Search results

Geopolitics as a multidisciplinary branch of social science and as a theory of foreign policy appeared on the Latin-American continent in the second half of the 1920s. The main features they include are the next: aggressive approach to the space, the continental adaption of the organic state-theory elaborated by Ratzel and Kjellen, moreover, the developed geopolitical theory was thought to be converted into practice via the growing role of the army. In all Latin- American countries the armed forces and their various institutions became the scientific centre of elaborating the new attitude to the international relations as a theory. When the army az an institution assumed the political power, however, it was given an opportunity to put these theories into practice. With the definition of the constant and conjuntural national goals those countries of the vast territories aimed at both re-determination of their international economic and political positions and solving their problems connected with their own inner space. Therefore the regional transitions, the settling in the rarely- populated areas, the usage of sources of raw material and reserves, the control of transport and communication network of international significance and obtaining the influence over the new territories were the problems that in many of those countries came to the front. On the Latin-American continent the geopolitical schools with important theo-retical background were established in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. In this study we are going to introduce the Chilean geopolitical theory and practice established by generals Ramon Cañas Montalva and Augusto Pinochet. Apart from the theoretical outlines we will analyse the Chilean attitude to the possession of the Beagle-channel, The Drake-passage and the Magellan-strait and the Antarctic. ; Geopolitics as a multidisciplinary branch of social science and as a theory of foreign policy appeared on the Latin-American continent in the second half of the 1920s. The main features they include are the next: aggressive approach to the space, the continental adaption of the organic state-theory elaborated by Ratzel and Kjellen, moreover, the developed geopolitical theory was thought to be converted into practice via the growing role of the army. In all Latin- American countries the armed forces and their various institutions became the scientific centre of elaborating the new attitude to the international relations as a theory. When the army az an institution assumed the political power, however, it was given an opportunity to put these theories into practice. With the definition of the constant and conjuntural national goals those countries of the vast territories aimed at both re-determination of their international economic and political positions and solving their problems connected with their own inner space. Therefore the regional transitions, the settling in the rarely- populated areas, the usage of sources of raw material and reserves, the control of transport and communication network of international significance and obtaining the influence over the new territories were the problems that in many of those countries came to the front. On the Latin-American continent the geopolitical schools with important theo-retical background were established in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. In this study we are going to introduce the Chilean geopolitical theory and practice established by generals Ramon Cañas Montalva and Augusto Pinochet. Apart from the theoretical outlines we will analyse the Chilean attitude to the possession of the Beagle-channel, The Drake-passage and the Magellan-strait and the Antarctic.

This paper explores how Britain's and Colombia's privileged relations with the United States (U.S.) influenced their journey through the European Community (EC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The Anglo–American Special Relationship (AASR) was compatible with British participation in the European Single Market, but not with adherence to creating the EC's common currency, nor with leadership in building a European defence structure autonomous from NATO. Thus, since the start of the Iraq war, Britain played a rather obstructive role in what later was called European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The US–Colombia Partnership (USCP), based on a longstanding military association reinforced under Plan Colombia, naturally discouraged any meaningful Colombian participation in UNASUR's South American Security Council (CDS), a regional cooperative security project, promoted by Brazil. Cherished projects of the liberal CAP – such as triangular cooperation (to export Colombian security expertise to Central America with U.S. co-financing and oversight) and NATO partnership – also distracted Colombia's interest from UNASUR, diminishing the latter's relevance collaterally. A role for UNASUR – alongside the Organization of American States (OAS) – in South American security management was compatible with the liberal CAP, but not with the neoconservative CAP. Even a lopsided complementation – such as the one between NATO and the CSDP – proved unviable between the OAS and UNASUR.

What we today call the international system was created by the West from early modern age. This term is often used in political theory, but less focused on how to classify integrative forces within the international system. In the context of this study, we are attempting to lay down some conceptual basis. How do we understand the linking and unifying factors within the international system? Initially, the emergence of the international system was largely attributed to political factors in theory, but we can also refer to other explanatory principles: one considers economic factors and civilizational factors are taken into consideration as essential aspects of the international structures. According to our viewpoint, inter-civilization dialogue seems to be a "third way" that goes beyond the expansive one-sidedness of Western universalism and the world-level confrontation of hostile civilizations. This "civilizational approach" incorporates the two previous aspects - economic and political - and this is what gives its importance. In our view, inter-civilization dialogue is the only viable way to create global ethos, and only the resulting "intellectual revolution" can make national and supranational economic and political institutions to operate in effective way under the conditions of globalization.