Search results

Esta investigación busca mostrar que, desde la década de los 70, los países latinoamericanos han experimentado tres grandes periodos de reducción de poder nacional, el último de los cuales constituye una nueva década perdida, desde 2012 hasta nuestros días. Para ello, se revisan los estudios sobre el posicionamiento de los países de la región desde los 60 hasta el siglo XXI; luego, con apoyo del World Power Index, se identifican las crisis vividas en la región. Finalmente, se analiza los estancamientos y retrocesos en el Cono Sur, los Andes y México durante la última década. Se concluye que la pandemia, pese a su gran impacto negativo, solo ha profundizado una tendencia ya existente de mediano plazo y ha prolongado el posicionamiento periférico y semiperiférico de la región de largo plazo.

During his first two years as president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro gave the relationship with the United States the highest priority, achieving an extraordinary understanding with President Donald Trump. However, the arrival of Joseph Biden to the presidency has had a significant impact on that understanding. Here it is shown that the Brazilian-American relations with Presidents Trump and Bolsonaro were framed in their populist government programs and that they were driven by their mutual personal understanding, altering the priorities (but not the content) of the bilateral agenda. The arrival of Biden and his ideological distancing from Bolsonaro does not necessarily imply a cooling in the bilateral relationship, but rather a redirection to institutional channels thanks to the pre-existing mechanisms between the United States and Brazil, as well as a return to historical priorities: economic affairs first, then energy and environmental issues, later military cooperation and finally social topics. In this research, the deductive methodology has been implemented in the study of two dimensions: a discursive one, by examining the most important official speeches of Trump, Bolsonaro and Biden in Brazilian-American relations, with the aim of identifying changes in their perceptions and priorities; and another historical one, when studying the performance of bilateral institutions in the aforementioned areas, in order to detect continuity patterns that go beyond presidential administrations.

The process of building Latin American autonomy through regional integration has lost its momentum in recent years and in some cases, are seriously questioned. The hypothesis put forward here is that Latin American neopresidentialism is replicated in regional institutions configurating an essentially intergovernmental integration model which, combined with the logic of the hierarchy of power in the international order, ends up giving privileges to the most powerful countries. Thus, the agendas promoted from the regional and subregional Latin American organizations are those that interest the countries that are better positioned in the international structure and possess greater capacities to implement the agreements. Taking the "Unión de Naciones Suramericanas" (UNASUR) as a case study, is possible to corroborate that neopresidentialism and the hierarchy of power have conditioned the institutionality and agenda of this organization, placing the political ideology of the presidents and national interests above the regional interests.

The process of building Latin American autonomy through regional integration has lost its momentum in recent years and in some cases, are seriously questioned. The hypothesis put forward here is that Latin American neopresidentialism is replicated in regional institutions configurating an essentially intergovernmental integration model which, combined with the logic of the hierarchy of power in the international order, ends up giving privileges to the most powerful countries. Thus, the agendas promoted from the regional and subregional Latin American organizations are those that interest the countries that are better positioned in the international structure and possess greater capacities to implement the agreements. Taking the "Unión de Naciones Suramericanas" (UNASUR) as a case study, is possible to corroborate that neopresidentialism and the hierarchy of power have conditioned the institutionality and agenda of this organization, placing the political ideology of the presidents and national interests above the regional interests. ; El proceso de construcción de la autonomía latinoamericana a través de la integración regional ha perdido impulso en los últimos años y, en algunos casos, se encuentra seriamente cuestionado. La hipótesis presentada aquí es que el neopresidencialismo latinoamericano se replica en las instituciones regionales, configurando un modelo de integración esencialmente intergubernamental que, combinado con las lógicas de la jerarquía de poder en el orden internacional, termina dando privilegios a los países más poderosos. De esta forma, las agendas que se promueven desde las organizaciones regionales y subregionales latinoamericanas son aquellas que interesan a los países que están mejor posicionados en la estructura internacional y poseen mayores capacidades para implementar los acuerdos. Tomando la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR) como un caso de estudio, es posible corroborar que el neopresidencialismo y la jerarquía de poder han condicionado la institucionalidad y la agenda de ...

Durante sus dos primeros años como presidente de Brasil, Jair Bolsonaro dio la máxima prioridad a la relación con Estados Unidos, logrando un entendimiento extraordinario con el presidente Donald Trump. Sin embargo, la llegada de Joseph Biden a la presidencia ha tenido un significativo impacto en dicho entendimiento. Aquí se demuestra que las relaciones brasileño-estadounidense con los presidentes Trump y Bolsonaro se enmarcaron en sus programas de gobierno populistas y que fueron impulsadas por su mutuo entendimiento personal, alterando las prioridades (pero no el contenido) de la agenda bilateral. La llegada de Biden y su distanciamiento ideológico con Bolsonaro no implica necesariamente un enfriamiento en la relación bilateral, sino un redireccionamiento a los canales institucionales gracias a los mecanismos preexistentes entre Estados Unidos y Brasil, así como un retorno a las prioridades históricas: primero los asuntos económicos, luego los energéticos y medioambientales, posteriormente los militares y finalmente los sociales. En esta investigación se ha implementado la metodología deductiva en el estudio de dos dimensiones: una discursiva, al examinar los discursos oficiales más importantes de Trump, Bolsonaro y Biden en las relaciones brasileño-estadounidenses, con el objetivo de identificar los cambios en sus percepciones y prioridades; y otra histórica, al estudiar el desempeño de las instituciones bilaterales en las áreas antes referidas, con la finalidad de detectar los patrones de continuidad que van más allá de las administraciones presidenciales. ; During his first two years as president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro gave the relationship with the United States the highest priority, achieving an extraordinary understanding with President Donald Trump. However, the arrival of Joseph Biden to the presidency has had a significant impact on that understanding. Here it is shown that the Brazilian-American relations with Presidents Trump and Bolsonaro were framed in their populist government programs and that they were driven by their mutual personal understanding, altering the priorities (but not the content) of the bilateral agenda. The arrival of Biden and his ideological distancing from Bolsonaro does not necessarily imply a cooling in the bilateral relationship, but rather a redirection to institutional channels thanks to the pre-existing mechanisms between the United States and Brazil, as well as a return to historical priorities: economic affairs first, then energy and environmental issues, later military cooperation and finally social topics. In this research, the deductive methodology has been implemented in the study of two dimensions: a discursive one, by examining the most important official speeches of Trump, Bolsonaro and Biden in Brazilian-American relations, with the aim of identifying changes in their perceptions and priorities; and another historical one, when studying the performance of bilateral institutions in the aforementioned areas, in order to detect continuity patterns that go beyond presidential administrations.

La Provincia de Guangdong concentra su mayor potencial en la llamada Área de la Gran Bahía (AGB). Pero ¿qué representa esta área para América Latina y qué oportunidades existen aquí para la profundización de las relaciones sino-latinoamericanas en el marco de la iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta (一带一路)? Este trabajo se apoya en los métodos histórico y analítico: el primero para desentrañar el proceso de conformación del AGB, el segundo para analizar las potencialidades geográficas, administrativas y organizativas actuales del AGB. El objetivo del trabajo es presentar algunas perspectivas para el desarrollo de los vínculos entre China y América Latina a través del AGB en el marco de la iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta.

The notion of semiperiphery refers to specific, delimited, observable and geographically referenced spaces: the semiperipheries fulfil a complex structural function and are not common in the world system. In this way, what countries have transited through these ascending/descending mobilities and now make up the semiperiphery? This article not only presents an extensive theoretical review of the concept of semiperiphery but also demonstrates the coexistence of two groups of states in the semiperiphery: the first, the high or strong, semiperiphery, is composed of the so-called regional powers; the second, the low or weak, semiperiphery, is made up of a group that has been little studied so far and that can be named as secondary regional states. Due to an increase in their material and immaterial capacities, the regional powers entered into a dynamic of rise in the first decade of the twenty-first century and, with this, they strengthened their position in the international structure; secondary regional states did not stand out due to their emergence, but they significantly increased their semi-material capacities, which places them on the path of development. However, none of the cases have overcome their situation and semiperipheral nature.

Do all the core states occupy identical positions in the hierarchy of world power and perform the same functions? The hypothesis outlined here is that there is an unforeseen category: semi-core states. They have very important socio-institutional power but are "tertiary" in terms of economic-military and communicative-cultural power. Despite their relative marginality, they play strategic roles in international politics, especially in support of the central powers (great and middle). This article analyzes the general characteristics of the so-called center of the world-system, identifies the semi-core states theoretically and empirically, explores their genesis and analyzes their roles in the international system.

El hegemón es un actor fundamental en la gobernanza internacional. No obstante, mientras que el comercio, poder y guerra han sido temas ampliamente abordados desde los estudios sobre hegemonía en las Relaciones Internacionales, se ha avanzado poco en análisis de las ideas que orientan el comportamiento del hegemón. La hipótesis aquí planteada es que las hegemonías recorren a lo largo de su existencia cinco fases (emergencia, despliegue, apogeo, declive y extinción) y, durante cada una de ellas, el Estado hegemónico asume ideologías específicas que orientan su comportamiento internacional, lo cual se traduce en la promoción de ciertas políticas internacionales, así como de alianzas y organizaciones internacionales con vocaciones específicas. Sin embargo, en la medida que evoluciona su poder nacional y el hegemón transita de una fase a otra, éste tiende a cambiar ideológicamente, abandonando ideas previas y asumiendo otras nuevas. Si bien dicha transición ideológica es pragmática -en función de las necesidades de su poder nacional- este cambio resulta discordante y criticable por otros actores del sistema. Este documento se compone de dos grandes partes: en la primera se establecen las cinco fases de un ciclo hegemónico y, luego, se exponen las ideologías que orientan el comportamiento del Estado hegemónico en ellas; la segunda parte se orienta a comprobar empíricamente las transiciones ideológicas durante las hegemonías neerlandesa, británica y estadounidense.

Abstract: The hegemon is a fundamental actor in international governance. However, while trade, power and war have been topics widely discussed from studies on hegemony in International Relations, little progress has been made in analyzing the ideas that guide the behavior of the hegemon. The hypothesis proposed here is that the hegemonies pass through five phases during their existence (emergence, deployment, apogee, decline and extinction) and, during each of them, the hegemonic State assumes specific ideologies that guide its international behavior. However, as the national power evolves, and the hegemon moves from one phase to another, it tends to change ideologically, abandoning previous ideas and assuming new ones. Although this ideological transition is pragmatic - depending on the power needs of the hegemon- this change results discordant and is criticized by other actors in the system. To demonstrate this, the following document is composed of two major parts: the first presents the five phases of a hegemonic cycle and, along with it, the ideologies that guide the behavior of the hegemonic State; the second part aims to empirically verify the ideological transitions during the hegemonies that have existed: the Dutch, the British and the American.
Keywords: Hegemony, hegemonic political cycles, ideology, national power, hegemonic interregnum.


Recebido em: Agosto/2018.
Aprovado em: Dezembro/2018.

El hegemón es un actor fundamental en la gobernanza internacional. No obstante, mientras que el comercio, poder y guerra han sido temas ampliamente abordados desde los estudios sobre hegemonía en las Relaciones Internacionales, se ha avanzado poco en análisis de las ideas que orientan el comportamiento del hegemón. La hipótesis aquí planteada es que las hegemonías recorren a lo largo de su existencia cinco fases (emergencia, despliegue, apogeo, declive y extinción) y, durante cada una de ellas, el Estado hegemónico asume ideologías específicas que orientan su comportamiento internacional, lo cual se traduce en la promoción de ciertas políticas internacionales, así como de alianzas y organizaciones internacionales con vocaciones específicas. Sin embargo, en la medida que evoluciona su poder nacional y el hegemón transita de una fase a otra, éste tiende a cambiar ideológicamente, abandonando ideas previas y asumiendo otras nuevas. Si bien dicha transición ideológica es pragmática -en función de las necesidades de su poder nacional- este cambio resulta discordante y criticable por otros actores del sistema. Este documento se compone de dos grandes partes: en la primera se establecen las cinco fases de un ciclo hegemónico y, luego, se exponen las ideologías que orientan el comportamiento del Estado hegemónico en ellas; la segunda parte se orienta a comprobar empíricamente las transiciones ideológicas durante las hegemonías neerlandesa, británica y estadounidense. Abstract: The hegemon is a fundamental actor in international governance. However, while trade, power and war have been topics widely discussed from studies on hegemony in International Relations, little progress has been made in analyzing the ideas that guide the behavior of the hegemon. The hypothesis proposed here is that the hegemonies pass through five phases during their existence (emergence, deployment, apogee, decline and extinction) and, during each of them, the hegemonic State assumes specific ideologies that guide its international behavior. However, as the national power evolves, and the hegemon moves from one phase to another, it tends to change ideologically, abandoning previous ideas and assuming new ones. Although this ideological transition is pragmatic - depending on the power needs of the hegemon- this change results discordant and is criticized by other actors in the system. To demonstrate this, the following document is composed of two major parts: the first presents the five phases of a hegemonic cycle and, along with it, the ideologies that guide the behavior of the hegemonic State; the second part aims to empirically verify the ideological transitions during the hegemonies that have existed: the Dutch, the British and the American. Keywords: Hegemony, hegemonic political cycles, ideology, national power, hegemonic interregnum. Recebido em: Agosto/2018. Aprovado em: Dezembro/2018.