo Putin (2012-) investe no projeto da União Eurasiana, uma organização regional que abrigará preferencialmente países do espaço pós-soviético e tem como alicerce os avanços da União Aduaneira e do Espaço Econômico Comum, organizações formadas por Rússia, Cazaquistão e Bielorrússia. A criação da União Eurasiana indica a revalorização do multilateralismo, o que em alguma extensão modifica a política externa russa, pois a ela acresce uma nova característica. Diante de tal cenário, surge a dúvida: por que o segundo Governo Putin investe na União Eurasiana e no multilateralismo? A hipótese adotada é a de que a resposta ao questionamento proposto é encontrada na análise das conjunturas regional e sistêmica nas quais a Federação Russa está inserida no início dos anos 2010. / The 21st century brought significant changes to the Russian Federation, both in the domestic and the foreign policies of the country. Most of the policies were implemented with the goal of reversing the perverse effects of the policies implemented during the Yeltsin years (1991-1999). In relation to foreign affairs, the main goal of Russia was to regain the position of a great power in the international system. In this sense, the foreign policies of the first Putin mandate (2000-2008) and of the Medvedev government (2008-2012) were guided by advocating multipolarity, eurasianism, pragmatism, economization of the foreign policy and assertiveness. In the early 21st century, the multipolarity advocated by Moscow begins to take shape. With the goal of becoming one of the poles of the new systemic configuration of power, the second Putin government (2012-) investes in the Eurasian Union project. The goal is to establish a regional organization encompassing mainly the post-soviet space countries. The organization, in turn, is based on the advancements of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. These two organizations include the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The creation of the Eurasian Union represents the rebirth of multilateralism, which, to some extent, changes Russia’s foreign policy by adding a new trait to it. Thus, the following question arises: why does the Putin government invest in the Eurasian Union and in multilateralism? The hypothesis of the present dissertation is that the answer may be in the evaluation of the regional and systemic situations in which the Russian Federation has been inserted in the early 2010s.

Submitted by Gabriela Ibara Tenório (gabrielaitenorio@gmail.com) on 2018-09-19T21:09:14Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Final - Final com ficha.pdf: 779316 bytes, checksum: 8f6d7e6e6bbae2b06014ac0c5d5a677e (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Satie Tagara (satie@marilia.unesp.br) on 2018-09-20T16:53:40Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 tenorio_gi_me_mar.pdf: 779316 bytes, checksum: 8f6d7e6e6bbae2b06014ac0c5d5a677e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-09-20T16:53:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tenorio_gi_me_mar.pdf: 779316 bytes, checksum: 8f6d7e6e6bbae2b06014ac0c5d5a677e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-08-28 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / O multilateralismo e a constituição de organizações internacionais são fenômenos ligados à construção de uma ordem internacional, na qual se impera a busca pela elaboração de regras de convivência entre as nações. Os fenômenos surgem e se desenvolvem de forma praticamente conjunta, mais especificamente no final século XIX: portanto os dois fenômenos estão intimamente ligados um ao outro. Dessa forma, esta dissertação tem como objetivo principal realizar um breve resgate histórico do conceito de multilateralismo e das organizações internacionais, através de autores de referência, a fim de entender as dificuldades de implementação desses princípios que deveriam permear o sistema segundo essa lógica. Nas conclusões apontaremos que as dificuldades de implementação do multilateralismo estão ligadas principalmente com as imprevisibilidades, incertezas e desconfianças entre os países. / Multilateralism and the constitution of international organizations are phenomena related to the construction of an international order, in which the search for the elaboration of rules of coexistence between nations is imperative. The phenomena arise and develop in a practically joint way, more specifically in the late nineteenth century: therefore the two phenomena are closely linked to one another. Thus, this dissertation has as main objective to make a brief historical rescue of the concept of multilateralism and international organizations, through reference authors, in order to understand the difficulties of implementing these principles that should permeate the system according to this logic. In the conclusions we will point out that the difficulties of implementing multilateralism are mainly related to the unpredictability, uncertainty and distrust between countries.

O século XXI iniciou para a Federação Russa marcado por sensíveis mudanças, tanto no âmbito doméstico como na política externa adotada pelo país, muitas delas implementadas com o intuito de reverter os efeitos perversos de escolhas feitas durante o Governo Yeltsin (1991-1999). No plano externo, o objetivo principal da Rússia passou a ser a retomada do posto de grande potência no sistema internacional. A fim de atingir tal meta, a política externa do primeiro Governo Putin (2000-2008) e do Governo Medvedev (2008-2012) foi pautada pelas seguintes características: defesa da multipolaridade, eurasianismo, pragmatismo, a utilização da geoeconomia na política externa e maior assertividade. Nos primeiros anos do século XXI, a multipolaridade defendida por Moscou vai se tornando realidade. Com vistas a ser um dos polos desta nova configuração sistêmica de poder, o segundo Governo Putin (2012-) investe no projeto da União Eurasiana, uma organização regional que abrigará preferencialmente países do espaço pós-soviético e tem como alicerce os avanços da União Aduaneira e do Espaço Econômico Comum, organizações formadas por Rússia, Cazaquistão e Bielorrússia. A criação da União Eurasiana indica a revalorização do multilateralismo, o que em alguma extensão modifica a política externa russa, pois a ela acresce uma nova característica. Diante de tal cenário, surge a dúvida: por que o segundo Governo Putin investe na União Eurasiana e no multilateralismo? A hipótese adotada é a de que a resposta ao questionamento proposto é encontrada na análise das conjunturas regional e sistêmica nas quais a Federação Russa está inserida no início dos anos 2010. / The 21st century brought significant changes to the Russian Federation, both in the domestic and the foreign policies of the country. Most of the policies were implemented with the goal of reversing the perverse effects of the policies implemented during the Yeltsin years (1991-1999). In relation to foreign affairs, the main goal of Russia was to regain the position of a great power in the international system. In this sense, the foreign policies of the first Putin mandate (2000-2008) and of the Medvedev government (2008-2012) were guided by advocating multipolarity, eurasianism, pragmatism, economization of the foreign policy and assertiveness. In the early 21st century, the multipolarity advocated by Moscow begins to take shape. With the goal of becoming one of the poles of the new systemic configuration of power, the second Putin government (2012-) investes in the Eurasian Union project. The goal is to establish a regional organization encompassing mainly the post-soviet space countries. The organization, in turn, is based on the advancements of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. These two organizations include the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The creation of the Eurasian Union represents the rebirth of multilateralism, which, to some extent, changes Russia’s foreign policy by adding a new trait to it. Thus, the following question arises: why does the Putin government invest in the Eurasian Union and in multilateralism? The hypothesis of the present dissertation is that the answer may be in the evaluation of the regional and systemic situations in which the Russian Federation has been inserted in the early 2010s.

O século XXI iniciou para a Federação Russa marcado por sensíveis mudanças, tanto no âmbito doméstico como na política externa adotada pelo país, muitas delas implementadas com o intuito de reverter os efeitos perversos de escolhas feitas durante o Governo Yeltsin (1991-1999). No plano externo, o objetivo principal da Rússia passou a ser a retomada do posto de grande potência no sistema internacional. A fim de atingir tal meta, a política externa do primeiro Governo Putin (2000-2008) e do Governo Medvedev (2008-2012) foi pautada pelas seguintes características: defesa da multipolaridade, eurasianismo, pragmatismo, a utilização da geoeconomia na política externa e maior assertividade. Nos primeiros anos do século XXI, a multipolaridade defendida por Moscou vai se tornando realidade. Com vistas a ser um dos polos desta nova configuração sistêmica de poder, o segundo Governo Putin (2012-) investe no projeto da União Eurasiana, uma organização regional que abrigará preferencialmente países do espaço pós-soviético e tem como alicerce os avanços da União Aduaneira e do Espaço Econômico Comum, organizações formadas por Rússia, Cazaquistão e Bielorrússia. A criação da União Eurasiana indica a revalorização do multilateralismo, o que em alguma extensão modifica a política externa russa, pois a ela acresce uma nova característica. Diante de tal cenário, surge a dúvida: por que o segundo Governo Putin investe na União Eurasiana e no multilateralismo? A hipótese adotada é a de que a resposta ao questionamento proposto é encontrada na análise das conjunturas regional e sistêmica nas quais a Federação Russa está inserida no início dos anos 2010. / The 21st century brought significant changes to the Russian Federation, both in the domestic and the foreign policies of the country. Most of the policies were implemented with the goal of reversing the perverse effects of the policies implemented during the Yeltsin years (1991-1999). In relation to foreign affairs, the main goal of Russia was to regain the position of a great power in the international system. In this sense, the foreign policies of the first Putin mandate (2000-2008) and of the Medvedev government (2008-2012) were guided by advocating multipolarity, eurasianism, pragmatism, economization of the foreign policy and assertiveness. In the early 21st century, the multipolarity advocated by Moscow begins to take shape. With the goal of becoming one of the poles of the new systemic configuration of power, the second Putin government (2012-) investes in the Eurasian Union project. The goal is to establish a regional organization encompassing mainly the post-soviet space countries. The organization, in turn, is based on the advancements of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. These two organizations include the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The creation of the Eurasian Union represents the rebirth of multilateralism, which, to some extent, changes Russia’s foreign policy by adding a new trait to it. Thus, the following question arises: why does the Putin government invest in the Eurasian Union and in multilateralism? The hypothesis of the present dissertation is that the answer may be in the evaluation of the regional and systemic situations in which the Russian Federation has been inserted in the early 2010s.

This thesis discusses how ideas, as domestic factors, have decided the formation of China’smultilateralist foreign policy. It tries to provide an profound understanding of China's foreignpolicy development with the theoretical tools provided by discursive institutionalism andhistorical institutionalism.Three empirical cases are studied: the case of WTO, the case of ASEAN+3 and the case ofShanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These three cases have represented China'sinvolvement of multilateral institutions at different time and level.The findings show that China has gradually turned to an active participants of multilateralinstitutions, and it is trying to constructing a new type of multilateralism: competitivemultilateralism. Whether it can be compatible with existing institutions is an open question. / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

For many decades, regionalism was considered a potential solution to the different crises faced by the African continent. So-called old regionalism, as implemented between the 1960s and late 1980s, yielded limited success in addressing the multidimensional challenges on the continent, resulting in a re-evaluation of Africa’s approach to continental cooperation and integration, with a view to continental development. With new trends emerging in international relations following the end of the Cold War, new regionalism was introduced as an innovative way to deal with relations between regional partners. With the launch of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Africa officially declared its endorsement of new regionalism. This study assesses the potential of NEPAD to deal with the numerous developmental challenges facing Africa. It explores how new regionalism could contribute to the resolution of a range of crises and challenges on the continent. The study focuses on Africa’s past regionalist experience, the role of new regionalism in addressing Africa’s trade and investment dilemma, as well as its role in promoting good governance and peace in Africa. The study concludes that notwithstanding the positive contribution of new regionalism, especially through its multidimensional approach, NEPAD will face tremendous challenges, mostly due to the failure of new regionalism in acknowledging the influence of other operational contexts – international and domestic – on the success of regionalist ventures. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

The aim of this dissertation, titled "Multilateralism in discourse: USA, EU and Japan" is to pinpoint differences in perceptions of basic policy concepts across various intellectual traditions. The dissertation is based in the presumption that cultural,intellectual and language context are inseparable parts of our perception of reality and terms, through which we describe it. For the interpretation of these cultural differences, the thesis chose three actors with different cultural, historical and language traditions. In their respective discourses, the thesis interpreted the perception of a basic term of international relations - multilateralism. The discursive perception of multilateralism was connected to a theoretical typology of motivation for the priority for multilateralism over other forms of foreign policy behavior - instrumental, moral and social. This typology was tested against the interpretation of multilateralism on two case studies: the War on Terror and the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. By doing so, the thesis found out that although there is a single shared definition of multilateralism, individual perceptions on the concept's value and role are significantly differing. The United States prefer instrumental logic, the European Union prefers moral logic and Japan oscillates between...

Seen as a valuable shortcut from Europe to Asia, the Northwest Passage could become an important shipping route, and Canada wants to be able to control it. However, the current Conservative Party government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has led an aggressive, complex neorealist approach to securing sovereignty over the Passage consisting of loud diplomacy, military drills, and rejection of multilateral cooperation in the region. But this strategy that perceives Canada as a principle power is not sustainable. The government must accept that Canada simply cannot afford to unilaterally control and develop the Northwest Passage, and a liberal internationalist approach is what is needed. Rather than continuing to fight for international acknowledgment that the Passage is a domestic strait, Canada needs to recognize that the strait can be managed and developed much more effectively if it oversaw a multilateral development effort through the International Maritime Organization. This thesis will consist of five chapters: 1. The history of Canada and the Northwest Passage, 2. The benefits of a more accessible Arctic, 3. Challenges to developing a more open Arctic, 4. Three theoretical perspectives of Canadian foreign policy, 5. Returning to multilateralism: and effective Northwest Passage policy. Powered by...

No description available.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a place where states can seek international status by campaigning for its ten elected seats. Beginning from this premise, in this dissertation I ask: how do states seek status through their competitions for seats on the UNSC? Drawing on the concerns of IR theorists as well as historians, this is a process-driven question. I am interested in the process of status-seeking, not simply status itself, and I am concerned with the ways that status-seeking has evolved from 1945 to the present in the lifetime of the UN. I understand status as membership in a club embedded in larger hierarchies and examine both the nature of the hierarchies and the responsibilities associated with that membership. Similarly, I take a relational view of status that is predicated on recognition and social closure. While the UN and the UNSC are embodiments of liberal internationalism, they are also embodiments of global and historical imperialism. This imperialism structures the hierarchy under which status-seeking occurs. Status, as membership, comes with shared expectations of behaviour, responsibility, practices, and resources. I argue that status-seeking thus requires relating to these expected behaviours, responsibilities, and practices. Thus, states conduct their campaigns in terms of articulating how they plan to use their status and contribute to the UNSC's (liberal) mandate. By speaking to these liberal responsibilities and the use of status, states are also articulating their relationships to global imperialism at different points in time through the process of status-seeking. In supporting this argument, I examine Canada's nine campaigns to the UNSC in 1946, 1947, 1957, 1966, 1976, 1988, 1998, 2010, and 2020. Using a combination of historical methods (interviews, archival work, policy document analysis), I use a genealogical lens to trace the process of status-seeking in the 20th and 21st centuries.