Suchergebnisse

RESUMEN: This article seeks to strengthen a growing literature challenging dominant interpretations of the 'war against drugs', which assume that South America has merely been a recipient and victim of external drug policy models. Through the analysis of official documents, protocols of diplomatic conferences and media articles, the text states that since the 1970s South American governments have promoted and developed, on the basis of their own interests and initiatives, prohibitionism policies. This recontextualisation helps to understand why prohibitionism remains the main approach to drug policies today, despite its obvious failure. ; RESUMEN: El presente artículo busca fortalecer una creciente literatura que desafía las interpretaciones dominantes sobre la "guerra contra las drogas", las cuales asumen que América del Sur ha sido meramente un receptor y una víctima de modelos externos de políticas de drogas. A través del análisis de documentos oficiales, protocolos de conferencias diplomáticas y artículos mediáticos, el texto sostiene que desde los años setenta los gobiernos sudamericanos impulsaron y desarrollaron, con base en intereses e iniciativas propias, las políticas del prohibicionismo. Esta recontextualización ayuda a entender por qué el prohibicionismo sigue siendo el principal enfoque de políticas sobre drogas hoy en día, a pesar de su evidente fracaso.

International Relations (ir) has transformed from a relatively state-centric discipline that was primarily concerned about international security and the behavior of great powers into a highly diverse intellectual playing field. The present article assesses the implications of this transformation in relation to ir's norma­tive potential, defined in terms of knowledge production and critical thinking. Although the field's growing diversity helps addressing the multiple challenges and crises the world is currently facing, it is also evident that the spe­cialized knowledge and jargon that is needed to engage in a specific subfield prevents ir scholars from understanding one another. This development not only undermines the liveliness of the field, but also obstructs our capacity to interact with political actors and engage with the public. Furthermore, inward-looking scholarly communities curtail critical thinking. Although there is no panacea that can reverse this trend, the article claims that cultivating networks of dialogue may assuage its worst effects by facilitating mutual learn­ing and improving our communicative skills. ; Las relaciones internacionales (RR.II.) se han ido transformando de una disciplina relativa­mente Estado-céntrica, que principalmente se preocupa por la seguridad internacional y el comportamiento de las grandes potencias, en un campo de juego intelectual mucho más diverso. El presente artículo evalúa las impli­caciones de esta transformación en relación con el potencial normativo de las RR.II., el cual es definido en términos de producción de conocimiento y pensamiento crítico. Aunque la creciente diversidad ayuda a abordar los múltiples desafíos y crisis a los que se enfrenta la humanidad, también es evidente que el co­nocimiento y la jerga especializados, que son necesarios para participar en un subcampo particular, impiden que los académicos de las RR.II. se entiendan entre ellos. Este desarrollo no solo socava la vitalidad de nuestro campo de estudio, sino que también obstruye nuestra capacidad de interactuar con actores políticos y relacionarnos con el público. Además, comuni­dades académicas que solo miran hacia adentro minimizan el pensamiento crítico. Aunque no existe una panacea para revertir esta tendencia, el artículo afirma que el cultivo de redes de diálogo puede mitigar sus peores efectos al fa­cilitar el aprendizaje mutuo y mejorar nuestras habilidades comunicativas.

Since the numerous calls for developing a truly global and plural IR discipline,
a growing spate of IR studies have sought to contextualize and critique the
Euro-centeredness of the field. One of the most significant problems scholars
have pointed out is the hegemonic status of Anglo-American IR theories, which
seemingly assert an ontological preeminence and universality at the expense of
local knowledge and homegrown theories. While the present article shares many
of global IR's concerns, it nevertheless proposes that in our quest to teach IR
and develop homegrown theories, we should not lose sight of the importance
of traditional contributions to the field. Our argument is based on a series of
reflections about the relevance of realist scholarship for the developing world.
Through an analysis of the major criticisms of classical IR theories, we seek to
show that classical and, to a lesser extent, structural and neoclassical realism
contain several and diverse arguments that speak directly to audiences in
the global South. Classical realism, in particular, shares some interesting
commonalities with postcolonial theory, which could pave the way for a more
systematic engagement between the two approaches. Therefore, we argue that
a global IR founded primarily on critiquing classical theories would be an
impoverished IR, and "the thousand small steps" to a globalized discipline ought
not neglect the valuable insights and reflections of traditional theory.