There it goes. Perfect.

There it goes. Perfect. Well, I say again, good morning

Well, I say again, good morning

Well, I say again, good morning everyone. Hey, today we're going to start with the

everyone. Hey, today we're going to start with the

everyone. Hey, today we're going to start with the fourth class of the subject of

fourth class of the subject of

fourth class of the subject of geopolitics and

geopolitics and

geopolitics and international relations, theoretical approaches and debates

international relations, theoretical approaches and debates

of the specialization in

of the specialization in international relations and foreign policy.

international relations and foreign policy.

international relations and foreign policy. Uh, and I think

Uh, and I think

Uh, and I think the title of this subject will be explained a little better,

the title of this subject will be explained a little better,

the title of this subject will be explained a little better, because today what we're going to do is

because today what we're going to do is

because today what we're going to do is start talking about the discipline of

start talking about the discipline of

start talking about the discipline of international relations.

international relations.

international relations. And while in the last class on

And while in the last class on

And while in the last class on Argentine geopolitics we

Argentine geopolitics we

Argentine geopolitics we almost reached the 1990s,

almost reached the 1990s,

almost reached the 1990s, in reality we stayed more in the

in reality we stayed more in the

in reality we stayed more in the 1970s and 1980s, right? from the last century.

1970s and 1980s, right? from the last century.

1970s and 1980s, right? from the last century. Today we're going to go back to the beginning

Today we're going to go back to the beginning

Today we're going to go back to the beginning of the 20th century, more specifically

of the 20th century, more specifically

of the 20th century, more specifically towards the end of the First

towards the end of the First

towards the end of the First World War. That's

World War. That's

World War. That's why, for that reason, for this

why, for that reason, for this

why, for that reason, for this class we chose as an image this

class we chose as an image this

class we chose as an image this painting, which is a painting of the signing of

painting, which is a painting of the signing of

painting, which is a painting of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, right?,

the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, right?,

the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, right?, which ended the First

which ended the First

which ended the First World War.

World War.

World War. So,

So,

So, while on campus, we're sharing a

while on campus, we're sharing a

while on campus, we're sharing a short video with Cecilia, who teaches

short video with Cecilia, who teaches

short video with Cecilia, who teaches this specialization,

this specialization,

this specialization, in which she reviews

in which she reviews

in which she reviews the emergence of

the emergence of

the emergence of international relations

international relations

international relations as a discipline.

as a discipline.

as a discipline. We're also going to address this topic at the

We're also going to address this topic at the

We're also going to address this topic at the beginning of this class so we can

beginning of this class so we can

beginning of this class so we can connect everything together a bit.

connect everything together a bit.

connect everything together a bit. In that sense, the First

In that sense, the First

In that sense, the First World War or the Great War, right? Well, it

World War or the Great War, right? Well, it

World War or the Great War, right? Well, it shocked Europe at the time, and I'm not

shocked Europe at the time, and I'm not

shocked Europe at the time, and I'm not speaking strictly in

speaking strictly in

speaking strictly in social terms, but mainly in political terms.

social terms, but mainly in political terms.

social terms, but mainly in political terms. The First

The First

The First World War led to a

World War led to a

World War led to a radical reconfiguration of the

radical reconfiguration of the

radical reconfiguration of the European map.

European map.

European map. Maybe if someone is there, because I can't

Maybe if someone is there, because I can't

Maybe if someone is there, because I can't do it, someone has the

do it, someone has the

do it, someone has the microphone open, uh, close it. You

microphone open, uh, close it. You

microphone open, uh, close it. You can open it if you want to ask, but

can open it if you want to ask, but

can open it if you want to ask, but so that there is no noise afterwards.

so that there is no noise afterwards.

so that there is no noise afterwards. Well, as I was saying, it generated a

Well, as I was saying, it generated a

Well, as I was saying, it generated a radical reconfiguration of the

radical reconfiguration of the

radical reconfiguration of the European map. Think that, eh, in

European map. Think that, eh, in

European map. Think that, eh, in general terms, it meant the confrontation between

general terms, it meant the confrontation between

general terms, it meant the confrontation between the central powers, among which

the central powers, among which

the central powers, among which the

the

the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire stand out above all, and

Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire stand out above all, and

Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire stand out above all, and we had seen the process of

we had seen the process of

we had seen the process of formation, right? And as Ratel justified it

formation, right? And as Ratel justified it

in the classic geopolitical class

in the classic geopolitical class against the allies that had as a

against the allies that had as a

against the allies that had as a starting point

starting point

starting point the initial political-military

the initial political-military

the initial political-military and diplomatic alliance, no more than anything between

and diplomatic alliance, no more than anything between

and diplomatic alliance, no more than anything between France, Great Britain and the Russian Empire,

France, Great Britain and the Russian Empire,

France, Great Britain and the Russian Empire, which was also called

which was also called

which was also called the triple alliance, to which

the triple alliance, to which

the triple alliance, to which other actors were added with the

other actors were added with the

other actors were added with the development of the conflict, such as

development of the conflict, such as

development of the conflict, such as Italy and the United States.

Italy and the United States.

Italy and the United States. So, as you can see, my intention here

So, as you can see, my intention here

So, as you can see, my intention here is not to provide a historical overview of the

is not to provide a historical overview of the

is not to provide a historical overview of the First World War, but rather to

First World War, but rather to

First World War, but rather to show you the context in which

show you the context in which

show you the context in which international relations began to

international relations began to

international relations began to emerge as an academic science.

emerge as an academic science.

emerge as an academic science. As I was saying, the outcome of the conflict

As I was saying, the outcome of the conflict

As I was saying, the outcome of the conflict was a radical reconfiguration of the

was a radical reconfiguration of the

was a radical reconfiguration of the European political map. If we look at

European political map. If we look at

European political map. If we look at the image on the slide, for example,

the image on the slide, for example,

what we can see is a map

what we can see is a map that in 1919

that in 1919

that in 1919 showed the fall of four empires:

showed the fall of four empires:

showed the fall of four empires: the German, the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian, and

the German, the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian, and

the German, the Austro-Hungarian, the Russian, and also the Ottoman, although not

also the Ottoman, although not

also the Ottoman, although not necessarily for the same reasons, and

necessarily for the same reasons, and

necessarily for the same reasons, and I'm not so focused on this map. That was the

I'm not so focused on this map. That was the

I'm not so focused on this map. That was the outcome of the First World War.

And why do I say this? Because in the case

And why do I say this? Because in the case of the Russian Empire, for example, its

of the Russian Empire, for example, its

of the Russian Empire, for example, its participation in the conflict took place

participation in the conflict took place

participation in the conflict took place until

until

until approximately 1917, that is, two years before the

approximately 1917, that is, two years before the

approximately 1917, that is, two years before the end of the First

end of the First

end of the First World War. And that is because at the

World War. And that is because at the

World War. And that is because at the beginning of that year of 1917,

beginning of that year of 1917,

beginning of that year of 1917, eh, with the February Revolution

eh, with the February Revolution

eh, with the February Revolution the Russian Revolution had begun, which

the Russian Revolution had begun, which

the Russian Revolution had begun, which deposed Nicholas II and which would continue its

deposed Nicholas II and which would continue its

deposed Nicholas II and which would continue its evolution with the Bolshevik Revolution

evolution with the Bolshevik Revolution

evolution with the Bolshevik Revolution of October. Wait a minute for me.

of October. Wait a minute for me.

of October. Wait a minute for me. I'm going to do it myself.

Ready.

Ready. Here's

the Russian October Revolution.

the Russian October Revolution. What's worth mentioning here is

What's worth mentioning here is

What's worth mentioning here is a fact that Cecilia

a fact that Cecilia

a fact that Cecilia refers to in the video, eh, which is the

refers to in the video, eh, which is the

refers to in the video, eh, which is the decree on peace that Lenin delivered

decree on peace that Lenin delivered

decree on peace that Lenin delivered before the Council of People's Commissars

before the Council of People's Commissars

before the Council of People's Commissars eh on November 8, 1917,

eh on November 8, 1917,

eh on November 8, 1917, which I'm leaving for you as part of the

which I'm leaving for you as part of the

which I'm leaving for you as part of the optional bibliography just so you

optional bibliography just so you

optional bibliography just so you can see what it looks like, right? more than anything.

can see what it looks like, right? more than anything.

can see what it looks like, right? more than anything. Because the relevance of this decree is

Because the relevance of this decree is

Because the relevance of this decree is that it urges all belligerent peoples and

that it urges all belligerent peoples and

that it urges all belligerent peoples and governments in the conflict to

governments in the conflict to

governments in the conflict to engage in immediate negotiations for

engage in immediate negotiations for

engage in immediate negotiations for a just and democratic peace,

a just and democratic peace,

a just and democratic peace, and for it to be immediate and without

and for it to be immediate and without

and for it to be immediate and without territorial annexations.

territorial annexations.

territorial annexations. And to achieve this, the government seeks to

And to achieve this, the government seeks to

And to achieve this, the government seeks to put an end to the secret diplomacy that

put an end to the secret diplomacy that

put an end to the secret diplomacy that was characteristic of the great powers of

was characteristic of the great powers of

was characteristic of the great powers of the time and to declare null and void all

the time and to declare null and void all

the time and to declare null and void all clauses of

clauses of

clauses of international treaties signed under that

international treaties signed under that

international treaties signed under that secret modality.

secret modality.

secret modality. And this decree of 1917

And this decree of 1917

And this decree of 1917 by Lenin is a direct antecedent of the

by Lenin is a direct antecedent of the

by Lenin is a direct antecedent of the Peace Treaty signed in March 1918

Peace Treaty signed in March 1918

Peace Treaty signed in March 1918 by Russia, Soviet Russia now

by Russia, Soviet Russia now

by Russia, Soviet Russia now with the Central Powers, that is, the

with the Central Powers, that is, the

with the Central Powers, that is, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the

Austro-Hungarian Empire, the

Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German Empire, etc. And that's what put an end to

German Empire, etc. And that's what put an end to

German Empire, etc. And that's what put an end to Russian participation in the First

Russian participation in the First

Russian participation in the First World War and that's what

World War and that's what

World War and that's what plunged Russia into a civil war that would

plunged Russia into a civil war that would

plunged Russia into a civil war that would have, as a corollary, right?, the

have, as a corollary, right?, the

have, as a corollary, right?, the founding of the Soviet Union

founding of the Soviet Union

founding of the Soviet Union itself a few years later.

itself a few years later.

itself a few years later. And I'll quickly emphasize this

And I'll quickly emphasize this

And I'll quickly emphasize this context, right?, of Russia, because with

context, right?, of Russia, because with

context, right?, of Russia, because with regard to the discipline of

regard to the discipline of

regard to the discipline of international relations, and as we'll be

international relations, and as we'll be

international relations, and as we'll be discussing in more depth in a

discussing in more depth in a

discussing in more depth in a bit, there's

bit, there's

bit, there's going to be a persistent bias that will

going to be a persistent bias that will

going to be a persistent bias that will try to sort of leave out

try to sort of leave out

try to sort of leave out of both historiography and

of both historiography and

of both historiography and theoretical development itself, sources

theoretical development itself, sources

theoretical development itself, sources of thought that are extremely influential in

of thought that are extremely influential in

of thought that are extremely influential in the study of international politics

the study of international politics

the study of international politics and foreign policy.

Now, in return, we're going to talk about

Now, in return, we're going to talk about Wilson's 14 points, who was

Wilson's 14 points, who was

Wilson's 14 points, who was president of the United States at the

president of the United States at the

president of the United States at the same time.

same time.

same time. But before that, it's important to at

But before that, it's important to at

But before that, it's important to at least mention the

least mention the

least mention the problematization and democratization of

problematization and democratization of

problematization and democratization of foreign policy as public policy,

foreign policy as public policy,

foreign policy as public policy, which Lenin suggested with his

which Lenin suggested with his

which Lenin suggested with his peace decree in the context of that

peace decree in the context of that

peace decree in the context of that war scenario, a year before

war scenario, a year before

war scenario, a year before Wilson did.

Wilson did.

Wilson did. Eh, with that said, "No, the end of

Eh, with that said, "No, the end of

Eh, with that said, "No, the end of secret diplomacy, the beginning of

secret diplomacy, the beginning of

secret diplomacy, the beginning of people's diplomacy, that is, as

people's diplomacy, that is, as

people's diplomacy, that is, as an active participation of the population

an active participation of the population

an active participation of the population in foreign policy, in the

in foreign policy, in the

in foreign policy, in the designs of foreign policy,

designs of foreign policy,

designs of foreign policy, understanding that it is already beginning, seeking to be

understanding that it is already beginning, seeking to be

understanding that it is already beginning, seeking to be understood, not as something separate and

understood, not as something separate and

understood, not as something separate and relegated to a select group of

relegated to a select group of

relegated to a select group of politicians, but as a

politicians, but as a

politicians, but as a public policy itself, in

public policy itself, in

public policy itself, in today's words, right? At that moment,

today's words, right? At that moment,

today's words, right? At that moment, these words that I'm using are not there.

these words that I'm using are not there.

these words that I'm using are not there. Eh, and I say this because, uh, at least at the

Eh, and I say this because, uh, at least at the

Eh, and I say this because, uh, at least at the beginning and in the origin of the

beginning and in the origin of the

beginning and in the origin of the discipline, uh, and in the first

discipline, uh, and in the first

discipline, uh, and in the first programs of

programs of

programs of international relations, uh, these facts

international relations, uh, these facts

international relations, uh, these facts are not necessarily considered. We will

are not necessarily considered. We will

are not necessarily considered. We will see later what the first

see later what the first

see later what the first debate on

debate on

debate on international relations was, where the

international relations was, where the

international relations was, where the Marxist positions did not appear with as much

Marxist positions did not appear with as much

Marxist positions did not appear with as much relevance as they will

relevance as they will

relevance as they will later.

In the words of Celestino del Arenal,

In the words of Celestino del Arenal, in a text that I left you on campus,

in a text that I left you on campus,

in a text that I left you on campus, if I'm not mistaken, uh,

if I'm not mistaken, uh,

if I'm not mistaken, uh, this is explained by practically

this is explained by practically

this is explained by practically all universities and

all universities and

all universities and research centers,

research centers,

research centers, when studying the evolution of

when studying the evolution of

when studying the evolution of theory and discipline of

theory and discipline of

theory and discipline of international relations, is done

international relations, is done

international relations, is done following the Western and

following the Western and

following the Western and canonical narrative, that is, its development in the United

canonical narrative, that is, its development in the United

canonical narrative, that is, its development in the United States and to a much lesser extent

States and to a much lesser extent

States and to a much lesser extent in Europe. Europe with the

in Europe. Europe with the

in Europe. Europe with the aforementioned consequences of the consolidation of the

aforementioned consequences of the consolidation of the

aforementioned consequences of the consolidation of the mainstream and the affirmation and

mainstream and the affirmation and

mainstream and the affirmation and universalization

universalization

universalization of American interpretations

of American interpretations

of American interpretations of international relations.

of international relations.

of international relations. This is an assessment that

This is an assessment that

This is an assessment that Arenal's destiny will be in 1984

Arenal's destiny will be in 1984

Arenal's destiny will be in 1984 about the discipline, and despite the fact that it

about the discipline, and despite the fact that it

about the discipline, and despite the fact that it was 1984, the reality is that this

was 1984, the reality is that this

was 1984, the reality is that this continues to happen to this day, and in

continues to happen to this day, and in

continues to happen to this day, and in some way I have to

some way I have to

some way I have to show it to you in this class. That is, when

show it to you in this class. That is, when

show it to you in this class. That is, when we have to review the

we have to review the

we have to review the development and evolution of the

development and evolution of the

development and evolution of the discipline of

discipline of

discipline of international relations, unfortunately, the

international relations, unfortunately, the

international relations, unfortunately, the historicization, which is the one that is much

historicization, which is the one that is much

historicization, which is the one that is much more finished and is the one that can be done,

more finished and is the one that can be done,

more finished and is the one that can be done, is this uh, Western

is this uh, Western

is this uh, Western canonical narrative.

canonical narrative.

canonical narrative. Although that is why in this subject we later

Although that is why in this subject we later

Although that is why in this subject we later occupy uh, certain classes to speak

occupy uh, certain classes to speak

occupy uh, certain classes to speak directly about our

directly about our

directly about our national productions because otherwise it remains

national productions because otherwise it remains

national productions because otherwise it remains completely disregarded

completely disregarded

completely disregarded and one ends up adopting theoretical frameworks

and one ends up adopting theoretical frameworks

and one ends up adopting theoretical frameworks that are not truly explanatory

that are not truly explanatory

that are not truly explanatory of our reality and our

of our reality and our

of our reality and our interests.

Having made this disclaimer, so to

Having made this disclaimer, so to speak, the

speak, the

speak, the United States The United States, for its part,

United States The United States, for its part,

United States The United States, for its part, formally entered the Great War in 1917,

formally entered the Great War in 1917,

formally entered the Great War in 1917, right? That is, the same year that Russia

right? That is, the same year that Russia

right? That is, the same year that Russia was withdrawing from the war. And a year

was withdrawing from the war. And a year

was withdrawing from the war. And a year later, in 1918,

later, in 1918,

later, in 1918, President Udro Wilson delivered

President Udro Wilson delivered

President Udro Wilson delivered a speech before Congress

a speech before Congress

a speech before Congress in which he introduced Wilson's famous 14 points

in which he introduced Wilson's famous 14 points

in which he introduced Wilson's famous 14 points .

.

. And these points were designed to

And these points were designed to

And these points were designed to serve as guidelines for

serve as guidelines for

serve as guidelines for initiating the reconstruction of the

initiating the reconstruction of the

initiating the reconstruction of the postwar world. And, in summary, they proposed the

postwar world. And, in summary, they proposed the

postwar world. And, in summary, they proposed the following things: Number one,

following things: Number one,

following things: Number one, open diplomacy without

open diplomacy without

open diplomacy without secret treaties.

secret treaties.

secret treaties. Number two, free trade and navigation

Number two, free trade and navigation

Number two, free trade and navigation in both war and peace.

in both war and peace.

in both war and peace. Number three, removal of all

Number three, removal of all

Number three, removal of all economic barriers.

economic barriers.

economic barriers. Perfect. I'll see later, Martin, if they're going to

Perfect. I'll see later, Martin, if they're going to

Perfect. I'll see later, Martin, if they're going to raise it, they'll write it down for me.

raise it, they'll write it down for me.

raise it, they'll write it down for me. Removal of all

Removal of all

Removal of all economic barriers. Number four, guarantees

economic barriers. Number four, guarantees

economic barriers. Number four, guarantees for the almost absolute disarmament of

for the almost absolute disarmament of

for the almost absolute disarmament of nations.

nations.

nations. Number five, readjustment of

Number five, readjustment of

Number five, readjustment of colonial claims.

colonial claims.

colonial claims. Number six, evacuation of the

Number six, evacuation of the

Number six, evacuation of the Central Powers from

Central Powers from

Central Powers from Russian territory.

Number seven, evacuation, restoration, and

Number seven, evacuation, restoration, and full sovereignty of Belgium. Here we

full sovereignty of Belgium. Here we

full sovereignty of Belgium. Here we go. To be more specific, eight:

go. To be more specific, eight:

go. To be more specific, eight: restoration of the

restoration of the

restoration of the invaded French territories.

invaded French territories.

invaded French territories. Nine: readjustment of

Nine: readjustment of

Nine: readjustment of Italian borders.

Italian borders.

Italian borders. Europe was left in a mess. 10:

Europe was left in a mess. 10:

Europe was left in a mess. 10: Opportunity for the autonomous development

Opportunity for the autonomous development

Opportunity for the autonomous development of the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

of the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

of the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 11: Restoration of the territories of

11: Restoration of the territories of

11: Restoration of the territories of Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro.

Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro.

Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro. 12: Creation of a sovereign Turkish state

12: Creation of a sovereign Turkish state

12: Creation of a sovereign Turkish state after the dissolution of the

after the dissolution of the

after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. 13: Creation of the

Ottoman Empire. 13: Creation of the

Ottoman Empire. 13: Creation of the independent state of Poland.

independent state of Poland.

independent state of Poland. And fourteen: creation of the League of

And fourteen: creation of the League of

And fourteen: creation of the League of Nations, which is the direct antecedent

Nations, which is the direct antecedent

Nations, which is the direct antecedent of the current

of the current

of the current United Nations.

United Nations.

United Nations. These guidelines that Wilson

These guidelines that Wilson

These guidelines that Wilson then proposes are the ones that he will later

then proposes are the ones that he will later

then proposes are the ones that he will later seek to capture in the final text

seek to capture in the final text

seek to capture in the final text of the Treaty of Versailles

of the Treaty of Versailles

of the Treaty of Versailles negotiated during the

negotiated during the

negotiated during the Paris conferences of 1919.

Paris conferences of 1919.

Paris conferences of 1919. And as you can see from points

And as you can see from points

And as you can see from points two and three,

two and three,

two and three, fundamentally, right? These: free

fundamentally, right? These: free

fundamentally, right? These: free trade and navigation both in war

trade and navigation both in war

trade and navigation both in war and peace and the removal of all

and peace and the removal of all

and peace and the removal of all tariff barriers.

tariff barriers.

tariff barriers. Wilson's proposal had a strong

Wilson's proposal had a strong

Wilson's proposal had a strong liberal bent,

liberal bent,

liberal bent, although for this, for what is the

although for this, for what is the

International relations theory is identified in

International relations theory is identified in this period under the name of

this period under the name of

this period under the name of idealism.

idealism.

idealism. Idealism, in general terms,

Idealism, in general terms,

Idealism, in general terms, was motivated by the desire to prevent

was motivated by the desire to prevent

was motivated by the desire to prevent war, understanding

war, understanding

war, understanding that peace is not a

that peace is not a

that peace is not a natural condition but rather must be built

natural condition but rather must be built

natural condition but rather must be built through order, and that the freedom of

through order, and that the freedom of

through order, and that the freedom of states is part of the problem of

states is part of the problem of

states is part of the problem of international relations. Therefore, they

international relations. Therefore, they

international relations. Therefore, they should be subject to an organization

should be subject to an organization

should be subject to an organization with rules, in this case the League of

with rules, in this case the League of

with rules, in this case the League of Nations, where

Nations, where

Nations, where moral regulations are imposed

moral regulations are imposed

moral regulations are imposed and not based on

and not based on

and not based on national interests. That is, limiting and restricting

national interests. That is, limiting and restricting

national interests. That is, limiting and restricting state action on the

state action on the

state action on the international plane under moral precepts.

international plane under moral precepts.

international plane under moral precepts. So, idealism did not really

So, idealism did not really

So, idealism did not really propose a world order,

propose a world order,

propose a world order, philosophically speaking, so ideal,

philosophically speaking, so ideal,

philosophically speaking, so ideal, but rather what it proposed was the

but rather what it proposed was the

but rather what it proposed was the liberal order, basically, which had already

liberal order, basically, which had already

liberal order, basically, which had already begun in the 15th century.

begun in the 15th century.

begun in the 15th century. And when we talk about liberalism, we understand it

And when we talk about liberalism, we understand it

And when we talk about liberalism, we understand it as an ideology

as an ideology

as an ideology centered, right?, on

centered, right?, on

centered, right?, on individual freedom, where the State is

individual freedom, where the State is

individual freedom, where the State is strictly necessary to preserve

strictly necessary to preserve

strictly necessary to preserve individual freedom from the threat of other

individual freedom from the threat of other

individual freedom from the threat of other individuals, or in this case, other

individuals, or in this case, other

individuals, or in this case, other states.

states.

states. Uh, to Which should set a limit on what they

Uh, to Which should set a limit on what they

Uh, to Which should set a limit on what they can do, right? As evidenced by the

can do, right? As evidenced by the

can do, right? As evidenced by the First World War.

Now, the peace signed in the Treaty

Now, the peace signed in the Treaty of Versailles

of Versailles

of Versailles was conceptualized by Raymond

was conceptualized by Raymond

was conceptualized by Raymond Aaron, a philosopher and political scientist, as

Aaron, a philosopher and political scientist, as

Aaron, a philosopher and political scientist, as a peace by empire.

a peace by empire.

a peace by empire. What does this mean? A

What does this mean? A

What does this mean? A formed imposition, a forced imposition on

formed imposition, a forced imposition on

formed imposition, a forced imposition on the defeated, and more specifically

the defeated, and more specifically

the defeated, and more specifically on Germany, right?

on Germany, right?

on Germany, right? And this is because the Treaty of

And this is because the Treaty of

And this is because the Treaty of Versailles, in his words, was a

Versailles, in his words, was a

Versailles, in his words, was a negotiation between

negotiation between

negotiation between strictly victors who sought to indiscriminately acquire as

strictly victors who sought to indiscriminately acquire as

much territory and resources as possible

much territory and resources as possible in order to compensate for their

in order to compensate for their

in order to compensate for their material losses in the war.

material losses in the war.

material losses in the war. And there it goes, as we said at the beginning, if you

And there it goes, as we said at the beginning, if you

And there it goes, as we said at the beginning, if you want to delve a little deeper into the

want to delve a little deeper into the

want to delve a little deeper into the subject, on the virtual campus, I've left you the

subject, on the virtual campus, I've left you the

subject, on the virtual campus, I've left you the link to the documentary film

link to the documentary film

link to the documentary film called Paris 1919,

called Paris 1919,

called Paris 1919, which reviews the

which reviews the

which reviews the events that occurred during this

events that occurred during this

events that occurred during this conference specifically.

conference specifically.

conference specifically. And although the film is in English,

And although the film is in English,

And although the film is in English, and unfortunately, I couldn't find it

and unfortunately, I couldn't find it

and unfortunately, I couldn't find it subtitled, I've left you the translation of

subtitled, I've left you the translation of

subtitled, I've left you the translation of a small part, where What you

a small part, where What you

a small part, where What you see and what you perceive are the

see and what you perceive are the

see and what you perceive are the effects of the war on Europe and the

effects of the war on Europe and the

effects of the war on Europe and the tenor of the negotiations

tenor of the negotiations

tenor of the negotiations between the victorious powers.

between the victorious powers.

between the victorious powers. Eh, even in some of those

Eh, even in some of those

Eh, even in some of those statements from that small part that I

statements from that small part that I

statements from that small part that I left translated for you, eh, from the

left translated for you, eh, from the

left translated for you, eh, from the representatives of the State, eh, what you're going to

representatives of the State, eh, what you're going to

representatives of the State, eh, what you're going to find, eh, is the

find, eh, is the

find, eh, is the classic geopolitical discourse, right? Which, as you

classic geopolitical discourse, right? Which, as you

classic geopolitical discourse, right? Which, as you know, was predominant during the time

know, was predominant during the time

know, was predominant during the time we're talking about, eh, for seeking,

we're talking about, eh, for seeking,

we're talking about, eh, for seeking, for acquiring territories, for acquiring

for acquiring territories, for acquiring

for acquiring territories, for acquiring colonies, for distributing and for

colonies, for distributing and for

colonies, for distributing and for delimiting, eh, the borders of the world to

delimiting, eh, the borders of the world to

delimiting, eh, the borders of the world to suit the victors.

suit the victors.

suit the victors. And here in the image that you see on the

And here in the image that you see on the

And here in the image that you see on the slide, what you see is a

slide, what you see is a

slide, what you see is a caricature of the time in which

caricature of the time in which

caricature of the time in which precisely what is done is to criticize the

precisely what is done is to criticize the

precisely what is done is to criticize the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles towards

harshness of the Treaty of Versailles towards

harshness of the Treaty of Versailles towards Germany.

Germany.

Germany. Eh, in this case, the Big Four, who

Eh, in this case, the Big Four, who

Eh, in this case, the Big Four, who are the ones holding the spoon, are

are the ones holding the spoon, are

are the ones holding the spoon, are Victor Orlando, David Ly George, the

Victor Orlando, David Ly George, the

Victor Orlando, David Ly George, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, eh,

Prime Minister of Great Britain, eh,

Prime Minister of Great Britain, eh, George Clemens, the one from France, and Woodro

George Clemens, the one from France, and Woodro

George Clemens, the one from France, and Woodro Wilson, the President of the United States,

Wilson, the President of the United States,

Wilson, the President of the United States, which shows that force him, whether he

which shows that force him, whether he

which shows that force him, whether he likes it or not, eh, to a Germany squeezed

likes it or not, eh, to a Germany squeezed

likes it or not, eh, to a Germany squeezed by the victorious powers, right?

by the victorious powers, right?

by the victorious powers, right? Notice that on the fingers of the hand you can

Notice that on the fingers of the hand you can

Notice that on the fingers of the hand you can see the British Empire, France, the United

see the British Empire, France, the United

see the British Empire, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan.

States, Italy, and Japan.

States, Italy, and Japan. To swallow what it says there, the bitter

To swallow what it says there, the bitter

To swallow what it says there, the bitter pill of the conditions of peace.

pill of the conditions of peace.

pill of the conditions of peace. Eh, there's a subtitled version on

Eh, there's a subtitled version on

Eh, there's a subtitled version on YouTube. Ah, it's great. If you want, if you

YouTube. Ah, it's great. If you want, if you

YouTube. Ah, it's great. If you want, if you have the link handy and want to put it

have the link handy and want to put it

have the link handy and want to put it in the chat, great. Eh, yes, the things I

in the chat, great. Eh, yes, the things I

in the chat, great. Eh, yes, the things I found, I had the movie at one point

found, I had the movie at one point

found, I had the movie at one point , but on a drive and now I don't

, but on a drive and now I don't

, but on a drive and now I don't know where it is, unfortunately.

know where it is, unfortunately.

know where it is, unfortunately. Eh, well, I

Eh, well, I

Eh, well, I 'll show you that to

'll show you that to

'll show you that to characterize even how the era

characterize even how the era

characterize even how the era observed this political process.

observed this political process.

observed this political process. And here we can begin to put

And here we can begin to put

And here we can begin to put the pieces of the puzzle together,

the pieces of the puzzle together,

the pieces of the puzzle together, because as controversial as

because as controversial as

because as controversial as the Treaty of Versailles was and continues to be,

the Treaty of Versailles was and continues to be,

the Treaty of Versailles was and continues to be, eh, it undoubtedly put an end to the First

eh, it undoubtedly put an end to the First

eh, it undoubtedly put an end to the First World War, although not

World War, although not

World War, although not necessarily for long. And

necessarily for long. And

necessarily for long. And that supposed triumph, right?, with Wilson

that supposed triumph, right?, with Wilson

that supposed triumph, right?, with Wilson The head is what gave way to the

The head is what gave way to the

The head is what gave way to the formation of the first chair of

formation of the first chair of

formation of the first chair of international relations

international relations

international relations at the University of Averiswe in Wales

at the University of Averiswe in Wales

at the University of Averiswe in Wales in 1919, also precisely, and which was

in 1919, also precisely, and which was

in 1919, also precisely, and which was named Udro Wilson in his honor, the

named Udro Wilson in his honor, the

named Udro Wilson in his honor, the Udr Wilson chair. That is

Udr Wilson chair. That is

Udr Wilson chair. That is , this is the context of

, this is the context of

, this is the context of institutionalization of the discipline of

institutionalization of the discipline of

institutionalization of the discipline of international relations

international relations

international relations as a systematic and

as a systematic and

as a systematic and differentiated study of other disciplines and that

differentiated study of other disciplines and that

differentiated study of other disciplines and that was strictly focused on the

was strictly focused on the

was strictly focused on the study of conflict, war and

study of conflict, war and

study of conflict, war and peace.

peace.

peace. In the photo seen below are

In the photo seen below are

In the photo seen below are precisely the four greats that

precisely the four greats that

precisely the four greats that we saw in the cartoon holding

we saw in the cartoon holding

we saw in the cartoon holding the spoon: Vittorio Orlando, David Ly

the spoon: Vittorio Orlando, David Ly

the spoon: Vittorio Orlando, David Ly George, George Clemens, Wilson

George, George Clemens, Wilson

George, George Clemens, Wilson and subsequently, after the founding of the

and subsequently, after the founding of the

and subsequently, after the founding of the first chair at the University of

first chair at the University of

first chair at the University of Wales, other institutions were founded,

Wales, other institutions were founded,

Wales, other institutions were founded, eh, both in Europe and in the United

eh, both in Europe and in the United

eh, both in Europe and in the United States, such as the

States, such as the

States, such as the Royal Institute of International Affairs

Royal Institute of International Affairs

Royal Institute of International Affairs eh in London in 1920,

eh in London in 1920,

eh in London in 1920, eh, and in New York the Council on

eh, and in New York the Council on

eh, and in New York the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921

Foreign Relations in 1921

Foreign Relations in 1921 to reinforce, right?, this type of

to reinforce, right?, this type of

to reinforce, right?, this type of analysis where a study was already beginning to be done.

analysis where a study was already beginning to be done.

analysis where a study was already beginning to be done. differentiated from

differentiated from

differentiated from international society, mainly to

international society, mainly to

international society, mainly to prevent a new conflict.

Until then,

Until then, what predominated in the field of

what predominated in the field of

what predominated in the field of study of international affairs

study of international affairs

study of international affairs was a hegemony of international law

was a hegemony of international law

and diplomatic history. And we

and diplomatic history. And we can also add the history of

can also add the history of

can also add the history of treaties, right? In other words, the phenomenon

treaties, right? In other words, the phenomenon

treaties, right? In other words, the phenomenon of the international

of the international

of the international was observed from those fields until

was observed from those fields until

was observed from those fields until 1919,

which has nothing to do with what will

which has nothing to do with what will happen when the discipline of

happen when the discipline of

happen when the discipline of international relations

international relations

international relations itself emerges. And that is why

itself emerges. And that is why

itself emerges. And that is why the consolidation of

the consolidation of

the consolidation of international relations as an

international relations as an

international relations as an autonomous discipline that would be

autonomous discipline that would be

autonomous discipline that would be fundamentally cemented or framed

fundamentally cemented or framed

fundamentally cemented or framed within political science was postponed,

within political science was postponed,

within political science was postponed, right? With its own attempts at

right? With its own attempts at

right? With its own attempts at theorization and differentiation. That is to

theorization and differentiation. That is to

theorization and differentiation. That is to say, while, of course,

say, while, of course,

say, while, of course, international relations, that is, the

international relations, that is, the

international relations, that is, the phenomenon itself

phenomenon itself

phenomenon itself preexists the birth of the

preexists the birth of the

preexists the birth of the discipline itself, I mean, if

discipline itself, I mean, if

discipline itself, I mean, if we want to go back, we

we want to go back, we

we want to go back, we can find writings directly

can find writings directly

can find writings directly from Thucydides, who kept records

from Thucydides, who kept records

from Thucydides, who kept records of the Peloponnesian War between Athens

of the Peloponnesian War between Athens

of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Uh, And while it can't be

and Sparta. Uh, And while it can't be

and Sparta. Uh, And while it can't be called theory, what he did is an

called theory, what he did is an

called theory, what he did is an attempt to understand, right? How

attempt to understand, right? How

attempt to understand, right? How at that time we

at that time we

at that time we couldn't even speak of states, how the

couldn't even speak of states, how the

couldn't even speak of states, how the city-states of the time were

city-states of the time were

city-states of the time were linked in terms of power and in

linked in terms of power and in

linked in terms of power and in relation to war. I mean, if we want,

relation to war. I mean, if we want,

relation to war. I mean, if we want, we can go all the way back, but nevertheless,

we can go all the way back, but nevertheless,

until the First World War, there was no

systematic development, right? And theoretical development that

systematic development, right? And theoretical development that sought to address these phenomena from a

sought to address these phenomena from a

sought to address these phenomena from a perspective more comparable to that of the

perspective more comparable to that of the

perspective more comparable to that of the internal political theories of the State,

internal political theories of the State,

internal political theories of the State, right?

right?

right? Almost all political thought at that

Almost all political thought at that

Almost all political thought at that time, formal political study,

time, formal political study,

time, formal political study, focused more, from the perspective

focused more, from the perspective

focused more, from the perspective of the social sciences, on the study

of the social sciences, on the study

of the social sciences, on the study of the sovereign nation-state, its

of the sovereign nation-state, its

of the sovereign nation-state, its origins, its functions, its

origins, its functions, its

origins, its functions, its limitations of

limitations of

limitations of governmental powers, the rights of

governmental powers, the rights of

governmental powers, the rights of individuals within the State, the

individuals within the State, the

individuals within the State, the demands of internal order, or the

demands of internal order, or the

demands of internal order, or the imperatives of self-determination and

imperatives of self-determination and

imperatives of self-determination and national independence, but not so much the

national independence, but not so much the

national independence, but not so much the phenomenon of relationships with other, with

phenomenon of relationships with other, with

phenomenon of relationships with other, with other states or with other actors.

other states or with other actors.

other states or with other actors. And above all, what

And above all, what

And above all, what also gave way to, lately,

also gave way to, lately,

also gave way to, lately, consolidate, right? No, the discipline of

consolidate, right? No, the discipline of

consolidate, right? No, the discipline of international relations is that

international relations is that

international relations is that even up until that point,

even up until that point,

even up until that point, international politics remained the

international politics remained the

international politics remained the privilege of a few, who

privilege of a few, who

privilege of a few, who were mostly diplomats or soldiers

were mostly diplomats or soldiers

were mostly diplomats or soldiers directly, which until then

directly, which until then

directly, which until then perpetuated that myth that in some way

perpetuated that myth that in some way

perpetuated that myth that in some way is still in force today, although not in

is still in force today, although not in

is still in force today, although not in the same way, of a

the same way, of a

the same way, of a foreign policy isolated from domestic politics,

foreign policy isolated from domestic politics,

foreign policy isolated from domestic politics, right? Even yesterday I was teaching a

right? Even yesterday I was teaching a

right? Even yesterday I was teaching a class

class

class and a student asked me

and a student asked me

and a student asked me how foreign policy was related

how foreign policy was related

how foreign policy was related to the State's own policy. I

to the State's own policy. I

to the State's own policy. I told him, "It's just another public policy, I

told him, "It's just another public policy, I

told him, "It's just another public policy, I mean, like health policy,

mean, like health policy,

mean, like health policy, like education policy,

like education policy,

like education policy, labor policy. Eh, it's just

labor policy. Eh, it's just

labor policy. Eh, it's just another expression of state policy.

another expression of state policy.

another expression of state policy. Therefore, that's why I say that even now

Therefore, that's why I say that even now

Therefore, that's why I say that even now the idea that it's something

the idea that it's something

the idea that it's something foreign and

foreign and

foreign and out of reach still prevails, despite all the

out of reach still prevails, despite all the

out of reach still prevails, despite all the evolution and democratization it's

evolution and democratization it's

evolution and democratization it's had in the last 100 years.

had in the last 100 years.

had in the last 100 years. But consider that at that time it was

But consider that at that time it was

But consider that at that time it was simply impossible for

simply impossible for

simply impossible for ordinary people like

ordinary people like

ordinary people like us to debate these issues.

us to debate these issues.

us to debate these issues. And it is for this very reason that both

And it is for this very reason that both

And it is for this very reason that both Lenin's peace decree and

Lenin's peace decree and

Lenin's peace decree and Wilson's 14 points spoke out

Wilson's 14 points spoke out

Wilson's 14 points spoke out against that secret and

against that secret and

against that secret and reserved diplomacy of a few

reserved diplomacy of a few

reserved diplomacy of a few and that ended up

and that ended up

and that ended up affecting treaties that ended up

affecting treaties that ended up

affecting treaties that ended up affecting entire peoples

affecting entire peoples

affecting entire peoples directly.

So,

So, Stanley Hoffman in a text that I

Stanley Hoffman in a text that I

Stanley Hoffman in a text that I left for you as part of the optional bibliography

left for you as part of the optional bibliography

is going to suggest that the true reason

is going to suggest that the true reason behind the institutionalization of the

behind the institutionalization of the

behind the institutionalization of the discipline, eh, that it came to have its

discipline, eh, that it came to have its

discipline, eh, that it came to have its own chairs, etc., was

own chairs, etc., was

own chairs, etc., was democratization precisely as a

democratization precisely as a

democratization precisely as a distinctive feature of the

distinctive feature of the

distinctive feature of the modern age at the beginning of the 20th century,

modern age at the beginning of the 20th century,

modern age at the beginning of the 20th century, although

although

although despite all this that I just said,

despite all this that I just said,

despite all this that I just said, right? as of 1919,

right? as of 1919,

right? as of 1919, the discipline formally begins,

the discipline formally begins,

the discipline formally begins, etc.

etc.

etc. Uh, and that's your formal starting point. There

Uh, and that's your formal starting point. There

Uh, and that's your formal starting point. There is also some consensus

is also some consensus

is also some consensus that the 1920s and

that the 1920s and

that the 1920s and 1930s, that is,

1930s, that is,

1930s, that is, the first two decades after

the first two decades after

the first two decades after the formal start,

the formal start,

the formal start, still showed the United States isolated

still showed the United States isolated

still showed the United States isolated from European power struggles,

from European power struggles,

from European power struggles, which led it to maintain a tendency

which led it to maintain a tendency

which led it to maintain a tendency toward isolationism. Remember

toward isolationism. Remember

toward isolationism. Remember in our classic geopolitics class,

in our classic geopolitics class,

in our classic geopolitics class, when we talked about Mahan, we were beginning

when we talked about Mahan, we were beginning

when we talked about Mahan, we were beginning to see this shift in

to see this shift in

to see this shift in American foreign policy? But it was a

American foreign policy? But it was a

American foreign policy? But it was a change that took a while to

change that took a while to

change that took a while to fully consolidate.

Uh, and this tendency toward isolationism on the part of the United

Uh, and this tendency toward isolationism on the part of the United States was also one of the

States was also one of the

States was also one of the reasons why the

reasons why the

reasons why the development of

development of

development of international relations as a formal discipline was delayed.

international relations as a formal discipline was delayed.

international relations as a formal discipline was delayed. In Hoffman's words in this text,

In Hoffman's words in this text,

In Hoffman's words in this text, Hoffman is going to say that

Hoffman is going to say that

Hoffman is going to say that international relations is the science of the

international relations is the science of the

international relations is the science of the trials and tribulations of several

trials and tribulations of several

trials and tribulations of several intertwined actors.

intertwined actors.

intertwined actors. Where they were, where they were not

Where they were, where they were not

Where they were, where they were not intertwined, no science grew. In

intertwined, no science grew. In

intertwined, no science grew. In the United States, before the

the United States, before the

the United States, before the 1930s, there was no reason for it to

1930s, there was no reason for it to

1930s, there was no reason for it to grow.

grow.

grow. And this is important because

And this is important because

And this is important because international relations will

international relations will

international relations will end up being consolidated in the United

end up being consolidated in the United

end up being consolidated in the United States, and it will be

States, and it will be

States, and it will be American theorization that will gain

American theorization that will gain

American theorization that will gain hegemony in the discipline. So the

hegemony in the discipline. So the

hegemony in the discipline. So the change is going to be radical in the

change is going to be radical in the

change is going to be radical in the coming decades.

And another thing that can be

And another thing that can be seen, right? This is how

seen, right? This is how

seen, right? This is how this consolidation of

this consolidation of

this consolidation of international relations was delayed. We had already

international relations was delayed. We had already

international relations was delayed. We had already talked about, well, the processes of

talked about, well, the processes of

talked about, well, the processes of democratization,

democratization,

democratization, American legislation. Another point

American legislation. Another point

American legislation. Another point that, although it formally started

that, although it formally started

that, although it formally started in 1919, took another two decades

in 1919, took another two decades

in 1919, took another two decades to consolidate,

to consolidate,

to consolidate, is that during those two decades

is that during those two decades

is that during those two decades a dichotomy developed directly

a dichotomy developed directly

a dichotomy developed directly between the intellectual idealists

between the intellectual idealists

between the intellectual idealists who shared Wilson's vision of

who shared Wilson's vision of

who shared Wilson's vision of active involvement in the League of

active involvement in the League of

active involvement in the League of Nations by the United States

Nations by the United States

Nations by the United States to create a moral and peaceful order.

to create a moral and peaceful order.

to create a moral and peaceful order. And those who blocked the United

And those who blocked the United

And those who blocked the United States from entering the

States from entering the

States from entering the international organization, right? Within the

international organization, right? Within the

international organization, right? Within the United States, which turned out to be

United States, which turned out to be

United States, which turned out to be a strong contradiction. The very

a strong contradiction. The very

a strong contradiction. The very country that proposed the formation of this

country that proposed the formation of this

country that proposed the formation of this concert of nations was the one that did

concert of nations was the one that did

concert of nations was the one that did not end up uniting.

not end up uniting.

not end up uniting. The European powers

The European powers

The European powers had even done so.

had even done so.

had even done so. And for this reason, even though

And for this reason, even though

And for this reason, even though these

these

these specialized chairs in

specialized chairs in

specialized chairs in international studies were beginning to proliferate,

international studies were beginning to proliferate,

international studies were beginning to proliferate, the consolidation of the discipline

the consolidation of the discipline

the consolidation of the discipline cannot be understood as a

cannot be understood as a

cannot be understood as a process in itself, with its own

process in itself, with its own

process in itself, with its own timeframe. No, it's not that the milestone is marked,

timeframe. No, it's not that the milestone is marked,

timeframe. No, it's not that the milestone is marked, eh, and from then on everything was

eh, and from then on everything was

eh, and from then on everything was fine. That's why, in the interwar period,

fine. That's why, in the interwar period,

among specialists, what still

among specialists, what still predominated fundamentally

predominated fundamentally

predominated fundamentally were diplomatic historians,

were diplomatic historians,

were diplomatic historians, who sought the causes and origins

who sought the causes and origins

who sought the causes and origins of the First World War, or others

of the First World War, or others

of the First World War, or others who explored more than anything the phenomenon

who explored more than anything the phenomenon

who explored more than anything the phenomenon of nationalism itself or the

of nationalism itself or the

of nationalism itself or the advent of new

advent of new

advent of new universalist ideologies, such as what

universalist ideologies, such as what

universalist ideologies, such as what Wilson proposed,

Wilson proposed,

Wilson proposed, also more specialized writings

also more specialized writings

also more specialized writings focused on the study of war and

focused on the study of war and

focused on the study of war and disarmament, diplomacy and

disarmament, diplomacy and

disarmament, diplomacy and negotiation, uh, the balance of power,

negotiation, uh, the balance of power,

negotiation, uh, the balance of power, which we'll talk about a little bit

which we'll talk about a little bit

which we'll talk about a little bit , or even the

, or even the

, or even the geographical aspects of power, right? But

geographical aspects of power, right? But

geographical aspects of power, right? But remember that Mahan or McInderz were writing

remember that Mahan or McInderz were writing

remember that Mahan or McInderz were writing at this time, and while they weren't

at this time, and while they weren't

at this time, and while they weren't considered as much part of

considered as much part of

considered as much part of international relations theory, they were

international relations theory, they were

international relations theory, they were international studies. There were

also predominant studies of

also predominant studies of history,

history,

history, international relations, etc., etc.,

international relations, etc., etc.,

international relations, etc., etc., etc. But there was still a little bit left

etc. But there was still a little bit left

etc. But there was still a little bit left before we could talk about theories

before we could talk about theories

before we could talk about theories per se.

That's why it wasn't until 1939,

That's why it wasn't until 1939, right? That is, 20 years after the end of

right? That is, 20 years after the end of

right? That is, 20 years after the end of the First World War and facing the

the First World War and facing the

the First World War and facing the imminent Second World War,

imminent Second World War,

imminent Second World War, a book called 20 Years of Crisis is about to be published

a book called 20 Years of Crisis is about to be published

a book called 20 Years of Crisis is about to be published by the British author and historian

by the British author and historian

by the British author and historian Edward Car, who was none other

Edward Car, who was none other

Edward Car, who was none other than the fourth holder of the same

than the fourth holder of the same

than the fourth holder of the same Woodrod Wilson Chair at the University

Woodrod Wilson Chair at the University

Woodrod Wilson Chair at the University of Averisw in Wales.

And in this book, what KAR is going to do is

And in this book, what KAR is going to do is begin to delimit a conceptual framework

begin to delimit a conceptual framework

begin to delimit a conceptual framework regarding the theory of

regarding the theory of

regarding the theory of international relations that will have a

international relations that will have a

international relations that will have a profound impact on

profound impact on

profound impact on subsequent works.

subsequent works.

subsequent works. And this marks the beginning of a

And this marks the beginning of a

And this marks the beginning of a formal debate, in many quotation marks, between

formal debate, in many quotation marks, between

formal debate, in many quotation marks, between realists on the one hand and utopians on the

realists on the one hand and utopians on the

realists on the one hand and utopians on the other. It's

other. It's

other. It's also worth clarifying that Carse

also worth clarifying that Carse

also worth clarifying that Carse was a little more on the side of

was a little more on the side of

was a little more on the side of realism, eh, and now we're going to understand

realism, eh, and now we're going to understand

realism, eh, and now we're going to understand that and that Carl writes his, that is, he begins

that and that Carl writes his, that is, he begins

that and that Carl writes his, that is, he begins writing his book in 1930, it

writing his book in 1930, it

writing his book in 1930, it takes him almost a decade, he ends up

takes him almost a decade, he ends up

takes him almost a decade, he ends up publishing it in 1939.

publishing it in 1939.

publishing it in 1939. So, what he's going to bring closer with this

So, what he's going to bring closer with this

So, what he's going to bring closer with this contrast, right?, between realism and

contrast, right?, between realism and

contrast, right?, between realism and utopianism,

utopianism,

utopianism, is basically a critique of the

is basically a critique of the

is basically a critique of the dominant thinking of the time. eh

dominant thinking of the time. eh

dominant thinking of the time. eh from the interwar period, right? Hey,

from the interwar period, right? Hey,

from the interwar period, right? Hey, why? Because with Wilson and with

why? Because with Wilson and with

why? Because with Wilson and with Wilson's 14 points towards the end of the

Wilson's 14 points towards the end of the

Wilson's 14 points towards the end of the First World War, for a very short

First World War, for a very short

First World War, for a very short period of time this hegemony

period of time this hegemony

period of time this hegemony of idealism appeared as a way of explaining and

of idealism appeared as a way of explaining and

of idealism appeared as a way of explaining and primarily as a way of giving order to

primarily as a way of giving order to

primarily as a way of giving order to international relations.

international relations.

international relations. The period between the wars generated a

The period between the wars generated a

The period between the wars generated a heated discussion, didn't it?, among academics

heated discussion, didn't it?, among academics

heated discussion, didn't it?, among academics and politicians above all

and politicians above all

and politicians above all regarding the

regarding the

regarding the policy actions that had to be carried out

policy actions that had to be carried out

policy actions that had to be carried out to avoid another war. And

to avoid another war. And

to avoid another war. And by the beginning of World War II, it

by the beginning of World War II, it

by the beginning of World War II, it was becoming

was becoming

was becoming clear that idealism was of no

clear that idealism was of no

clear that idealism was of no use, because another war finally came

use, because another war finally came

use, because another war finally came .

.

. So

So

So that notion that had appeared with the

that notion that had appeared with the

that notion that had appeared with the end of the First World War and with

end of the First World War and with

end of the First World War and with the Treaty of Versailles, eh, that was

the Treaty of Versailles, eh, that was

the Treaty of Versailles, eh, that was based on the notion of harmony of

based on the notion of harmony of

based on the notion of harmony of interests, right? Like between states,

interests, right? Like between states,

interests, right? Like between states, which to put it bluntly is the idea

which to put it bluntly is the idea

which to put it bluntly is the idea that, uh, no state actually

that, uh, no state actually

that, uh, no state actually wants or seeks war, right?

wants or seeks war, right?

wants or seeks war, right? Starting from that premise, we all

Starting from that premise, we all

Starting from that premise, we all agree that we want

agree that we want

agree that we want peace.

peace.

peace. And also the notion of the

And also the notion of the

And also the notion of the legal vision of the international scene, that

legal vision of the international scene, that

legal vision of the international scene, that is, the idea that relations

is, the idea that relations

is, the idea that relations between states can and should be

between states can and should be

between states can and should be governed by legal norms,

governed by legal norms,

governed by legal norms, institutions, and moral principles,

institutions, and moral principles,

institutions, and moral principles, just as occurs within the

just as occurs within the

just as occurs within the doors of a national state,

doors of a national state,

doors of a national state, right? That was the vision that

right? That was the vision that

right? That was the vision that emerged after the First

emerged after the First

emerged after the First World War, but it began to enter into

World War, but it began to enter into

World War, but it began to enter into crisis in the period between the wars until

crisis in the period between the wars until

crisis in the period between the wars until the Second World War.

the Second World War.

the Second World War. And this is why

And this is why

And this is why Car's objective in his book is to reject what

Car's objective in his book is to reject what

Car's objective in his book is to reject what he disparagingly calls the

he disparagingly calls the

he disparagingly calls the dominant utopianism of the time,

dominant utopianism of the time,

dominant utopianism of the time, which was embodied in

which was embodied in

which was embodied in Wilson's 14 points of principles and

Wilson's 14 points of principles and

Wilson's 14 points of principles and which had inspired an attempt at

which had inspired an attempt at

which had inspired an attempt at international order after the First

international order after the First

international order after the First World War.

Utopianism. Basically, Carlo uses it as a

Utopianism. Basically, Carlo uses it as a derogatory way of calling idealists, right?

derogatory way of calling idealists, right?

derogatory way of calling idealists, right? That's what it

That's what it

That's what it means. They are words that are

means. They are words that are

means. They are words that are synonyms, only one is a little

synonyms, only one is a little

synonyms, only one is a little more pejorative, right? How to say, you

more pejorative, right? How to say, you

more pejorative, right? How to say, you don't have a foot in reality. But

don't have a foot in reality. But

don't have a foot in reality. But Car eh is also

Car eh is also

Car eh is also going to say that international politics

going to say that international politics

going to say that international politics has to be a synthesis between these

has to be a synthesis between these

has to be a synthesis between these two, that is, because realism

two, that is, because realism

two, that is, because realism is also too pessimistic. Uh, and then you

is also too pessimistic. Uh, and then you

is also too pessimistic. Uh, and then you have to think more like a pendulum and you have to

have to think more like a pendulum and you have to

have to think more like a pendulum and you have to move between both. But well, a

move between both. But well, a

move between both. But well, a topicalism is a bit pejorative.

topicalism is a bit pejorative.

topicalism is a bit pejorative. So, Car's concern

So, Car's concern

So, Car's concern stemmed from, and from what he writes, right?

stemmed from, and from what he writes, right?

stemmed from, and from what he writes, right? This book stemmed from, the danger of

This book stemmed from, the danger of

This book stemmed from, the danger of another war, the Second

another war, the Second

another war, the Second World War, as a consequence of the

World War, as a consequence of the

World War, as a consequence of the inability of the powers of

inability of the powers of

inability of the powers of the time to face the need

the time to face the need

the time to face the need for a change in the international order,

for a change in the international order,

for a change in the international order, precisely because it was based on

precisely because it was based on

precisely because it was based on liberal thought. dominant that

liberal thought. dominant that

liberal thought. dominant that dismissed the current crisis in Europe,

dismissed the current crisis in Europe,

dismissed the current crisis in Europe, where Germany's demands increasingly

where Germany's demands increasingly

where Germany's demands increasingly clashed with the order

clashed with the order

clashed with the order established by the Treaty of

established by the Treaty of

established by the Treaty of Versailles.

Versailles.

Versailles. So, Carl, what I wanted

So, Carl, what I wanted

So, Carl, what I wanted was to find a peaceful solution to this

was to find a peaceful solution to this

was to find a peaceful solution to this crisis that had been brewing in the

crisis that had been brewing in the

crisis that had been brewing in the interwar period, one that would come about

interwar period, one that would come about

interwar period, one that would come about through a commitment to

through a commitment to

through a commitment to rebalancing Europe, and not

rebalancing Europe, and not

rebalancing Europe, and not through the utopian vision of sharing

through the utopian vision of sharing

through the utopian vision of sharing rights, or creating a sense

rights, or creating a sense

rights, or creating a sense of community, or simply passing

of community, or simply passing

of community, or simply passing laws, right? To put it a little more

laws, right? To put it a little more

laws, right? To put it a little more simply, Carvaba explained

simply, Carvaba explained

simply, Carvaba explained German political instability, fundamentally, and

German political instability, fundamentally, and

German political instability, fundamentally, and economic instability as well. Remember that in

economic instability as well. Remember that in

economic instability as well. Remember that in the interwar period we had the

the interwar period we had the

the interwar period we had the crisis of 1929, the Great Depression,

crisis of 1929, the Great Depression,

crisis of 1929, the Great Depression, and the rise of Nazism was already beginning to take shape

and the rise of Nazism was already beginning to take shape

and the rise of Nazism was already beginning to take shape .

.

. Uh, and he said, this situation is not

Uh, and he said, this situation is not

Uh, and he said, this situation is not preventing. This management, right? eh, of

preventing. This management, right? eh, of

preventing. This management, right? eh, of international politics, this attempt to

international politics, this attempt to

international politics, this attempt to create a new order, is not

create a new order, is not

create a new order, is not preventing another war. On the contrary,

preventing another war. On the contrary,

preventing another war. On the contrary, we are paving the way for it to emerge if we do not

we are paving the way for it to emerge if we do not

we are paving the way for it to emerge if we do not change this logic of our relationship

change this logic of our relationship

change this logic of our relationship with Germany.

There Diego put, what caught my

There Diego put, what caught my attention in the film is that at the

attention in the film is that at the

attention in the film is that at the meeting of leaders, rather than seeking

meeting of leaders, rather than seeking

meeting of leaders, rather than seeking peace, what I saw was a new division

peace, what I saw was a new division

peace, what I saw was a new division of the world, just like that. Well, the film

of the world, just like that. Well, the film

of the world, just like that. Well, the film has what's interesting, it's

has what's interesting, it's

has what's interesting, it's a documentary film, so it

a documentary film, so it

a documentary film, so it records and uses many of the

records and uses many of the

records and uses many of the expressions typical of those leaders

expressions typical of those leaders

expressions typical of those leaders at that time. Eh, it's not like it's like

at that time. Eh, it's not like it's like

at that time. Eh, it's not like it's like a eh it's a bit fictional, but eh

a eh it's a bit fictional, but eh

a eh it's a bit fictional, but eh if you look at the texts and everything, the

if you look at the texts and everything, the

if you look at the texts and everything, the expressions of the leaders were

expressions of the leaders were

expressions of the leaders were really like that. They wanted land, they wanted

really like that. They wanted land, they wanted

really like that. They wanted land, they wanted colonies, they wanted resources, because all of

colonies, they wanted resources, because all of

colonies, they wanted resources, because all of Europe had been devastated by the

Europe had been devastated by the

Europe had been devastated by the First World War, they needed to

First World War, they needed to

First World War, they needed to rebuild Europe. Well, that's

rebuild Europe. Well, that's

rebuild Europe. Well, that's why this whole debate arises about saying,

why this whole debate arises about saying,

why this whole debate arises about saying, "It's not that there are common interests here,

"It's not that there are common interests here,

"It's not that there are common interests here, eh, everyone here wants to guarantee their

eh, everyone here wants to guarantee their

eh, everyone here wants to guarantee their own survival, which is what

own survival, which is what

own survival, which is what realism is going to say.

And that's why I was saying that in this

And that's why I was saying that in this process of consolidation of

process of consolidation of

process of consolidation of international relations, what we still

international relations, what we still

international relations, what we still see are discourses more in the

see are discourses more in the

see are discourses more in the style of classical geopolitics, right?

style of classical geopolitics, right?

style of classical geopolitics, right? Where geographic factors are the

Where geographic factors are the

Where geographic factors are the factors of power.

factors of power.

factors of power. So, in this way, what Car

So, in this way, what Car

So, in this way, what Car does is an attempt, right? We still ca

does is an attempt, right? We still ca

does is an attempt, right? We still ca n't call it a theory to

n't call it a theory to

n't call it a theory to formulate at least, but what he does

formulate at least, but what he does

formulate at least, but what he does is a conceptual understanding, right? In other

is a conceptual understanding, right? In other

is a conceptual understanding, right? In other words, he begins to offer us concepts

words, he begins to offer us concepts

words, he begins to offer us concepts about how international politics works

about how international politics works

about how international politics works and from this he draws the

and from this he draws the

and from this he draws the conclusion that there are two

conclusion that there are two

conclusion that there are two perspectives.

perspectives.

perspectives. Those who take a course of action

Those who take a course of action

Those who take a course of action based on what should be, who would be the

based on what should be, who would be the

based on what should be, who would be the utopian idealists, and those who

utopian idealists, and those who

utopian idealists, and those who do it based on what can be, who are

do it based on what can be, who are

do it based on what can be, who are the realists,

the realists,

the realists, and understand that politics is a pendulum

and understand that politics is a pendulum

and understand that politics is a pendulum that swings between realism and

that swings between realism and

that swings between realism and idealism,

idealism,

idealism, where the

where the

where the power factor and what it advises

power factor and what it advises

power factor and what it advises doing must be taken into account. It's not about

doing must be taken into account. It's not about

doing must be taken into account. It's not about totally emancipating oneself from utopianism and

totally emancipating oneself from utopianism and

totally emancipating oneself from utopianism and ideals, but rather recognizing that

ideals, but rather recognizing that

ideals, but rather recognizing that mature political thought, according to

mature political thought, according to

mature political thought, according to him, combines both purpose—utopia,

him, combines both purpose—utopia,

him, combines both purpose—utopia, right?—and observation and analysis—

right?—and observation and analysis—

right?—and observation and analysis— reality, because realism was

reality, because realism was

reality, because realism was posed as something more empirical, like

posed as something more empirical, like

posed as something more empirical, like the empirical study of

the empirical study of

the empirical study of international relations.

international relations.

international relations. The observation of facts gives us the guideline

The observation of facts gives us the guideline

The observation of facts gives us the guideline that this "ought to be" doesn't exist and that

that this "ought to be" doesn't exist and that

that this "ought to be" doesn't exist and that states are governed by other rules,

states are governed by other rules,

states are governed by other rules, that there's nothing right or wrong, that it's not a

that there's nothing right or wrong, that it's not a

that there's nothing right or wrong, that it's not a question of morality; it is what it is,

question of morality; it is what it is,

question of morality; it is what it is, period.

period.

period. So, utopianism or idealism, right?

So, utopianism or idealism, right?

So, utopianism or idealism, right? In the theory of

In the theory of

In the theory of international relations,

international relations,

international relations, in the core, right? The heart of

in the core, right? The heart of

in the core, right? The heart of idealism maintains that

idealism maintains that

idealism maintains that humanity is perfectible,

humanity is perfectible,

humanity is perfectible, is capable of improving on an

is capable of improving on an

is capable of improving on an international level. What it assumes is that

international level. What it assumes is that

international level. What it assumes is that the political environment can be

the political environment can be

the political environment can be transformed through the development of

transformed through the development of

transformed through the development of new institutions, such as

new institutions, such as

new institutions, such as the League of Nations,

the League of Nations,

the League of Nations, through which

through which

through which standards of conduct could be established by

standards of conduct could be established by

standards of conduct could be established by which political behavior could be

which political behavior could be

which political behavior could be shaped.

shaped.

shaped. No, that's all funny, that

No, that's all funny, that

No, that's all funny, that ultimately equally eh His idea of

ultimately equally eh His idea of

ultimately equally eh His idea of order, which was born at this moment, or at

order, which was born at this moment, or at

order, which was born at this moment, or at least whose highest representation

least whose highest representation

least whose highest representation is in the United States, the United

is in the United States, the United

is in the United States, the United States did not join that institution at

States did not join that institution at

States did not join that institution at that time.

that time.

that time. And at the heart of this

And at the heart of this

And at the heart of this thought, then, is the

thought, then, is the

thought, then, is the assumption of the harmony of interests,

assumption of the harmony of interests,

assumption of the harmony of interests, basically of peace, right? It's an

basically of peace, right? It's an

basically of peace, right? It's an assumption based on the self-interest

assumption based on the self-interest

assumption based on the self-interest of the individual in a peaceful world. And

of the individual in a peaceful world. And

of the individual in a peaceful world. And there we return to the liberal roots

there we return to the liberal roots

there we return to the liberal roots of idealist thought.

of idealist thought.

of idealist thought. So, if states had not yet

So, if states had not yet

So, if states had not yet embraced peace according to

embraced peace according to

embraced peace according to idealism, it was because their leaders

idealism, it was because their leaders

idealism, it was because their leaders had not responded to the will of the

had not responded to the will of the

had not responded to the will of the people.

people.

people. And this is also one of the

And this is also one of the

And this is also one of the fundamental elements of the notions

fundamental elements of the notions

fundamental elements of the notions of liberal democracy, precisely what

of liberal democracy, precisely what

of liberal democracy, precisely what nourishes idealist utopian thought.

nourishes idealist utopian thought.

Because an international system based

Because an international system based on representative governments according to

on representative governments according to

on representative governments according to idealism, right? A world that has

idealism, right? A world that has

idealism, right? A world that has become safe for democracy, in

become safe for democracy, in

become safe for democracy, in Wilson's words, would necessarily be

Wilson's words, would necessarily be

Wilson's words, would necessarily be a peaceful world.

a peaceful world.

a peaceful world. So, the dominant point of view,

So, the dominant point of view,

So, the dominant point of view, at least at the beginning of the interwar period

at least at the beginning of the interwar period

at least at the beginning of the interwar period , consisted of embracing what was

, consisted of embracing what was

, consisted of embracing what was international and rejecting what was

international and rejecting what was

international and rejecting what was national, so to speak. Right? I mean,

national, so to speak. Right? I mean,

national, so to speak. Right? I mean, something about

something about

something about moving toward an idea of an

moving toward an idea of an

moving toward an idea of an international community and rejecting and rejecting

international community and rejecting and rejecting

individual national interests, right? Subjective, something

individual national interests, right? Subjective, something extremely contrary to the

extremely contrary to the

extremely contrary to the characterization we gave in the second

characterization we gave in the second

characterization we gave in the second class of classical geopolitics,

class of classical geopolitics,

class of classical geopolitics, precisely, which, as you remember, had

precisely, which, as you remember, had

precisely, which, as you remember, had one of its main expressions in the German school

one of its main expressions in the German school

one of its main expressions in the German school , right?

And so, I mean, clearly Germany

And so, I mean, clearly Germany is very demonized in this period of

is very demonized in this period of

is very demonized in this period of history, but we mustn't forget

history, but we mustn't forget

history, but we mustn't forget that German practices don't differ

that German practices don't differ

that German practices don't differ much from the practices of basically

much from the practices of basically

much from the practices of basically all the central powers of the

all the central powers of the

all the central powers of the time.

time.

time. And then,

And then,

And then, events are evaluated according to the

events are evaluated according to the

events are evaluated according to the level to which they conform to the

level to which they conform to the

level to which they conform to the standards established by

standards established by

standards established by international legal norms, right? So,

international legal norms, right? So,

international legal norms, right? So, if this form of state conduct

if this form of state conduct

if this form of state conduct doesn't conform to

doesn't conform to

doesn't conform to international forms of construction under

international forms of construction under

international forms of construction under the rules and norms that are

the rules and norms that are

the rules and norms that are established, then that standard is

established, then that standard is

established, then that standard is wrong.

But as the Second

But as the Second World War approached, the gap,

World War approached, the gap,

World War approached, the gap, right?, between utopian theory,

right?, between utopian theory,

right?, between utopian theory, idealist theory, and the events of the

idealist theory, and the events of the

idealist theory, and the events of the moment, grew ever wider.

moment, grew ever wider.

moment, grew ever wider. The realists In contrast, what they

The realists In contrast, what they

The realists In contrast, what they did was emphasize

did was emphasize

did was emphasize power and interest rather than

power and interest rather than

power and interest rather than ideals in

ideals in

ideals in international relations, right? Because in this

international relations, right? Because in this

international relations, right? Because in this sense, realism is basically

sense, realism is basically

sense, realism is basically conservative, it

conservative, it

conservative, it 's empirical, it's not based on facts, it

's empirical, it's not based on facts, it

's empirical, it's not based on facts, it 's prudent, uh, it believes that

's prudent, uh, it believes that

's prudent, uh, it believes that a cost-benefit calculation must be made regarding

a cost-benefit calculation must be made regarding

a cost-benefit calculation must be made regarding actions and that cost-benefit calculation must

actions and that cost-benefit calculation must

actions and that cost-benefit calculation must prioritize the

prioritize the

prioritize the survival of the State. It

survival of the State. It

survival of the State. It 's suspicious of

's suspicious of

's suspicious of idealist principles and is basically very

idealist principles and is basically very

idealist principles and is basically very respectful of the lessons of

respectful of the lessons of

respectful of the lessons of history, right? And with this

history, right? And with this

history, right? And with this prudent thing, for example, to give you an

prudent thing, for example, to give you an

prudent thing, for example, to give you an example, many realist authors, already in

example, many realist authors, already in

example, many realist authors, already in later years,

later years,

later years, even disagreed with the United

even disagreed with the United

even disagreed with the United States' intervention in

States' intervention in

States' intervention in Vietnam with NATO's expansion

Vietnam with NATO's expansion

Vietnam with NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe, right? Because they

into Eastern Europe, right? Because they

into Eastern Europe, right? Because they basically said, that's no longer

basically said, that's no longer

basically said, that's no longer prudent, that it moves away from the interests

prudent, that it moves away from the interests

prudent, that it moves away from the interests of the United States, uh, it goes beyond the

of the United States, uh, it goes beyond the

of the United States, uh, it goes beyond the interpretation of where to intervene. Uh,

interpretation of where to intervene. Uh,

interpretation of where to intervene. Uh, so it's quite interesting to see

so it's quite interesting to see

so it's quite interesting to see why realism later

why realism later

why realism later basically becomes the most consolidated theory

basically becomes the most consolidated theory

basically becomes the most consolidated theory that ends up being born in the United States

that ends up being born in the United States

that ends up being born in the United States and yet we're going to see that

and yet we're going to see that

and yet we're going to see that a Discrepancy between theory

a Discrepancy between theory

a Discrepancy between theory and political action.

So, realists considered

So, realists considered power, right?, as the

power, right?, as the

power, right?, as the fundamental concept of the social sciences,

fundamental concept of the social sciences,

fundamental concept of the social sciences, although power relations

although power relations

although power relations are often cloaked in moral and

are often cloaked in moral and

are often cloaked in moral and legal terms.

legal terms.

legal terms. Uh, and as a difference not only

Uh, and as a difference not only

Uh, and as a difference not only philosophical, but even not to the point of being

philosophical, but even not to the point of being

philosophical, but even not to the point of being ontological. It's a question of

ontological. It's a question of

ontological. It's a question of being, right? With that, idealism slashes uh,

being, right? With that, idealism slashes uh,

being, right? With that, idealism slashes uh, utopianism slashes liberalism.

utopianism slashes liberalism.

utopianism slashes liberalism. It's that realism denies that

It's that realism denies that

It's that realism denies that human thought can modify

human thought can modify

human thought can modify human action. Uh, it believes that's not the case,

human action. Uh, it believes that's not the case,

human action. Uh, it believes that's not the case, that human nature is a uh, and it

that human nature is a uh, and it

that human nature is a uh, and it 's a pessimistic reading. Now let's

's a pessimistic reading. Now let's

's a pessimistic reading. Now let's delve a little deeper into that.

Yes. And at this moment, uh, I'm going to make a

Yes. And at this moment, uh, I'm going to make a methodological decision, right?, which I

methodological decision, right?, which I

methodological decision, right?, which I hope will turn out well and that it doesn't

hope will turn out well and that it doesn't

hope will turn out well and that it doesn't end up confusing or dizzying you, which is

end up confusing or dizzying you, which is

end up confusing or dizzying you, which is that before continuing along the

that before continuing along the

that before continuing along the chronological line of the postwar development of the

chronological line of the postwar development of the

chronological line of the postwar development of the discipline, that is, I

discipline, that is, I

discipline, that is, I mean continuing with uh, the discipline

mean continuing with uh, the discipline

mean continuing with uh, the discipline after World War II,

after World War II,

after World War II, right?, in 1940.

right?, in 1940.

right?, in 1940. Uh, I want Refer to

Uh, I want Refer to

Uh, I want Refer to the traditions of

the traditions of

the traditions of international thought or classical theories,

international thought or classical theories,

international thought or classical theories, as they are called, which were

as they are called, which were

as they are called, which were developed prior to the

developed prior to the

developed prior to the birth of the discipline of

birth of the discipline of

birth of the discipline of international relations and which, well,

international relations and which, well,

international relations and which, well, obviously, as we also said before,

obviously, as we also said before,

obviously, as we also said before, also have a centric bias.

This discrepancy

This discrepancy between theory and political action exercised

between theory and political action exercised

between theory and political action exercised by the United States is precisely because it

by the United States is precisely because it

by the United States is precisely because it can. It has the power to dictate how

can. It has the power to dictate how

can. It has the power to dictate how the rest should act while it

the rest should act while it

the rest should act while it can take the path that best

can take the path that best

can take the path that best suits it. And well, that's when

suits it. And well, that's when

suits it. And well, that's when hegemony occurs. Yes, exactly. Now, we're going to

hegemony occurs. Yes, exactly. Now, we're going to

hegemony occurs. Yes, exactly. Now, we're going to see this a little

see this a little

see this a little later on when we look at realism,

later on when we look at realism,

later on when we look at realism, uh, as one of the types of power. uh,

uh, as one of the types of power. uh,

uh, as one of the types of power. uh, if I don't forget, I'm going to link it

if I don't forget, I'm going to link it

if I don't forget, I'm going to link it to this comment. And also, don't

to this comment. And also, don't

to this comment. And also, don't forget that one of the most

forget that one of the most

forget that one of the most important differences that the United States has

important differences that the United States has

important differences that the United States has with other states is that

with other states is that

with other states is that academia is very close, that is, the

academia is very close, that is, the

academia is very close, that is, the production of scientific knowledge is

production of scientific knowledge is

production of scientific knowledge is very close to decision-makers.

very close to decision-makers.

very close to decision-makers. Likewise, right? Something that perhaps doesn't

Likewise, right? Something that perhaps doesn't

Likewise, right? Something that perhaps doesn't happen much in our country. It's

happen much in our country. It's

happen much in our country. It's like science, even though In

like science, even though In

like science, even though In this case, right? Social sciences and

this case, right? Social sciences and

this case, right? Social sciences and politics, sort of

politics, sort of

politics, sort of separate issues, don't happen in the United States.

separate issues, don't happen in the United States.

separate issues, don't happen in the United States. And while in international relations,

And while in international relations,

unlike classical geopolitics,

unlike classical geopolitics, theorists aren't going to get involved as

theorists aren't going to get involved as

theorists aren't going to get involved as doers, not as

doers, not as

doers, not as decision-makers, many of them were going to be

decision-makers, many of them were going to be

decision-makers, many of them were going to be advisors.

advisors.

advisors. So, many times even those

So, many times even those

So, many times even those theories sometimes allowed, although in

theories sometimes allowed, although in

theories sometimes allowed, although in their interpretations of what the United States should do

their interpretations of what the United States should do

their interpretations of what the United States should do , after

, after

, after political action does something else, the theories

political action does something else, the theories

political action does something else, the theories could end up being used as

could end up being used as

could end up being used as justifications, because ultimately,

justifications, because ultimately,

in the reasoning and

in the reasoning and justifications for the

justifications for the

justifications for the United States' intervention in many conflicts, eh,

United States' intervention in many conflicts, eh,

realistic positions end up being used, right? Because it ends up

realistic positions end up being used, right? Because it ends up saying, I don't know, Iraq threatens

saying, I don't know, Iraq threatens

saying, I don't know, Iraq threatens our international security. That's

our international security. That's

our international security. That's a realistic interpretation, ultimately, right?

a realistic interpretation, ultimately, right?

a realistic interpretation, ultimately, right? I mean, the theory is used later

I mean, the theory is used later

I mean, the theory is used later to justify.

to justify.

to justify. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, then, well, as I mentioned,

then, well, as I mentioned,

then, well, as I mentioned, we're going to make a small

we're going to make a small

we're going to make a small chronological leap in the development of the

chronological leap in the development of the

chronological leap in the development of the discipline, very small. So, let's

discipline, very small. So, let's

discipline, very small. So, let's go for a little while, we're going to eat the

go for a little while, we're going to eat the

go for a little while, we're going to eat the decade of the 40, we're going to leave that

decade of the 40, we're going to leave that

decade of the 40, we're going to leave that aside and jump straight to the

aside and jump straight to the

aside and jump straight to the 1950s and 1970s

1950s and 1970s

1950s and 1970s to talk about this, about the

to talk about this, about the

to talk about this, about the classical traditions of

classical traditions of

classical traditions of political thought that influenced

political thought that influenced

political thought that influenced international relations.

international relations.

international relations. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, and why do I go back to the 1950s

and why do I go back to the 1950s

and why do I go back to the 1950s and 1970s? Because that's when, in the process

and 1970s? Because that's when, in the process

and 1970s? Because that's when, in the process of the formation of the discipline, what is

of the formation of the discipline, what is

of the formation of the discipline, what is known as the English school emerged.

known as the English school emerged.

known as the English school emerged. And the English school basically

And the English school basically

And the English school basically intended to be a critical look at the

intended to be a critical look at the

intended to be a critical look at the development of the theoretical body, right? In other

development of the theoretical body, right? In other

development of the theoretical body, right? In other words, the

words, the

words, the discussion that had been used up

discussion that had been used up

discussion that had been used up until then to study the

until then to study the

until then to study the phenomenon of

phenomenon of

phenomenon of international relations was more methodological, right? That

international relations was more methodological, right? That

international relations was more methodological, right? That theoretical development that was more focused on

theoretical development that was more focused on

theoretical development that was more focused on realism, because realism is what was

realism, because realism is what was

realism, because realism is what was going to predominate in 1940.

going to predominate in 1940.

going to predominate in 1940. So, the English school emerged a

So, the English school emerged a

So, the English school emerged a bit to critique that

bit to critique that

bit to critique that development,

development,

development, and for that, they carried out a set of

and for that, they carried out a set of

and for that, they carried out a set of scientistic theoretical studies, right?

scientistic theoretical studies, right?

scientistic theoretical studies, right? There, we already begin to see more, uh,

There, we already begin to see more, uh,

There, we already begin to see more, uh, the application of the

the application of the

the application of the scientific method, even in the study of

scientific method, even in the study of

scientific method, even in the study of International relations.

International relations.

International relations. And in that study, what they were doing was

And in that study, what they were doing was

And in that study, what they were doing was looking a bit for how to provide the

looking a bit for how to provide the

looking a bit for how to provide the discipline with more robustness, right? And

discipline with more robustness, right? And

discipline with more robustness, right? And observing it as a pluralist methodology,

observing it as a pluralist methodology,

eh, not so dominated by relations,

eh, not so dominated by relations, by realism, in rejection of the dynamic

by realism, in rejection of the dynamic

by realism, in rejection of the dynamic eh that had been taking place, which was to

eh that had been taking place, which was to

eh that had been taking place, which was to analyze international relations

analyze international relations

analyze international relations either as a struggle for power or as

either as a struggle for power or as

either as a struggle for power or as institutions, right? It's so

institutions, right? It's so

institutions, right? It's so binary.

binary.

binary. At the leader's meeting, Jochimin asked for

At the leader's meeting, Jochimin asked for

At the leader's meeting, Jochimin asked for an audience to talk about

an audience to talk about

an audience to talk about France's excesses in Indochina. They didn't

France's excesses in Indochina. They didn't

France's excesses in Indochina. They didn't give it to him, and then it was briefly mentioned

give it to him, and then it was briefly mentioned

give it to him, and then it was briefly mentioned that it would be the seed of the

that it would be the seed of the

that it would be the seed of the Vietnam War.

Vietnam War.

Vietnam War. This,

This,

This, well, is colonial policy, right? Yeah

well, is colonial policy, right? Yeah

well, is colonial policy, right? Yeah , sometimes it's a bit difficult to

, sometimes it's a bit difficult to

, sometimes it's a bit difficult to find a fact or a milestone that is what

find a fact or a milestone that is what

find a fact or a milestone that is what marks it, right? There are also, like,

marks it, right? There are also, like,

marks it, right? There are also, like, dynamics inherent to the system, eh,

dynamics inherent to the system, eh,

dynamics inherent to the system, eh, that even today continue to

that even today continue to

that even today continue to exist, right? eh, I mean, today, for

exist, right? eh, I mean, today, for

exist, right? eh, I mean, today, for example, it seems as if the debate on

example, it seems as if the debate on

example, it seems as if the debate on colonialism is closed. For me, not

colonialism is closed. For me, not

colonialism is closed. For me, not at all. The colonial remnants

at all. The colonial remnants

at all. The colonial remnants continue. Existing,

continue. Existing,

continue. Existing, colonial powers continue to exist. Eh,

colonial powers continue to exist. Eh,

colonial powers continue to exist. Eh, we know quite a bit about that in

we know quite a bit about that in

we know quite a bit about that in Argentina. Eh, and it is

Argentina. Eh, and it is

Argentina. Eh, and it is a method of international politics, that

a method of international politics, that

a method of international politics, that is, it is a form of

is, it is a form of

is, it is a form of international politics.

international politics.

international politics. So, eh, the English school is going to

So, eh, the English school is going to

So, eh, the English school is going to seek, right?, to reject this logic

seek, right?, to reject this logic

seek, right?, to reject this logic of understanding, of analyzing

of understanding, of analyzing

of understanding, of analyzing international relations in

international relations in

international relations in such a binary way, right? As a struggle for

such a binary way, right? As a struggle for

such a binary way, right? As a struggle for power or as institutions, and it will

power or as institutions, and it will

power or as institutions, and it will want to seek to be more plural.

want to seek to be more plural.

want to seek to be more plural. And for this, what they're going to do is

And for this, what they're going to do is

And for this, what they're going to do is begin to connect, right?, the theories

begin to connect, right?, the theories

begin to connect, right?, the theories of international relations that

of international relations that

of international relations that were in force at the time with the

were in force at the time with the

were in force at the time with the traditions of political thought,

traditions of political thought,

traditions of political thought, thus giving greater density to the

thus giving greater density to the

thus giving greater density to the field of study of

field of study of

field of study of international relations, establishing a

international relations, establishing a

international relations, establishing a dialogue or a connection with the history

dialogue or a connection with the history

dialogue or a connection with the history of Western political thought.

of Western political thought.

of Western political thought. And in this sense, eh, Martin White, who

And in this sense, eh, Martin White, who

And in this sense, eh, Martin White, who is one of the main exponents of

is one of the main exponents of

is one of the main exponents of the English school, eh, is going to organize

the English school, eh, is going to organize

the English school, eh, is going to organize the theory of

the theory of

the theory of international relations within three

international relations within three

international relations within three traditions of political thought, which I did

traditions of political thought, which I did

traditions of political thought, which I did n't name on the slide,

n't name on the slide,

n't name on the slide, but they will appear in the next one,

but they will appear in the next one,

but they will appear in the next one, eh, which are the realist, the Rationalist

eh, which are the realist, the Rationalist

eh, which are the realist, the Rationalist and revolutionist.

and revolutionist.

and revolutionist. And what differentiates each of

And what differentiates each of

And what differentiates each of these three traditions is the

these three traditions is the

these three traditions is the way they interrelate

way they interrelate

way they interrelate with three political conditions that make up

with three political conditions that make up

with three political conditions that make up international relations. In other words,

international relations. In other words,

international relations. In other words, there are three conditions, according to Martin White,

there are three conditions, according to Martin White,

there are three conditions, according to Martin White, that make up the three

that make up the three

that make up the three political conditions that make up

political conditions that make up

political conditions that make up international relations, and the way these

international relations, and the way these

international relations, and the way these three traditions connect with these

three traditions connect with these

three traditions connect with these three conditions is what

three conditions is what

three conditions is what differentiates them.

differentiates them.

differentiates them. The first of these conditions is

The first of these conditions is

The first of these conditions is international anarchy,

international anarchy,

international anarchy, that is,

that is,

that is, the multiplicity of

the multiplicity of

the multiplicity of independent, non-sovereign states, which

independent, non-sovereign states, which

independent, non-sovereign states, which recognize that there is no

recognize that there is no

recognize that there is no superior political authority over them and that

superior political authority over them and that

superior political authority over them and that ultimately their relations are

ultimately their relations are

ultimately their relations are regulated by war, right? In other

regulated by war, right? In other

regulated by war, right? In other words, what is always said when

words, what is always said when

words, what is always said when teaching international anarchy is that there is no

teaching international anarchy is that there is no

teaching international anarchy is that there is no world policeman, there is no

world policeman, there is no

world policeman, there is no state policeman. And one

state policeman. And one

state policeman. And one could say, "No, well, there is the

could say, "No, well, there is the

could say, "No, well, there is the UN." Yes, but the UN is an

UN." Yes, but the UN is an

UN." Yes, but the UN is an interstate organization as well, and not a

interstate organization as well, and not a

interstate organization as well, and not a supranational one. That is why the

supranational one. That is why the

supranational one. That is why the regulations and treaties that are

regulations and treaties that are

regulations and treaties that are signed in the UN framework are violated

signed in the UN framework are violated

signed in the UN framework are violated all the time. So, what

all the time. So, what

all the time. So, what international anarchy is, is that

international anarchy is, is that

international anarchy is, is that ultimately, there is nothing superior to

ultimately, there is nothing superior to

ultimately, there is nothing superior to states, so there is no other option than for them to

states, so there is no other option than for them to

states, so there is no other option than for them to regulate their power through

regulate their power through

regulate their power through war.

war.

war. The second condition would be diplomacy

The second condition would be diplomacy

The second condition would be diplomacy and commerce, right? It's the idea that there

and commerce, right? It's the idea that there

and commerce, right? It's the idea that there is a continuous and

is a continuous and

is a continuous and organized relationship between these states,

organized relationship between these states,

organized relationship between these states, fundamentally in the intervals of

fundamentally in the intervals of

fundamentally in the intervals of peace that exist between wars, and that

peace that exist between wars, and that

peace that exist between wars, and that this form of relationship already takes on

this form of relationship already takes on

this form of relationship already takes on a much more

a much more

a much more institutionalized character,

institutionalized character,

institutionalized character, right?

right?

right? And finally, there

And finally, there

And finally, there is the concept of the society of

is the concept of the society of

is the concept of the society of states,

states,

states, which refers to the fact that although

which refers to the fact that although

which refers to the fact that although anarchy prevails, right? That is, the State

anarchy prevails, right? That is, the State

anarchy prevails, right? That is, the State is the highest political unit.

is the highest political unit.

is the highest political unit. Certain interests and identities persist

Certain interests and identities persist

that are shared among these states,

that are shared among these states, certain values, a state culture,

certain values, a state culture,

certain values, a state culture, so to speak. And that state culture,

so to speak. And that state culture,

so to speak. And that state culture, which is already something much more

which is already something much more

which is already something much more abstract, what it does is impose forms

abstract, what it does is impose forms

abstract, what it does is impose forms of coexistence, impose rules, impose

of coexistence, impose rules, impose

of coexistence, impose rules, impose norms, whether legal or moral, right?

norms, whether legal or moral, right?

norms, whether legal or moral, right? So these are the three conditions

So these are the three conditions

So these are the three conditions of the system.

of the system.

of the system. In this way, the three traditions

In this way, the three traditions

In this way, the three traditions Realists, rationalists, and

Realists, rationalists, and

Realists, rationalists, and revolutionaries will identify perhaps

revolutionaries will identify perhaps

revolutionaries will identify perhaps more with one than the other, without

more with one than the other, without

more with one than the other, without dismissing each other.

dismissing each other.

dismissing each other. And so realists will find themselves

And so realists will find themselves

And so realists will find themselves much more comfortable with the first

much more comfortable with the first

much more comfortable with the first condition, right? They will find themselves much more comfortable with the first condition,

condition, right? They will find themselves much more comfortable with the first condition,

right?

right? They will start from that principle and

They will start from that principle and

They will start from that principle and say, "No, since we do

say, "No, since we do

say, "No, since we do a reading where we start from the

a reading where we start from the

a reading where we start from the principle of international anarchy,

principle of international anarchy,

principle of international anarchy, we develop these hypotheses and these

we develop these hypotheses and these

we develop these hypotheses and these conclusions, right? Rationalists,

conclusions, right? Rationalists,

conclusions, right? Rationalists, for their part, are going to emphasize their

for their part, are going to emphasize their

for their part, are going to emphasize their studies on the second condition

studies on the second condition

studies on the second condition linked to interstate relations

linked to interstate relations

themselves, right? That is, something

themselves, right? That is, something much more material, the

much more material, the

much more material, the trade relations that exist between states,

trade relations that exist between states,

trade relations that exist between states, diplomatic relations,

diplomatic relations,

diplomatic relations, while the revolutionaries will

while the revolutionaries will

while the revolutionaries will focus on the idea of the existence

focus on the idea of the existence

focus on the idea of the existence of an international society

of an international society

of an international society with shared values.

Later.

Later. Hey,

Hey,

Hey, I'm going to change the slide because otherwise you wo

I'm going to change the slide because otherwise you wo

I'm going to change the slide because otherwise you wo n't be able to. Ah, I can't. Hey,

n't be able to. Ah, I can't. Hey,

n't be able to. Ah, I can't. Hey, follow me a little bit closer. Later on,

follow me a little bit closer. Later on,

follow me a little bit closer. Later on, other authors

other authors

other authors from the English school will also appear, such as

from the English school will also appear, such as

from the English school will also appear, such as Headley Bull, who is very well-known, and

Headley Bull, who is very well-known, and

Headley Bull, who is very well-known, and who, much to our regret, will

who, much to our regret, will

who, much to our regret, will begin to change the names of these

begin to change the names of these

begin to change the names of these three traditions to make things

three traditions to make things

three traditions to make things more complex. Eh, and that's why

more complex. Eh, and that's why

more complex. Eh, and that's why tradition and to emphasize,

tradition and to emphasize,

tradition and to emphasize, right?, in this as a reference to

right?, in this as a reference to

right?, in this as a reference to the traditions of political thought

the traditions of political thought

the traditions of political thought of the past. And for that reason, the

of the past. And for that reason, the

of the past. And for that reason, the realist tradition can also be

realist tradition can also be

realist tradition can also be found called the

found called the

found called the Machiabelian tradition by Nicolaus Machiabelli

Machiabelian tradition by Nicolaus Machiabelli

Machiabelian tradition by Nicolaus Machiabelli or the Jovesian tradition by Thomas

or the Jovesian tradition by Thomas

or the Jovesian tradition by Thomas Hobbs.

Authors who, while speaking about

Authors who, while speaking about the international, are considered more

the international, are considered more

theorizing authors of the State, right? That is why we

theorizing authors of the State, right? That is why we cannot say that they are specific to

cannot say that they are specific to

cannot say that they are specific to international relations.

international relations.

international relations. The rationalist tradition is also going to be

The rationalist tradition is also going to be

The rationalist tradition is also going to be called internationalist or

called internationalist or

called internationalist or Grossian by Hugo Groscio. Now we're going to

Grossian by Hugo Groscio. Now we're going to

Grossian by Hugo Groscio. Now we're going to unravel this a little. And the

unravel this a little. And the

unravel this a little. And the revolutionary would also be

revolutionary would also be

revolutionary would also be called universalist or cantian by

called universalist or cantian by

called universalist or cantian by song. And this suggestion, right?, to

song. And this suggestion, right?, to

song. And this suggestion, right?, to such influential figures in

such influential figures in

such influential figures in Western political theory

Western political theory

Western political theory is going to deepen the characterization

is going to deepen the characterization

is going to deepen the characterization of these traditions, that is, how it's going to

of these traditions, that is, how it's going to

of these traditions, that is, how it's going to give them more density, uh, more uh, more

give them more density, uh, more uh, more

give them more density, uh, more uh, more explanatory density.

explanatory density.

explanatory density. And you might ask me, eh, but

And you might ask me, eh, but

And you might ask me, eh, but what do these three

what do these three

what do these three traditions have to do with what we were talking about:

traditions have to do with what we were talking about:

traditions have to do with what we were talking about: idealism and realism? No? Well,

idealism and realism? No? Well,

idealism and realism? No? Well, because precisely realism in the

because precisely realism in the

because precisely realism in the theory of international relations

theory of international relations

theory of international relations is much more associated with the

is much more associated with the

is much more associated with the realist, Machiabelian, and Jovesian tradition, and

realist, Machiabelian, and Jovesian tradition, and

realist, Machiabelian, and Jovesian tradition, and idealism

idealism

is more associated with the

is more associated with the revolutionary, universalist, or

revolutionary, universalist, or

revolutionary, universalist, or Cantian tradition, while the tradition, the one

Cantian tradition, while the tradition, the one

Cantian tradition, while the tradition, the one in the middle, right? Rationalist or

in the middle, right? Rationalist or

in the middle, right? Rationalist or Grossian, eh, it's going to be a bit in the

Grossian, eh, it's going to be a bit in the

Grossian, eh, it's going to be a bit in the middle of these two eh

middle of these two eh

middle of these two eh and it's more linked precisely to the

and it's more linked precisely to the

and it's more linked precisely to the theoretical developments of the

theoretical developments of the

theoretical developments of the English school. That's why the English school

English school. That's why the English school

English school. That's why the English school wants to break with that binary and say,

wants to break with that binary and say,

wants to break with that binary and say, well, it's not all about values and it's not all about the

well, it's not all about values and it's not all about the

well, it's not all about values and it's not all about the struggle for power. We can also

struggle for power. We can also

struggle for power. We can also find middle ground for the

find middle ground for the

find middle ground for the analysis and study of

analysis and study of

analysis and study of international relations.

international relations.

international relations. And these last two equally, right? The

And these last two equally, right? The

And these last two equally, right? The rationalist and the revolutionary

rationalist and the revolutionary

rationalist and the revolutionary dialogue, right?, with the modern theories

dialogue, right?, with the modern theories

dialogue, right?, with the modern theories of liberalism. So, between these

of liberalism. So, between these

of liberalism. So, between these two, it is possible that although the rationalist

two, it is possible that although the rationalist

two, it is possible that although the rationalist is presented as being in the middle in

is presented as being in the middle in

is presented as being in the middle in its uh in its foundations, in its

its uh in its foundations, in its

its uh in its foundations, in its antecedents, both dialogue much more

antecedents, both dialogue much more

antecedents, both dialogue much more with liberalism than the

with liberalism than the

with liberalism than the realist does.

realist does.

realist does. And also, if we wanted, we could

And also, if we wanted, we could

And also, if we wanted, we could double down on the stink and ask ourselves where

double down on the stink and ask ourselves where

double down on the stink and ask ourselves where Marxism is in all this, even,

Marxism is in all this, even,

Marxism is in all this, even, uh, because, I mean, Marxism also

uh, because, I mean, Marxism also

uh, because, I mean, Marxism also has a proposal regarding the

has a proposal regarding the

has a proposal regarding the dynamics, the dynamics of the

dynamics, the dynamics of the

dynamics, the dynamics of the international system and it's also a

international system and it's also a

international system and it's also a Western thought, right? But well,

Western thought, right? But well,

Western thought, right? But well, as we already said, at least at this time,

as we already said, at least at this time,

as we already said, at least at this time, because this will change later,

because this will change later,

because this will change later, the study of the evolution

the study of the evolution

the study of the evolution of international relations theories usually

of international relations theories usually

of international relations theories usually has a

has a

very marked Europeanized and American ethnocentric bias.

very marked Europeanized and American ethnocentric bias. And above all, this

And above all, this

And above all, this narrative focuses on the

narrative focuses on the

narrative focuses on the state as the main and almost sole actor and axis

state as the main and almost sole actor and axis

state as the main and almost sole actor and axis , I would say, of

, I would say, of

, I would say, of international dynamics, while Marxism,

international dynamics, while Marxism,

international dynamics, while Marxism, for its part, although it does have an interpretation,

for its part, although it does have an interpretation,

for its part, although it does have an interpretation, right?, as of international order,

right?, as of international order,

right?, as of international order, even, uh, it doesn't put as much emphasis on

even, uh, it doesn't put as much emphasis on

even, uh, it doesn't put as much emphasis on the state, but rather on

the state, but rather on

the state, but rather on social classes, on capitalism and on the

social classes, on capitalism and on the

social classes, on capitalism and on the economic structure of the

economic structure of the

economic structure of the international system.

international system.

international system. But I mention it because it will come up in

But I mention it because it will come up in

But I mention it because it will come up in the next class.

the next class.

the next class. And now,

And now,

And now, returning to this idea of

returning to this idea of

returning to this idea of classical political traditions and trying

classical political traditions and trying

classical political traditions and trying to differentiate them from one another,

to differentiate them from one another,

to differentiate them from one another, the Machiabelian realist tradition of

the Machiabelian realist tradition of

the Machiabelian realist tradition of Jovesianism

Jovesianism

Jovesianism will describe

will describe

will describe international relations

international relations

international relations as a state of war of all against

as a state of war of all against

as a state of war of all against all.

all.

all. Eh, conflict is what will

Eh, conflict is what will

Eh, conflict is what will predominate, according to them, on the

predominate, according to them, on the

predominate, according to them, on the international stage.

international stage.

international stage. And that is why the main activity

And that is why the main activity

And that is why the main activity between states is war. Hey, it's

between states is war. Hey, it's

between states is war. Hey, it's war and peace is just a period

war and peace is just a period

war and peace is just a period between wars, right?

between wars, right?

between wars, right? Quite pessimistic, as you will see when

Quite pessimistic, as you will see when

Quite pessimistic, as you will see when reading. And according to this tradition,

reading. And according to this tradition,

reading. And according to this tradition, the behavior of states is

the behavior of states is

the behavior of states is free from any legal or moral restrictions,

free from any legal or moral restrictions,

free from any legal or moral restrictions, right? Remember that the

right? Remember that the

right? Remember that the main condition of the system here is

main condition of the system here is

main condition of the system here is anarchy.

anarchy.

anarchy. Well, there is no political authority superior to

Well, there is no political authority superior to

Well, there is no political authority superior to states with the power

states with the power

states with the power to sanction their actions,

to sanction their actions,

to sanction their actions, so each state is completely free to

so each state is completely free to

so each state is completely free to pursue its objectives and interests,

pursue its objectives and interests,

pursue its objectives and interests, even if these prevail over those of

even if these prevail over those of

even if these prevail over those of another state.

another state.

another state. However, there is something that will

However, there is something that will

However, there is something that will determine your actions,

determine your actions,

determine your actions, or limit them, so to speak, and

or limit them, so to speak, and

or limit them, so to speak, and that is prudence, right? As a

that is prudence, right? As a

that is prudence, right? As a principle, prudence understood as

principle, prudence understood as

principle, prudence understood as a cost-benefit calculation in

a cost-benefit calculation in

a cost-benefit calculation in decision-making, which we had already mentioned

decision-making, which we had already mentioned

decision-making, which we had already mentioned before with the

before with the

before with the US interventions. And this view, eh, is

US interventions. And this view, eh, is

US interventions. And this view, eh, is basically an extrapolation in all

basically an extrapolation in all

basically an extrapolation in all cases, in all traditions, it is

cases, in all traditions, it is

cases, in all traditions, it is an extrapolation of human behavior

an extrapolation of human behavior

an extrapolation of human behavior to state behavior.

to state behavior.

to state behavior. Hobs said that human beings are

Hobs said that human beings are

Hobs said that human beings are selfish by nature and are in

selfish by nature and are in

selfish by nature and are in constant search of their own

constant search of their own

constant search of their own survival, so they live in a

survival, so they live in a

survival, so they live in a constant struggle with other

constant struggle with other

constant struggle with other individuals. That's why the state, like

individuals. That's why the state, like

individuals. That's why the state, like Leviathan, was the one that had to come and

Leviathan, was the one that had to come and

Leviathan, was the one that had to come and establish order, right?, over

establish order, right?, over

establish order, right?, over individuals.

individuals.

individuals. And that's why one of the most

And that's why one of the most

And that's why one of the most famous phrases popularized by Hobbs is

famous phrases popularized by Hobbs is

famous phrases popularized by Hobbs is precisely that man is a wolf to

precisely that man is a wolf to

precisely that man is a wolf to man.

man.

man. So, this is like the tradition of

So, this is like the tradition of

So, this is like the tradition of classical thought that, after

classical thought that, after

classical thought that, after nourishing realism according to the

nourishing realism according to the

nourishing realism according to the English school, right?, that seeks to go back

English school, right?, that seeks to go back

English school, right?, that seeks to go back to find more foundations and more

to find more foundations and more

to find more foundations and more theoretical density for the discipline

theoretical density for the discipline

theoretical density for the discipline of international relations.

of international relations.

of international relations. On the other hand, tradition, let's go to

On the other hand, tradition, let's go to

On the other hand, tradition, let's go to the other corner of the picture, the

the other corner of the picture, the

the other corner of the picture, the revolutionary, universalist,

revolutionary, universalist,

revolutionary, universalist, or Cantian tradition.

or Cantian tradition.

or Cantian tradition. Eh, of course it's not that he stops

Eh, of course it's not that he stops

Eh, of course it's not that he stops recognizing the anarchic condition of the

recognizing the anarchic condition of the

recognizing the anarchic condition of the system, he doesn't deny that, obviously,

system, he doesn't deny that, obviously,

system, he doesn't deny that, obviously, eh, but he is going to say that there are

eh, but he is going to say that there are

eh, but he is going to say that there are shared values between states, there are

shared values between states, there are

shared values between states, there are moral and legal principles that

moral and legal principles that

moral and legal principles that condition conduct and that establish

condition conduct and that establish

condition conduct and that establish norms and obligations, even of a

norms and obligations, even of a

norms and obligations, even of a political nature.

political nature.

political nature. And so I'm looking a little bit to

And so I'm looking a little bit to

And so I'm looking a little bit to transcend the notion of the international

transcend the notion of the international

transcend the notion of the international and towards the cosmopolitan, right?

and towards the cosmopolitan, right?

and towards the cosmopolitan, right? Directly.

Directly.

Directly. Eh, and that's why this affinity with the

Eh, and that's why this affinity with the

Eh, and that's why this affinity with the third of the conditions of the system,

third of the conditions of the system,

third of the conditions of the system, that of the existence of an

that of the existence of an

that of the existence of an international society that has much more of an axis

international society that has much more of an axis

international society that has much more of an axis on the individual in this case like

on the individual in this case like

on the individual in this case like liberalism.

The reference to Kant derives

The reference to Kant derives mainly from the work that this

mainly from the work that this

mainly from the work that this philosopher produces in his book

philosopher produces in his book

philosopher produces in his book Perpetual Peace or in his philosophical essay in

Perpetual Peace or in his philosophical essay in

Perpetual Peace or in his philosophical essay in reality, where what Kant does is

reality, where what Kant does is

reality, where what Kant does is propose to reflect on

propose to reflect on

propose to reflect on political structures based on

political structures based on

political structures based on human moral progress that make possible

human moral progress that make possible

human moral progress that make possible a peace sustained over time.

a peace sustained over time.

a peace sustained over time. and a peace that will be sustained over

and a peace that will be sustained over

and a peace that will be sustained over time, governed primarily on the basis of

time, governed primarily on the basis of

time, governed primarily on the basis of law,

law,

law, which allows for freedom of action

which allows for freedom of action

which allows for freedom of action limited

limited

limited by duties and obligations that

by duties and obligations that

by duties and obligations that favor coexistence.

favor coexistence.

favor coexistence. That is, moving from the anarchy of

That is, moving from the anarchy of

That is, moving from the anarchy of unrestricted freedom to a

unrestricted freedom to a

unrestricted freedom to a civilization, right? This is all

civilization, right? This is all

civilization, right? This is all philosophical clearly. And for example,

philosophical clearly. And for example,

philosophical clearly. And for example, here I have a phrase written by Kant,

here I have a phrase written by Kant,

here I have a phrase written by Kant, which is about perpetual peace that Kant

which is about perpetual peace that Kant

which is about perpetual peace that Kant wrote in 1795,

wrote in 1795,

wrote in 1795, eh, which says, "For states in their

eh, which says, "For states in their

eh, which says, "For states in their mutual relations there is in reason no

mutual relations there is in reason no

mutual relations there is in reason no other way out of the

other way out of the

other way out of the anarchic situation, the origin of continuous

anarchic situation, the origin of continuous

anarchic situation, the origin of continuous wars, than to sacrifice, as

wars, than to sacrifice, as

wars, than to sacrifice, as individuals do, their wild, unbridled freedom

individuals do, their wild, unbridled freedom

individuals do, their wild, unbridled freedom and reduce themselves to public

and reduce themselves to public

and reduce themselves to public coercive laws, thus constituting a state

coercive laws, thus constituting a state

coercive laws, thus constituting a state of nations that grows without ceasing,

of nations that grows without ceasing,

of nations that grows without ceasing, finally coming to contain within itself

finally coming to contain within itself

finally coming to contain within itself all the peoples of the earth, right?

all the peoples of the earth, right?

all the peoples of the earth, right? So, again, although this is not

So, again, although this is not

So, again, although this is not strictly speaking the theory of

strictly speaking the theory of

strictly speaking the theory of international relations, one can already find

international relations, one can already find

international relations, one can already find in the past antecedents on the

in the past antecedents on the

in the past antecedents on the interpretation of the international order.

And finally, eh, the

And finally, eh, the rationalist, internationalist or

rationalist, internationalist or

rationalist, internationalist or Grossian tradition

Grossian tradition

Grossian tradition puts emphasis on

puts emphasis on

puts emphasis on international relations organized between

international relations organized between

international relations organized between states mainly in times of peace

states mainly in times of peace

states mainly in times of peace , right? such as diplomacy

, right? such as diplomacy

, right? such as diplomacy or commerce,

or commerce,

or commerce, because despite the

because despite the

because despite the anarchic conditioning of the system, man according to

anarchic conditioning of the system, man according to

anarchic conditioning of the system, man according to this tradition and by the name he bears

this tradition and by the name he bears

this tradition and by the name he bears is capable of being rational.

is capable of being rational.

is capable of being rational. Eh, because despite that there exists, uh, a

Eh, because despite that there exists, uh, a

Eh, because despite that there exists, uh, a tradition and a natural law, right? In the

tradition and a natural law, right? In the

tradition and a natural law, right? In the realist sense, right? In the sense

realist sense, right? In the sense

realist sense, right? In the sense that,

that,

that, since man is the mud of

since man is the mud of

since man is the mud of man, uh, reason provides us with a

man, uh, reason provides us with a

man, uh, reason provides us with a faculty of interpretation regarding

faculty of interpretation regarding

faculty of interpretation regarding the obligations imposed on us, right? This is

the obligations imposed on us, right? This is

the obligations imposed on us, right? This is why the works of Hugo

why the works of Hugo

why the works of Hugo Groscio were the ones that laid the

Groscio were the ones that laid the

Groscio were the ones that laid the foundations of international law in his

foundations of international law in his

foundations of international law in his time

time

time so that it could even be applicable in

so that it could even be applicable in

so that it could even be applicable in contexts of war, as this is very

contexts of war, as this is very

contexts of war, as this is very important, right? Uh, law was a

important, right? Uh, law was a

important, right? Uh, law was a tool that could limit unbridled passion

tool that could limit unbridled passion

in pursuit of a reasonable coherence of

in pursuit of a reasonable coherence of our interests at an

our interests at an

our interests at an international level, such as sustaining

international level, such as sustaining

international level, such as sustaining trade, right? So, it's not that

trade, right? So, it's not that

trade, right? So, it's not that war is even denied, it's like we

war is even denied, it's like we

war is even denied, it's like we limit it reasonably, so to

limit it reasonably, so to

limit it reasonably, so to speak.

speak.

speak. So, the English school is usually

So, the English school is usually

So, the English school is usually included within this

included within this

included within this political tradition and which White is going to call

political tradition and which White is going to call

political tradition and which White is going to call the broad coming from the middle between

the broad coming from the middle between

the broad coming from the middle between the realist and the revolutionist.

the realist and the revolutionist.

the realist and the revolutionist. And for this reason, uh, he contemplates the impact that

And for this reason, uh, he contemplates the impact that

And for this reason, uh, he contemplates the impact that the principles of the principles of

the principles of the principles of

the principles of the principles of anarchy and recognizes the impossibility

anarchy and recognizes the impossibility

anarchy and recognizes the impossibility of eradicating the wars, but without falling

of eradicating the wars, but without falling

of eradicating the wars, but without falling into a moral foundation,

into a moral foundation,

into a moral foundation, as revolutionaries do,

as revolutionaries do,

as revolutionaries do, rationalists will believe that

rationalists will believe that

rationalists will believe that there are elements that can regulate or

there are elements that can regulate or

there are elements that can regulate or contain

contain

contain international relations, such as law,

international relations, such as law,

international relations, such as law, institutions, trade,

institutions, trade,

institutions, trade, diplomacy, and limited war.

diplomacy, and limited war.

diplomacy, and limited war. Uh, what Israel does with Palestine

Uh, what Israel does with Palestine

Uh, what Israel does with Palestine could be classified within a political tradition

could be classified within a political tradition

could be classified within a political tradition . There are facts that seem to

. There are facts that seem to

. There are facts that seem to have an explanation. Sorry, the

have an explanation. Sorry, the

have an explanation. Sorry, the spelling mistake. Uh,

the political traditions. Uh, that

the political traditions. Uh, that complicates the question.

complicates the question.

complicates the question. The political traditions of

The political traditions of

The political traditions of international relations, I mean, what they

international relations, I mean, what they

international relations, I mean, what they seek is to establish a

seek is to establish a

seek is to establish a theoretical continuity, right? Fundamentally.

theoretical continuity, right? Fundamentally.

theoretical continuity, right? Fundamentally. And theory is one thing, and reality is another

And theory is one thing, and reality is another

And theory is one thing, and reality is another . So, theory is

. So, theory is

. So, theory is still an attempt to

still an attempt to

still an attempt to interpret reality.

Then,

Then, whether it succeeds is another matter,

whether it succeeds is another matter,

whether it succeeds is another matter, which means trying to fit reality

which means trying to fit reality

which means trying to fit reality into a theory is much more

into a theory is much more

into a theory is much more difficult. Uh,

difficult. Uh,

difficult. Uh, your question, Diego, you'd have to start

your question, Diego, you'd have to start

your question, Diego, you'd have to start writing and thinking and

writing and thinking and

writing and thinking and justify it, right? I mean, if you say,

justify it, right? I mean, if you say,

justify it, right? I mean, if you say, "No, well, I uh, yes, yes." I have to say

"No, well, I uh, yes, yes." I have to say

"No, well, I uh, yes, yes." I have to say one quickly, the truth is that I would put it

one quickly, the truth is that I would put it

one quickly, the truth is that I would put it within the realist tradition, of

within the realist tradition, of

within the realist tradition, of course. This, the

course. This, the

course. This, the unbridled freedom of a state, eh, without

unbridled freedom of a state, eh, without

unbridled freedom of a state, eh, without limitation by law, eh, or

limitation by law, eh, or

limitation by law, eh, or moral precepts or anything. Eh, seen and

moral precepts or anything. Eh, seen and

moral precepts or anything. Eh, seen and considering that there is no

considering that there is no

considering that there is no higher political entity eh that eh sanctions

higher political entity eh that eh sanctions

higher political entity eh that eh sanctions the actions. Eh,

the actions. Eh,

the actions. Eh, anyway, that doesn't mean

anyway, that doesn't mean

anyway, that doesn't mean that one can't also make

that one can't also make

that one can't also make interpretations from the other two

interpretations from the other two

interpretations from the other two traditions, right? Of course. Eh, but

traditions, right? Of course. Eh, but

traditions, right? Of course. Eh, but going back to the previous point, eh,

going back to the previous point, eh,

going back to the previous point, eh, theory is an attempt at interpretation,

theory is an attempt at interpretation,

theory is an attempt at interpretation, it can go well and it can go wrong, right?

it can go well and it can go wrong, right?

it can go well and it can go wrong, right? In any case, what you have to do is

In any case, what you have to do is

In any case, what you have to do is justify it, and on the other side, that is,

justify it, and on the other side, that is,

justify it, and on the other side, that is, the interlocutor who is going to be

the interlocutor who is going to be

the interlocutor who is going to be reading you

reading you

reading you may agree, may

may agree, may

may agree, may disagree, right? That's why I think it's

disagree, right? That's why I think it's

disagree, right? That's why I think it's like not trying to make the two things

like not trying to make the two things

like not trying to make the two things coincide and fit together completely is

coincide and fit together completely is

coincide and fit together completely is very complicated. One, there's always a

very complicated. One, there's always a

very complicated. One, there's always a tendency generally, eh, when one

tendency generally, eh, when one

tendency generally, eh, when one studies international relations to be

studies international relations to be

studies international relations to be a little more realistic, right? But because it

a little more realistic, right? But because it

a little more realistic, right? But because it seems to me that sometimes pessimism wins us over

seems to me that sometimes pessimism wins us over

seems to me that sometimes pessimism wins us over , right?

Which doesn't mean that institutions don't exist

Which doesn't mean that institutions don't exist , right? That there is no

, right? That there is no

, right? That there is no specific regulation and that there are no

specific regulation and that there are no

specific regulation and that there are no shared values between states, right?

shared values between states, right?

shared values between states, right? Among the peoples of that state. I think you

Among the peoples of that state. I think you

won't see it in the next class, but in

won't see it in the next class, but in the next one, which is about the multiplicity

the next one, which is about the multiplicity

the next one, which is about the multiplicity of applied approaches. The idea is to

of applied approaches. The idea is to

of applied approaches. The idea is to draw on all this

draw on all this

draw on all this knowledge and all these theories and

knowledge and all these theories and

knowledge and all these theories and conduct analysis using all

conduct analysis using all

conduct analysis using all these tools at the same time so as

these tools at the same time so as

these tools at the same time so as not to have partial interpretations of

not to have partial interpretations of

not to have partial interpretations of reality. I hope I have answered your

reality. I hope I have answered your

reality. I hope I have answered your question.

question.

question. Well, well, ultimately,

Well, well, ultimately,

Well, well, ultimately, well, and just as it is going to be, well, Hedley Bull

well, and just as it is going to be, well, Hedley Bull

well, and just as it is going to be, well, Hedley Bull in the book The Anarchical Society, well,

in the book The Anarchical Society, well,

what these traditions propose are

what these traditions propose are notions of international order, right? I

notions of international order, right? I

notions of international order, right? I don't want to share with you

don't want to share with you

don't want to share with you this author's definition of

this author's definition of

this author's definition of international order, because he only

international order, because he only

international order, because he only complicates it by positioning himself

complicates it by positioning himself

complicates it by positioning himself within one of these traditions,

within one of these traditions,

within one of these traditions, namely the rationalist one.

namely the rationalist one.

namely the rationalist one. Uh, but what we can say very

Uh, but what we can say very

Uh, but what we can say very briefly

briefly

briefly is that an international order presupposes the

is that an international order presupposes the

is that an international order presupposes the existence of a pattern of activity in

existence of a pattern of activity in

existence of a pattern of activity in relations between states, right?

relations between states, right?

relations between states, right? Uh, what we can often say,

Uh, what we can often say,

Uh, what we can often say, more metaphorically, is the rules

more metaphorically, is the rules

more metaphorically, is the rules of the game.

of the game.

of the game. Thus, the type of

Thus, the type of

Thus, the type of international order proposed by the

international order proposed by the

international order proposed by the realist tradition is one of balance of power.

realist tradition is one of balance of power.

realist tradition is one of balance of power. And the revolutionary and

And the revolutionary and

And the revolutionary and rationalist tradition, because they are quite closely

rationalist tradition, because they are quite closely

rationalist tradition, because they are quite closely related, are types of

related, are types of

related, are types of international orders governed by

international orders governed by

international orders governed by diplomacy or by international law,

diplomacy or by international law,

diplomacy or by international law, right?

right?

right? Then

Then

Then this is different from this, why do

this is different from this, why do

this is different from this, why do I say this?

I say this?

I say this? Because international order is one thing and

Because international order is one thing and

Because international order is one thing and international system is another, right?

international system is another, right?

international system is another, right? System is an analytical category, eh,

System is an analytical category, eh,

System is an analytical category, eh, mainly. So, when

mainly. So, when

mainly. So, when we talk about the

we talk about the

we talk about the international system,

international system,

international system, like the word system itself, it comes

like the word system itself, it comes

like the word system itself, it comes a lot from the

a lot from the

a lot from the scientific method of the natural sciences

scientific method of the natural sciences

scientific method of the natural sciences applied to the social sciences, right?

applied to the social sciences, right?

applied to the social sciences, right? A system is made up of units

A system is made up of units

A system is made up of units that interact with each other and in that

that interact with each other and in that

that interact with each other and in that interaction they form a structure,

interaction they form a structure,

interaction they form a structure, right? It is a much more scientific vision.

right? It is a much more scientific vision.

right? It is a much more scientific vision. So in

So in

So in international relations, those units can

international relations, those units can

international relations, those units can be states, at least within the

be states, at least within the

be states, at least within the framework of these theories. not

framework of these theories. not

framework of these theories. not necessarily today. Uh,

necessarily today. Uh,

necessarily today. Uh, those relationships between

those relationships between

those relationships between states can be cooperative or

states can be cooperative or

states can be cooperative or conflictual, right? Uh, and the structures

conflictual, right? Uh, and the structures

conflictual, right? Uh, and the structures that are formed based on that type of

that are formed based on that type of

that are formed based on that type of cooperation, uh, generate results, right?

cooperation, uh, generate results, right?

cooperation, uh, generate results, right? So, for example, we

So, for example, we

So, for example, we can talk about a unipolar system,

can talk about a unipolar system,

can talk about a unipolar system, a bipolar system, a

a bipolar system, a

a bipolar system, a multipolar system, right? where these

multipolar system, right? where these

multipolar system, right? where these interactions generate differentiated poles of power

interactions generate differentiated poles of power

interactions generate differentiated poles of power . But when we talk about the

. But when we talk about the

. But when we talk about the system,

system,

system, we're characterizing

we're characterizing

we're characterizing it, but we're not talking about the

it, but we're not talking about the

it, but we're not talking about the rules of the game, right? So that's

rules of the game, right? So that's

rules of the game, right? So that's where the notion of international order comes in

where the notion of international order comes in

where the notion of international order comes in . The type of order, right?,

. The type of order, right?,

. The type of order, right?, that appears, such as the

that appears, such as the

that appears, such as the balance of power, will also tell us

balance of power, will also tell us

balance of power, will also tell us much more about how it will be, that

much more about how it will be, that

much more about how it will be, that is, in more descriptive terms,

is, in more descriptive terms,

is, in more descriptive terms, how that interaction will be based on

how that interaction will be based on

how that interaction will be based on the conflict in the units of the

the conflict in the units of the

the conflict in the units of the system. And that balance of power

system. And that balance of power

system. And that balance of power can also be characterized

can also be characterized

can also be characterized as bipolar, multipolar, or in

as bipolar, multipolar, or in

as bipolar, multipolar, or in the pursuit of unipolarity, right?

the pursuit of unipolarity, right?

the pursuit of unipolarity, right? So they are two

So they are two

So they are two different concepts. Here at this moment, what

different concepts. Here at this moment, what

different concepts. Here at this moment, what matters most to us is being able to

matters most to us is being able to

matters most to us is being able to delve a little deeper into the idea of

delve a little deeper into the idea of

delve a little deeper into the idea of international order, which is what we're going

international order, which is what we're going

international order, which is what we're going to be looking at

to be looking at

to be looking at in a bit, because what these authors are

in a bit, because what these authors are

in a bit, because what these authors are going to propose is

going to propose is

going to propose is what are the rules of the game that

what are the rules of the game that

what are the rules of the game that will lead us toward peace, right?, which is

will lead us toward peace, right?, which is

will lead us toward peace, right?, which is the interest and which is the ultimate objective.

the interest and which is the ultimate objective.

the interest and which is the ultimate objective. Okay, what do you think about taking a

Okay, what do you think about taking a

Okay, what do you think about taking a 10-minute break, since we're still a little far

10-minute break, since we're still a little far

10-minute break, since we're still a little far from class? Not much, but what's

from class? Not much, but what's

from class? Not much, but what's coming is pretty dense. Hey, we're taking a

coming is pretty dense. Hey, we're taking a

coming is pretty dense. Hey, we're taking a 10 minute break and 42 minutes. We're back.

if you like, let's continue with the

if you like, let's continue with the class.

Well,

then we're out of this parenthesis,

then we're out of this parenthesis, right? In which we went to delve

right? In which we went to delve

right? In which we went to delve deeper into the

deeper into the

deeper into the traditions of political thought, of

traditions of political thought, of

traditions of political thought, of international relations,

international relations,

international relations, that were worked on by

that were worked on by

that were worked on by the English school between 1950 and 1970.

the English school between 1950 and 1970.

the English school between 1950 and 1970. And we rewind, right?, a little bit to the

And we rewind, right?, a little bit to the

And we rewind, right?, a little bit to the 1940s,

1940s,

1940s, uh, more specifically, that is, the end of

uh, more specifically, that is, the end of

uh, more specifically, that is, the end of the Second World War. Uh, I pretended

the Second World War. Uh, I pretended

the Second World War. Uh, I pretended that this, I made this

that this, I made this

that this, I made this methodological decision so that you already have the

methodological decision so that you already have the

methodological decision so that you already have the traditions of thought before

traditions of thought before

traditions of thought before having seen the actual theoretical development

having seen the actual theoretical development

having seen the actual theoretical development of realism and so that

of realism and so that

of realism and so that the

the

the differences between all of them can be understood a little better.

differences between all of them can be understood a little better.

differences between all of them can be understood a little better. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, but you have to

but you have to

but you have to contextualize it in that, well, the

contextualize it in that, well, the

contextualize it in that, well, the uh, the works of the English school

uh, the works of the English school

uh, the works of the English school were also a bit of an afterthought,

were also a bit of an afterthought,

were also a bit of an afterthought, right?, and in response to what was

right?, and in response to what was

right?, and in response to what was happening in the 1940s, right?

happening in the 1940s, right?

happening in the 1940s, right? Because remember that even though Car

Because remember that even though Car

Because remember that even though Car wrote in 1939,

wrote in 1939,

wrote in 1939, he's basically there.

he's basically there.

he's basically there. But anyway, in 1948

But anyway, in 1948

But anyway, in 1948 one of the most

one of the most

one of the most important books for the theory of

important books for the theory of

important books for the theory of international relations was published, called

international relations was published, called

international relations was published, called Politics among Nations: The Struggle

Politics among Nations: The Struggle

Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace by Hans Morgent.

for Power and Peace by Hans Morgent.

for Power and Peace by Hans Morgent. Hey, who, well, in that

Hey, who, well, in that

Hey, who, well, in that paternalistic eagerness that always grabs us,

paternalistic eagerness that always grabs us,

paternalistic eagerness that always grabs us, can be considered one of the

can be considered one of the

can be considered one of the founding fathers of classical realism.

founding fathers of classical realism.

founding fathers of classical realism. And although we've already seen, right?, Car and

And although we've already seen, right?, Car and

And although we've already seen, right?, Car and his introduction of the debate between

his introduction of the debate between

his introduction of the debate between realists and utopians, eh, more like

realists and utopians, eh, more like

realists and utopians, eh, more like a critical approach. Morgentó was going to be

a critical approach. Morgentó was going to be

a critical approach. Morgentó was going to be one of the first to truly

one of the first to truly

one of the first to truly systematize that knowledge and

systematize that knowledge and

systematize that knowledge and develop a theory in its own right

develop a theory in its own right

develop a theory in its own right that, while not using

that, while not using

that, while not using formal scientific methods, not in the

formal scientific methods, not in the

formal scientific methods, not in the positivist style, which was usual at

positivist style, which was usual at

positivist style, which was usual at the time, did develop laws as

the time, did develop laws as

the time, did develop laws as principles of the normative philosophical style

principles of the normative philosophical style

principles of the normative philosophical style , right? as

, right? as

, right? as philosophical interpretations, but also as

philosophical interpretations, but also as

philosophical interpretations, but also as regulations for what needs to be done. It

regulations for what needs to be done. It

regulations for what needs to be done. It 's important to say that although

's important to say that although

's important to say that although Morgent was a German Jew, he became a

Morgent was a German Jew, he became a

Morgent was a German Jew, he became a naturalized citizen and developed almost his entire

naturalized citizen and developed almost his entire

naturalized citizen and developed almost his entire academic career in the United States,

academic career in the United States,

academic career in the United States, right? After a migration process

right? After a migration process

right? After a migration process related to the rise of Nazism and

related to the rise of Nazism and

related to the rise of Nazism and World War II. and in the

World War II. and in the

World War II. and in the United States he even became a

United States he even became a

United States he even became a foreign policy advisor. That's why,

foreign policy advisor. That's why,

foreign policy advisor. That's why, although we said that

although we said that

although we said that after the First World War, the United

after the First World War, the United

after the First World War, the United States hadn't quite

States hadn't quite

States hadn't quite broken away from isolationism and that,

broken away from isolationism and that,

broken away from isolationism and that, although the first chairs had been founded

although the first chairs had been founded

although the first chairs had been founded ,

,

, international relations studies still hadn't

international relations studies still hadn't

international relations studies still hadn't become theoretical studies. eh, it's that around

become theoretical studies. eh, it's that around

become theoretical studies. eh, it's that around 1940, which is where this is already beginning to

1940, which is where this is already beginning to

1940, which is where this is already beginning to consolidate,

consolidate,

consolidate, eh, the theory itself of

eh, the theory itself of

eh, the theory itself of international relations is

international relations is

international relations is considered an

considered an

considered an American product.

American product.

American product. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, and what Morgenton is going to do is, uh, he's going to

and what Morgenton is going to do is, uh, he's going to

and what Morgenton is going to do is, uh, he's going to try to develop what's known as a

try to develop what's known as a

try to develop what's known as a grand theory, right? That is, an effort to

grand theory, right? That is, an effort to

grand theory, right? That is, an effort to define and understand

define and understand

define and understand international politics as a whole.

international politics as a whole.

international politics as a whole. Later on, which was very common

Later on, which was very common

Later on, which was very common in scientific terms at the time,

in scientific terms at the time,

in scientific terms at the time, later on in the discipline of

later on in the discipline of

later on in the discipline of international relations, these

international relations, these

international relations, these theoretical pretensions, right? Since they are so

theoretical pretensions, right? Since they are so

theoretical pretensions, right? Since they are so explanatory of the world as a whole, they will be

explanatory of the world as a whole, they will be

explanatory of the world as a whole, they will be left aside, eh, and

left aside, eh, and

left aside, eh, and what are called

what are called

what are called medium- or short-range theories will appear.

medium- or short-range theories will appear.

medium- or short-range theories will appear. eh theories that are more focused on

eh theories that are more focused on

eh theories that are more focused on specific issues, maybe the theory

specific issues, maybe the theory

specific issues, maybe the theory of integration, right? Well, we

of integration, right? Well, we

of integration, right? Well, we analyze that particular phenomenon and

analyze that particular phenomenon and

analyze that particular phenomenon and don't try to create a grand theory of

don't try to create a grand theory of

don't try to create a grand theory of international relations.

international relations.

international relations. And despite not falling entirely within the

And despite not falling entirely within the

And despite not falling entirely within the positivism of the time,

positivism of the time,

positivism of the time, his proposal still aims to be

his proposal still aims to be

his proposal still aims to be empirical, it aims to be based on

empirical, it aims to be based on

empirical, it aims to be based on facts, it aims to be objective, because it

facts, it aims to be objective, because it

facts, it aims to be objective, because it seeks to explain the phenomena as they

seeks to explain the phenomena as they

seeks to explain the phenomena as they occur.

occur.

occur. But at the same time it is

But at the same time it is

But at the same time it is normative philosophical because it proposes a course of

normative philosophical because it proposes a course of

normative philosophical because it proposes a course of action and because it bases its theory on

action and because it bases its theory on

action and because it bases its theory on questions of a philosophical nature, such as,

questions of a philosophical nature, such as,

questions of a philosophical nature, such as, for example, and of the style, right? Already from

for example, and of the style, right? Already from

for example, and of the style, right? Already from what Hogs did. That is, not only

what Hogs did. That is, not only

what Hogs did. That is, not only will you try to understand the dynamics of

will you try to understand the dynamics of

will you try to understand the dynamics of international politics, but you

international politics, but you

international politics, but you 'll also seek to understand how it

'll also seek to understand how it

'll also seek to understand how it works and commit to

works and commit to

works and commit to courses of action.

So, one of the first things he's

So, one of the first things he's going to do in this book, which I did

going to do in this book, which I did

going to do in this book, which I did leave you some chapters as part of

leave you some chapters as part of

leave you some chapters as part of the required bibliography, is to explain

the required bibliography, is to explain

the required bibliography, is to explain what he considers the six principles

what he considers the six principles

what he considers the six principles of political realism,

of political realism,

which we're going to try to break down

which we're going to try to break down one by one to understand, right? Because

one by one to understand, right? Because

one by one to understand, right? Because they are the theoretical foundations of realistic thought

they are the theoretical foundations of realistic thought

that are based on everything we have already

that are based on everything we have already discussed about the traditions of

discussed about the traditions of

discussed about the traditions of thought, right?

thought, right?

thought, right? Principle number one:

Principle number one:

Principle number one: international politics responds to

international politics responds to

international politics responds to objective laws, that is, to behaviors that are

objective laws, that is, to behaviors that are

objective laws, that is, to behaviors that are repeated and rooted in

repeated and rooted in

repeated and rooted in human nature. There are the philosophical ones

human nature. There are the philosophical ones

human nature. There are the philosophical ones we were talking about, right?

we were talking about, right?

we were talking about, right? The operation of these

The operation of these

The operation of these objective laws is completely unrelated to the

objective laws is completely unrelated to the

objective laws is completely unrelated to the course of our preferences, isn't it? I

course of our preferences, isn't it? I

course of our preferences, isn't it? I mean, that's what happens. And these

mean, that's what happens. And these

mean, that's what happens. And these basically never change. Therefore,

basically never change. Therefore,

basically never change. Therefore, human nature, by not changing, is

human nature, by not changing, is

human nature, by not changing, is understood in itself as

understood in itself as

understood in itself as empirical proof.

empirical proof.

empirical proof. For realism, the analysis of a

For realism, the analysis of a

For realism, the analysis of a foreign policy can only arise from the

foreign policy can only arise from the

foreign policy can only arise from the analysis of political facts or

analysis of political facts or

analysis of political facts or the acts of the statesmen that produce them

the acts of the statesmen that produce them

and the

and the foreseeable consequences of these acts.

foreseeable consequences of these acts.

foreseeable consequences of these acts. So, from that

So, from that

So, from that we can figure out the goals that those

we can figure out the goals that those

we can figure out the goals that those statesmen had in mind, right?

statesmen had in mind, right?

statesmen had in mind, right? As when designing

As when designing

As when designing foreign policy.

foreign policy.

foreign policy. And to make sense of these facts and

And to make sense of these facts and

And to make sense of these facts and actions, what we see

actions, what we see

actions, what we see is that we must approach

is that we must approach

is that we must approach political reality with a kind of

political reality with a kind of

political reality with a kind of rational scheme or map that suggests the

rational scheme or map that suggests the

rational scheme or map that suggests the possible meanings of

possible meanings of

possible meanings of foreign policy. In this way, we

foreign policy. In this way, we

foreign policy. In this way, we get inside the statesman's head

get inside the statesman's head

get inside the statesman's head and analyze what

and analyze what

and analyze what rational alternatives he had to

rational alternatives he had to

rational alternatives he had to take a certain course of action

take a certain course of action

take a certain course of action under certain circumstances at that

under certain circumstances at that

under certain circumstances at that particular time,

particular time,

particular time, right? So, since these

right? So, since these

right? So, since these objective laws are rooted in

objective laws are rooted in

objective laws are rooted in human nature, Morgentó placed a lot of

human nature, Morgentó placed a lot of

human nature, Morgentó placed a lot of emphasis on the statesman and his

emphasis on the statesman and his

emphasis on the statesman and his decision-making, saying, "No, it's not so much about

decision-making, saying, "No, it's not so much about

decision-making, saying, "No, it's not so much about the ideals, the values, and

the ideals, the values, and

the ideals, the values, and his ideas and proposals, but

his ideas and proposals, but

his ideas and proposals, but rather it's about putting ourselves in his place and seeing

rather it's about putting ourselves in his place and seeing

rather it's about putting ourselves in his place and seeing what the map of

what the map of

what the map of alternatives was for him to make

alternatives was for him to make

alternatives was for him to make decisions."

decisions."

decisions." And that is

And that is

And that is an objective law of

an objective law of

an objective law of international politics, because that is

international politics, because that is

international politics, because that is where we find the

where we find the

where we find the behaviors that are repeated in

behaviors that are repeated in

behaviors that are repeated in international politics, in more

international politics, in more

international politics, in more or less reasonable calculations made by

or less reasonable calculations made by

or less reasonable calculations made by humans at given times.

humans at given times.

humans at given times. Morgentó's second principle is that

Morgentó's second principle is that

Morgentó's second principle is that in international politics, interest

in international politics, interest

in international politics, interest is defined in terms of power, and

is defined in terms of power, and

is defined in terms of power, and this is what allows us to explain the course of

this is what allows us to explain the course of

this is what allows us to explain the course of action of

action of

states in a rational manner. It's what allows us to basically establish a common denominator, right? I mean, because this is also the attempt to create a grand theory. This is the attempt at systematization. When we say that interest is defined in terms of power, what that

states in a rational manner. It's what allows us to basically establish a common denominator, right? I mean, because this is also the attempt to create a grand theory. This is the attempt at systematization. When we say that interest is defined in terms of power, what that allows us to do is find a

allows us to do is find a

allows us to do is find a common denominator among the vast

common denominator among the vast

common denominator among the vast diversity of foreign policies of

diversity of foreign policies of

diversity of foreign policies of the States at different moments in

the States at different moments in

the States at different moments in history. So, no matter where you

history. So, no matter where you

history. So, no matter where you stand, states have an interest in

stand, states have an interest in

stand, states have an interest in terms that are defined in

terms that are defined in

terms that are defined in terms of power.

terms of power.

terms of power. And in this way, what we have to

And in this way, what we have to

And in this way, what we have to assume is that statesmen think and

assume is that statesmen think and

assume is that statesmen think and act driven by an interest that

act driven by an interest that

act driven by an interest that translates into power, and we know this

translates into power, and we know this

translates into power, and we know this is so because it's what

is so because it's what

is so because it's what history shows. Morget says, right? Under this

history shows. Morget says, right? Under this

history shows. Morget says, right? Under this parameter, what we can do is understand their

parameter, what we can do is understand their

parameter, what we can do is understand their thoughts and actions,

thoughts and actions,

thoughts and actions, regardless of the motivations,

regardless of the motivations,

regardless of the motivations, the moral and

the moral and

the moral and intellectual qualities of each of them.

intellectual qualities of each of them.

intellectual qualities of each of them. Because the key to foreign policy isn't in these matters

Because the key to foreign policy isn't in these matters

Because the key to foreign policy isn't in these matters ; the key

; the key

; the key is power. That's

is power. That's

is power. That's why it distinguishes between what is

why it distinguishes between what is

why it distinguishes between what is desirable everywhere, everywhere, and at

desirable everywhere, everywhere, and at

desirable everywhere, everywhere, and at any time from what is possible

any time from what is possible

any time from what is possible under specific circumstances of time

under specific circumstances of time

under specific circumstances of time and place.

and place.

and place. Political realism considers that only

Political realism considers that only

Political realism considers that only a rational foreign policy is one that

a rational foreign policy is one that

a rational foreign policy is one that will minimize risks and

will minimize risks and

will minimize risks and maximize benefits and that will also

maximize benefits and that will also

maximize benefits and that will also comply with the moral precept of

comply with the moral precept of

comply with the moral precept of prudence, right? Which is this

prudence, right? Which is this

prudence, right? Which is this cost-benefit relationship

cost-benefit relationship

cost-benefit relationship and the political requirement of success,

and the political requirement of success,

and the political requirement of success, basically. That's why

basically. That's why

basically. That's why foreign policy It has to be rational in view

foreign policy It has to be rational in view

foreign policy It has to be rational in view of its own moral and

of its own moral and

of its own moral and practical purposes, which are prudence, right?

practical purposes, which are prudence, right?

practical purposes, which are prudence, right? Like maximizing profits, reducing

Like maximizing profits, reducing

Like maximizing profits, reducing costs, increasing power,

and not like the larger, more

and not like the larger, more encompassing ideas of a peaceful world society

encompassing ideas of a peaceful world society

encompassing ideas of a peaceful world society .

.

. Morgentó says that at the

Morgentó says that at the

Morgentó says that at the international level, the structure of

international level, the structure of

international level, the structure of international relations, which is

international relations, which is

international relations, which is reflected in political institutions,

reflected in political institutions,

reflected in political institutions, diplomatic procedures, or

diplomatic procedures, or

diplomatic procedures, or legal agreements, basically

legal agreements, basically

legal agreements, basically tends to be at odds with the

tends to be at odds with the

tends to be at odds with the reality of international politics.

reality of international politics.

reality of international politics. So, for example, while

So, for example, while

So, for example, while the former assumes that there exists a

the former assumes that there exists a

the former assumes that there exists a sovereign equality, right? Of all

sovereign equality, right? Of all

sovereign equality, right? Of all nations, right? That

nations, right? That

nations, right? That is, we are all equal because

is, we are all equal because

is, we are all equal because we are all sovereign states. The

we are all sovereign states. The

we are all sovereign states. The reality of international politics is

reality of international politics is

reality of international politics is characterized by a strong

characterized by a strong

characterized by a strong inequality among all those states,

inequality among all those states,

inequality among all those states, and that inequality is not marked by

and that inequality is not marked by

and that inequality is not marked by the legal structure or the

the legal structure or the

the legal structure or the institutional structure, but

institutional structure, but

institutional structure, but rather by inequality in

rather by inequality in

rather by inequality in terms of power. That is why

terms of power. That is why

terms of power. That is why interest is defined

interest is defined

interest is defined in terms of power, because

in terms of power, because

in terms of power, because ultimately that is the closest objective

ultimately that is the closest objective

ultimately that is the closest objective that everyone seeks.

The idea within the Third

The idea within the Third principle: For Morgentón, the idea of interest in

principle: For Morgentón, the idea of interest in

principle: For Morgentón, the idea of interest in terms of power is the

terms of power is the

terms of power is the essence of politics, right? And it's

essence of politics, right? And it's

essence of politics, right? And it's unrelated to the circumstances of time or

unrelated to the circumstances of time or

unrelated to the circumstances of time or place. That's why he understands it as an

place. That's why he understands it as an

place. That's why he understands it as an objective category of

objective category of

objective category of universal validity.

Because it's the interests, right?

Because it's the interests, right? Political interests, and not in

Political interests, and not in

Political interests, and not in terms of power and not ideas,

terms of power and not ideas,

terms of power and not ideas, that directly dominate the

that directly dominate the

that directly dominate the actions of men, right? And on the

actions of men, right? And on the

actions of men, right? And on the other hand, despite the fact that there exists, right?

other hand, despite the fact that there exists, right?

other hand, despite the fact that there exists, right? A political and cultural context within

A political and cultural context within

A political and cultural context within which

which

which a state's specific foreign policy is formed, the

a state's specific foreign policy is formed, the

a state's specific foreign policy is formed, the determining interest of

determining interest of

determining interest of political actions is always to increase power.

political actions is always to increase power.

political actions is always to increase power. Then, those actions, when they

Then, those actions, when they

Then, those actions, when they materialize, may vary, but in their

materialize, may vary, but in their

materialize, may vary, but in their essence they seek to increase power.

essence they seek to increase power.

essence they seek to increase power. Therefore, if everyone seeks to maximize

Therefore, if everyone seeks to maximize

Therefore, if everyone seeks to maximize power, because that is the rule, the

power, because that is the rule, the

power, because that is the rule, the universal law, the world is necessarily

universal law, the world is necessarily

universal law, the world is necessarily unstable,

unstable,

unstable, and the powers, the

and the powers, the

and the powers, the foreign policies of all nations must

foreign policies of all nations must

foreign policies of all nations must consider survival. Don't you

consider survival. Don't you

consider survival. Don't you remember how this word appeared in

remember how this word appeared in

remember how this word appeared in classical geopolitics? They must consider

classical geopolitics? They must consider

classical geopolitics? They must consider survival as the minimum goal

survival as the minimum goal

survival as the minimum goal of foreign policy, because If they don't

of foreign policy, because If they don't

of foreign policy, because If they don't eat you. Basically,

eat you. Basically,

eat you. Basically, the national interest is identified

the national interest is identified

the national interest is identified with national survival.

with national survival.

with national survival. Interest is then, and

Interest is then, and

Interest is then, and in terms of power, it is the essence of

in terms of power, it is the essence of

in terms of power, it is the essence of politics because only once

politics because only once

politics because only once survival is assured can we

survival is assured can we

survival is assured can we proceed to pursue lesser interests,

proceed to pursue lesser interests,

proceed to pursue lesser interests, right?

right?

right? For example, realists like even

For example, realists like even

For example, realists like even Morgento said that non-

Morgento said that non-

Morgento said that non- US intervention in Vietnam was a

US intervention in Vietnam was a

US intervention in Vietnam was a lesser interest because it was not

lesser interest because it was not

lesser interest because it was not directly linked to

directly linked to

directly linked to US survival.

In principle number four, he

In principle number four, he argues that universal moral principles

argues that universal moral principles

argues that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the

cannot be applied to the

cannot be applied to the acts of states, eh, in a

acts of states, eh, in a

acts of states, eh, in a universal formulation, right? But rather, they

universal formulation, right? But rather, they

universal formulation, right? But rather, they must be filtered through the

must be filtered through the

must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and

concrete circumstances of time and

concrete circumstances of time and place. This means that,

place. This means that,

place. This means that, eh, there can be no

eh, there can be no

eh, there can be no political morality without prudence, of course,

political morality without prudence, of course,

political morality without prudence, of course, which means without considering

which means without considering

which means without considering the political consequences of

the political consequences of

the political consequences of acts, right? Uh, without considering

acts, right? Uh, without considering

acts, right? Uh, without considering the political consequences of an

the political consequences of an

the political consequences of an action that is apparently moral,

action that is apparently moral,

action that is apparently moral, and that presents itself as such, eh, it's useless to

and that presents itself as such, eh, it's useless to

and that presents itself as such, eh, it's useless to think about it, eh, because and this is why

think about it, eh, because and this is why

think about it, eh, because and this is why he understands prudence as

he understands prudence as

he understands prudence as the supreme virtue of politics, because it

the supreme virtue of politics, because it

the supreme virtue of politics, because it is the one that leads you directly To think

is the one that leads you directly To think

is the one that leads you directly To think about the consequences of your actions. It's

about the consequences of your actions. It's

about the consequences of your actions. It's that cost-benefit relationship, that is,

that cost-benefit relationship, that is,

that cost-benefit relationship, that is, the political consequences of a

the political consequences of a

the political consequences of a particular policy, right? The

particular policy, right? The

particular policy, right? The consequences are the criteria for

consequences are the criteria for

consequences are the criteria for judging it, not motivations and

judging it, not motivations and

judging it, not motivations and intentions, however divine these

intentions, however divine these

intentions, however divine these may be, right?

may be, right?

may be, right? That's why we said before that,

That's why we said before that,

That's why we said before that, even motivations and

even motivations and

even motivations and intentions can serve as camouflage

intentions can serve as camouflage

intentions can serve as camouflage for power politics as well. That's

for power politics as well. That's

for power politics as well. That's why policies shouldn't be judged from there

why policies shouldn't be judged from there

why policies shouldn't be judged from there , but rather by

, but rather by

, but rather by their consequences.

their consequences.

their consequences. In this way, it's not ethics that

In this way, it's not ethics that

In this way, it's not ethics that has to judge the actions of a

has to judge the actions of a

has to judge the actions of a government or delimit them based on whether

government or delimit them based on whether

government or delimit them based on whether or not they adapt to certain

or not they adapt to certain

or not they adapt to certain moral assumptions. Instead, action and

moral assumptions. Instead, action and

moral assumptions. Instead, action and prudence are what limits and delimits

prudence are what limits and delimits

prudence are what limits and delimits ethics in the field of

ethics in the field of

ethics in the field of international relations.

If all these principles are a

If all these principles are a direct blow to Wilson's idealism, it

direct blow to Wilson's idealism, it

direct blow to Wilson's idealism, it seems to me that this is the one that is most striking

seems to me that this is the one that is most striking

seems to me that this is the one that is most striking above all, right?

Principle number five says that

Principle number five says that political realism, and this is also a

political realism, and this is also a

political realism, and this is also a blow to Wilson, political realism

blow to Wilson, political realism

blow to Wilson, political realism refuses to identify aspirations.

refuses to identify aspirations.

refuses to identify aspirations. morals of a single nation

morals of a single nation

morals of a single nation and in particular with the precepts with

and in particular with the precepts with

and in particular with the precepts with the universal moral precepts.

the universal moral precepts.

the universal moral precepts. Uh, it says that if we consider all

Uh, it says that if we consider all

Uh, it says that if we consider all nations as political entities, right?,

nations as political entities, right?,

nations as political entities, right?, in pursuit of their respective interests that

in pursuit of their respective interests that

in pursuit of their respective interests that are understood in terms of

are understood in terms of

are understood in terms of maximizing power. Then, we

maximizing power. Then, we

maximizing power. Then, we can judge other nations in the

can judge other nations in the

can judge other nations in the same way as we judge our own,

same way as we judge our own,

same way as we judge our own, right? I mean, only on that basis

right? I mean, only on that basis

right? I mean, only on that basis can it be done and not on the basis of another

can it be done and not on the basis of another

can it be done and not on the basis of another type of morality.

type of morality.

type of morality. Uh, and in that way it will be

Uh, and in that way it will be

Uh, and in that way it will be possible to carry out policies that

possible to carry out policies that

possible to carry out policies that respect the interests of other nations

respect the interests of other nations

respect the interests of other nations while protecting and promoting our

while protecting and promoting our

while protecting and promoting our own.

own.

own. In politics. So, moderation uh

In politics. So, moderation uh

In politics. So, moderation uh is limited uh to moral judgment, right?

is limited uh to moral judgment, right?

is limited uh to moral judgment, right? Basically.

Basically.

Basically. And principle number six understands that it

And principle number six understands that it

And principle number six understands that it understands politics, sorry,

understands politics, sorry,

understands politics, sorry, principle number six understands

principle number six understands

principle number six understands politics as an autonomous sphere

politics as an autonomous sphere

politics as an autonomous sphere with respect to the others. And this goes a bit

with respect to the others. And this goes a bit

with respect to the others. And this goes a bit against what we were saying before, right?

against what we were saying before, right?

against what we were saying before, right? As a

As a

As a way of also beginning to think

way of also beginning to think

way of also beginning to think of foreign policy as a part

of foreign policy as a part

of foreign policy as a part of public policy,

of public policy,

of public policy, because in this way it is understood that

because in this way it is understood that

because in this way it is understood that foreign policy is not can be

foreign policy is not can be

foreign policy is not can be subordinated to other parameters of

subordinated to other parameters of

subordinated to other parameters of thought, right? Like the economic or the

thought, right? Like the economic or the

thought, right? Like the economic or the moral. Uh, it's something autonomous and

moral. Uh, it's something autonomous and

moral. Uh, it's something autonomous and separate

separate

separate uh in the political parameters. It is

uh in the political parameters. It is

uh in the political parameters. It is mainly for this reason that it

mainly for this reason that it

mainly for this reason that it differs from other schools of

differs from other schools of

differs from other schools of thought, right?, which tend to be uh

thought, right?, which tend to be uh

thought, right?, which tend to be uh the above, for example, the

the above, for example, the

the above, for example, the more like uh legalistic,

more like uh legalistic,

more like uh legalistic, moralistic approach to international politics.

moralistic approach to international politics.

moralistic approach to international politics. This implies that each modality of

This implies that each modality of

This implies that each modality of thought has its own sphere and

thought has its own sphere and

thought has its own sphere and function, right? Like the economic sphere,

function, right? Like the economic sphere,

function, right? Like the economic sphere, right? And that human nature uh follows

right? And that human nature uh follows

right? And that human nature uh follows these uh follows these precepts,

these uh follows these precepts,

these uh follows these precepts, following these precepts. Is that it

following these precepts. Is that it

following these precepts. Is that it becomes truly pluralistic, right? But

becomes truly pluralistic, right? But

becomes truly pluralistic, right? But in a differentiated way. Uh, man

in a differentiated way. Uh, man

in a differentiated way. Uh, man as real, philosophically speaking, is

as real, philosophically speaking, is

as real, philosophically speaking, is a combination of different spheres that

a combination of different spheres that

a combination of different spheres that act separately, uh, which is the

act separately, uh, which is the

act separately, uh, which is the economic man, the political man, the

economic man, the political man, the

economic man, the political man, the moral man, right?, etc. So,

moral man, right?, etc. So,

moral man, right?, etc. So, the political man is a sphere

the political man is a sphere

the political man is a sphere differentiated from the others and must be

differentiated from the others and must be

differentiated from the others and must be understood under the rules that

understood under the rules that

understood under the rules that govern it, uh, and not influenced or

govern it, uh, and not influenced or

govern it, uh, and not influenced or subordinated to the other spheres, right?

subordinated to the other spheres, right?

subordinated to the other spheres, right? That's also why the whole

That's also why the whole

That's also why the whole foundation that

foundation that

foundation that international politics is one thing and

international politics is one thing and

international politics is one thing and universal moral precepts are

universal moral precepts are

universal moral precepts are another. So, no, universal moral precepts

another. So, no, universal moral precepts

another. So, no, universal moral precepts cannot subordinate

cannot subordinate

cannot subordinate international politics, because

international politics, because

international politics, because international politics is governed by other

international politics is governed by other

international politics is governed by other rules

rules

rules based on an empirical study of the

based on an empirical study of the

based on an empirical study of the facts.

facts.

facts. The fourth principle would justify the

The fourth principle would justify the

The fourth principle would justify the launching of the atomic bomb in

launching of the atomic bomb in

launching of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. 1 2 3 four,

Hiroshima. 1 2 3 four,

Hiroshima. 1 2 3 four, universal moral principles

universal moral principles

universal moral principles cannot be applied to the acts of

cannot be applied to the acts of

cannot be applied to the acts of states. Why? I did

states. Why? I did

states. Why? I did n't understand the comment.

n't understand the comment.

n't understand the comment. Uh, if you feel like writing and

Uh, if you feel like writing and

Uh, if you feel like writing and going deeper, uh, continue.

going deeper, uh, continue.

going deeper, uh, continue. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, fine.

fine.

fine. In the second part of his book, uh,

In the second part of his book, uh,

In the second part of his book, uh, Morgentó is going to tell us that

Morgentó is going to tell us that

Morgentó is going to tell us that like all politics,

like all politics,

like all politics, international politics implies a struggle for

international politics implies a struggle for

international politics implies a struggle for power.

power.

power. [Music]

[Music]

[Music] and that no matter what the

and that no matter what the

and that no matter what the ultimate ends of international politics are, that

ultimate ends of international politics are, that

ultimate ends of international politics are, that is, why a policy is executed

is, why a policy is executed

is, why a policy is executed , power will always be the

, power will always be the

, power will always be the immediate objective, since uh it is

immediate objective, since uh it is

immediate objective, since uh it is understood as the means to achieve the

understood as the means to achieve the

understood as the means to achieve the purposes of a nation.

purposes of a nation.

purposes of a nation. And in this way, he's going to seek to

And in this way, he's going to seek to

And in this way, he's going to seek to characterize or define

characterize or define

characterize or define what power is,

what power is,

what power is, which, uh, is ultimately the object of

which, uh, is ultimately the object of

which, uh, is ultimately the object of analysis, right? The object of study of

analysis, right? The object of study of

analysis, right? The object of study of any political study,

any political study,

any political study, uh, is often associated with the

uh, is often associated with the

uh, is often associated with the notion of power of classical realism. You

notion of power of classical realism. You

notion of power of classical realism. You 'll find this with

'll find this with

'll find this with material factors, right? This is very similar to the

material factors, right? This is very similar to the

material factors, right? This is very similar to the classical geopolitics class,

classical geopolitics class,

classical geopolitics class, uh, with military force, right? More

uh, with military force, right? More

uh, with military force, right? More specifically.

specifically.

specifically. But the reality is that Morgentó doesn't say

But the reality is that Morgentó doesn't say

But the reality is that Morgentó doesn't say that; he doesn't say that power is

that; he doesn't say that power is

that; he doesn't say that power is military power. On the contrary,

military power. On the contrary,

military power. On the contrary, when Morgentó tries to

when Morgentó tries to

when Morgentó tries to define what power is, what he's going

define what power is, what he's going

define what power is, what he's going to highlight is the relational aspect of

to highlight is the relational aspect of

to highlight is the relational aspect of power. According to him, when one refers to

power. According to him, when one refers to

power. According to him, when one refers to what power is, one refers to the control

what power is, one refers to the control

what power is, one refers to the control of man over the minds and

of man over the minds and

of man over the minds and actions of other men, right? uh, it's

actions of other men, right? uh, it's

actions of other men, right? uh, it's making others do what one wants.

making others do what one wants.

making others do what one wants. Therefore, it's a

Therefore, it's a

Therefore, it's a psychological relationship, it's the ability to impose one's

psychological relationship, it's the ability to impose one's

psychological relationship, it's the ability to impose one's will on another. uh, it's a

will on another. uh, it's a

will on another. uh, it's a relationship between the one who exercises power and the

relationship between the one who exercises power and the

relationship between the one who exercises power and the other. or those over whom it is

other. or those over whom it is

other. or those over whom it is exercised. And therefore, military power

exercised. And therefore, military power

exercised. And therefore, military power is nothing more than a form of exercising

is nothing more than a form of exercising

is nothing more than a form of exercising political power, but not the only one,

political power, but not the only one,

political power, but not the only one, because power is why he doesn't make

because power is why he doesn't make

because power is why he doesn't make such a concrete characterization, because

such a concrete characterization, because

such a concrete characterization, because he seeks to create a theory that is

he seeks to create a theory that is

he seeks to create a theory that is applicable in time and space,

applicable in time and space,

applicable in time and space, right? I mean, at different moments in

right? I mean, at different moments in

right? I mean, at different moments in history and at different moments in

history and at different moments in

history and at different moments in history, power can be

history, power can be

history, power can be different things.

different things.

different things. Uh, applying a tariff policy

Uh, applying a tariff policy

Uh, applying a tariff policy is also power and it's not necessarily

is also power and it's not necessarily

is also power and it's not necessarily military power, right? There's no deployment

military power, right? There's no deployment

military power, right? There's no deployment of forces. There's a relationship between

of forces. There's a relationship between

of forces. There's a relationship between them, certainly the same, right? Also, uh,

them, certainly the same, right? Also, uh,

them, certainly the same, right? Also, uh, but the tools of power can

but the tools of power can

but the tools of power can be different as long as they achieve the

be different as long as they achieve the

be different as long as they achieve the objective, which is for the other person to do what

objective, which is for the other person to do what

objective, which is for the other person to do what I want them to do.

I want them to do.

I want them to do. And maybe not even explicitly,

And maybe not even explicitly,

And maybe not even explicitly, right? I mean, maybe it can be achieved in

right? I mean, maybe it can be achieved in

right? I mean, maybe it can be achieved in a much more camouflaged way.

a much more camouflaged way.

a much more camouflaged way. And continuing along this line of what

And continuing along this line of what

And continuing along this line of what the exercise of power entails and how

the exercise of power entails and how

the exercise of power entails and how international politics is the struggle

international politics is the struggle

international politics is the struggle for power, Morgentó says that

for power, Morgentó says that

for power, Morgentó says that any policy responds to at least

any policy responds to at least

any policy responds to at least three basic models or three

three basic models or three

three basic models or three basic types, right? Which is to maintain the Power,

basic types, right? Which is to maintain the Power,

basic types, right? Which is to maintain the Power, increasing power, or demonstrating power.

increasing power, or demonstrating power.

increasing power, or demonstrating power. Uh, I mean, all policies can

Uh, I mean, all policies can

Uh, I mean, all policies can be characterized in this way.

be characterized in this way.

be characterized in this way. And those characterizations that

And those characterizations that

And those characterizations that can be made of any type of

can be made of any type of

can be made of any type of policy, uh, correspond in turn to

policy, uh, correspond in turn to

policy, uh, correspond in turn to three specific types of

three specific types of

three specific types of international politics: the struggle for

international politics: the struggle for

international politics: the struggle for power in the format of preserving the

power in the format of preserving the

power in the format of preserving the status quo, right? That is, carrying

status quo, right? That is, carrying

status quo, right? That is, carrying out a foreign policy that seeks to

out a foreign policy that seeks to

out a foreign policy that seeks to conserve power, not maintain power,

conserve power, not maintain power,

conserve power, not maintain power, and avoid alterations in its distribution

and avoid alterations in its distribution

and avoid alterations in its distribution that result in a detriment to one's

that result in a detriment to one's

that result in a detriment to one's position. Although this doesn't necessarily

position. Although this doesn't necessarily

position. Although this doesn't necessarily mean avoiding change, right?

mean avoiding change, right?

mean avoiding change, right? Internationally, uh, it may

Internationally, uh, it may

Internationally, uh, it may end up adapting to change and

end up adapting to change and

end up adapting to change and still maintaining the power one had.

still maintaining the power one had.

still maintaining the power one had. Uh, for example, another example

Uh, for example, another example

Uh, for example, another example of a status quo policy could

of a status quo policy could

of a status quo policy could be the United States' Monro Doctrine,

be the United States' Monro Doctrine,

be the United States' Monro Doctrine, which was based on the well-known phrase "

which was based on the well-known phrase "

which was based on the well-known phrase " America for Americans," uh, with

America for Americans," uh, with

America for Americans," uh, with the purpose basically of avoiding

the purpose basically of avoiding

the purpose basically of avoiding European interference in the

European interference in the

European interference in the American continent and maintaining a balance of

American continent and maintaining a balance of

American continent and maintaining a balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. Uh,

power in the Western Hemisphere. Uh,

power in the Western Hemisphere. Uh, the struggle for power in an imperialist format,

the struggle for power in an imperialist format,

uh, means carrying out a

uh, means carrying out a foreign policy aimed at increasing the

foreign policy aimed at increasing the

foreign policy aimed at increasing the Power, right? By altering the

Power, right? By altering the

Power, right? By altering the current structure and reversing

current structure and reversing

current structure and reversing existing power relations. Uh, that doctrine wasn't

existing power relations. Uh, that doctrine wasn't

existing power relations. Uh, that doctrine wasn't fulfilled with the Malvinas Islands, no, not at all. It's that

fulfilled with the Malvinas Islands, no, not at all. It's that

fulfilled with the Malvinas Islands, no, not at all. It's that that doctrine responded to

that doctrine responded to

that doctrine responded to American interests, not

American interests, not

American interests, not necessarily to

necessarily to

necessarily to Argentine interests. Uh,

Argentine interests. Uh,

Argentine interests. Uh, and, even in what happened with the

and, even in what happened with the

and, even in what happened with the Malvinas War, not only was

Malvinas War, not only was

Malvinas War, not only was the doctrine broken, but

the doctrine broken, but

the doctrine broken, but the TIAR, the Inter-American Treaty of

the TIAR, the Inter-American Treaty of

the TIAR, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, was broken, that is, it

Reciprocal Assistance, was broken, that is, it

Reciprocal Assistance, was broken, that is, it was directly a treaty by which the United

was directly a treaty by which the United

was directly a treaty by which the United States should have assisted us

States should have assisted us

States should have assisted us in the war. Uh, and it was broken with the

in the war. Uh, and it was broken with the

in the war. Uh, and it was broken with the Malvinas War. Uh,

Malvinas War. Uh,

Malvinas War. Uh, but in America they have Great Britain. I did

but in America they have Great Britain. I did

but in America they have Great Britain. I did n't understand that part. Uh, well, but

n't understand that part. Uh, well, but

n't understand that part. Uh, well, but that's where you see that

that's where you see that

that's where you see that what we were saying about

what we were saying about

what we were saying about colonial policies still existing, uh, maybe they

colonial policies still existing, uh, maybe they

colonial policies still existing, uh, maybe they 're not as explicit as before. Yes, I

're not as explicit as before. Yes, I

're not as explicit as before. Yes, I was saying that it wasn't, it was that the vaccine wasn't in

was saying that it wasn't, it was that the vaccine wasn't in

was saying that it wasn't, it was that the vaccine wasn't in lines because we have Great Britain

lines because we have Great Britain

lines because we have Great Britain here

here

here on the islands and that precisely the United

on the islands and that precisely the United

on the islands and that precisely the United States, I understand, deliberately

States, I understand, deliberately

States, I understand, deliberately let it pass for its own interests,

let it pass for its own interests,

let it pass for its own interests, right?

right?

right? But Well, there is a

But Well, there is a

But Well, there is a strategic alliance, right? In that sense,

strategic alliance, right? In that sense,

what was I going to tell you? That's why I was telling you that it was

what was I going to tell you? That's why I was telling you that it was n't fulfilled because the

n't fulfilled because the

n't fulfilled because the Monro Doctrine responded to

Monro Doctrine responded to

Monro Doctrine responded to American interests, which was to avoid, at a

American interests, which was to avoid, at a

American interests, which was to avoid, at a given moment in history,

given moment in history,

given moment in history, European interference in the continent

European interference in the continent

European interference in the continent in a way that would challenge its

in a way that would challenge its

in a way that would challenge its continental hegemony, while in this case, as a

continental hegemony, while in this case, as a

continental hegemony, while in this case, as a result of an alliance with Great Britain, it doesn't

result of an alliance with Great Britain, it doesn't

result of an alliance with Great Britain, it doesn't challenge it, right? That's what I was

challenge it, right? That's what I was

challenge it, right? That's what I was going for.

going for.

As I was saying, a foreign policy

As I was saying, a foreign policy oriented toward increasing power, increasing it

oriented toward increasing power, increasing it

oriented toward increasing power, increasing it , increasing the

, increasing the

, increasing the current structure, is what correlates with

current structure, is what correlates with

current structure, is what correlates with a type of international policy based

a type of international policy based

a type of international policy based on an imperialist type, right? That seeks to

on an imperialist type, right? That seeks to

on an imperialist type, right? That seeks to reverse the existing conditions of power

reverse the existing conditions of power

reverse the existing conditions of power between nations. Today I

between nations. Today I

between nations. Today I could even,

could even,

could even, as this is my opinion, right?

as this is my opinion, right?

as this is my opinion, right? But the truth is that

But the truth is that

But the truth is that increasing power, right? To reverse

increasing power, right? To reverse

increasing power, right? To reverse the current power structures does not

the current power structures does not

the current power structures does not necessarily imply carrying out

necessarily imply carrying out

necessarily imply carrying out an imperial policy. The truth is that

an imperial policy. The truth is that

an imperial policy. The truth is that I would discuss this with a Morgentó.

I would discuss this with a Morgentó.

I would discuss this with a Morgentó. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, that's a colonial imperialist vision

that's a colonial imperialist vision

that's a colonial imperialist vision , isn't it? Ultimately,

, isn't it? Ultimately,

, isn't it? Ultimately, while

while

while not

not

not every form of conducting politics necessarily has to

every form of conducting politics necessarily has to

every form of conducting politics necessarily has to have those ends, and not

have those ends, and not

have those ends, and not every policy of increasing

every policy of increasing

every policy of increasing power and trying to reverse the

power and trying to reverse the

power and trying to reverse the current structure that

current structure that

current structure that conditions one, uh, has to entail

conditions one, uh, has to entail

conditions one, uh, has to entail domination over another.

domination over another.

domination over another. Uh, from what I understand,

Uh, from what I understand,

Uh, from what I understand, moral principles refer to respect, justice,

moral principles refer to respect, justice,

moral principles refer to respect, justice, truth, etc., etc. And if a

truth, etc., etc. And if a

truth, etc., etc. And if a state acts without taking them into account,

state acts without taking them into account,

state acts without taking them into account, then it can apply the policy of

then it can apply the policy of

then it can apply the policy of anything goes. That is, there would be no rules or

anything goes. That is, there would be no rules or

anything goes. That is, there would be no rules or principles to respect. That's why I

principles to respect. That's why I

principles to respect. That's why I remembered Hiroshima only as an opinion.

remembered Hiroshima only as an opinion.

remembered Hiroshima only as an opinion. Perfect, Diego. Uh, now I understand you.

Perfect, Diego. Uh, now I understand you.

Perfect, Diego. Uh, now I understand you. Uh,

and well, and finally, what we have is

and well, and finally, what we have is uh a struggle for power, right? In the

uh a struggle for power, right? In the

uh a struggle for power, right? In the format of prestige, which uh supposes a

format of prestige, which uh supposes a

format of prestige, which uh supposes a foreign policy that tends to make a

foreign policy that tends to make a

foreign policy that tends to make a demonstration of power uh as an

demonstration of power uh as an

demonstration of power uh as an instrument to achieve the ends capable

instrument to achieve the ends capable

instrument to achieve the ends capable of both previous types, right? That is,

of both previous types, right? That is,

of both previous types, right? That is, through the use of diplomacy or the

through the use of diplomacy or the

through the use of diplomacy or the deployment of forces with the objective of

deployment of forces with the objective of

deployment of forces with the objective of Gaining enough of a reputation to make

Gaining enough of a reputation to make

Gaining enough of a reputation to make the concrete use of power

the concrete use of power

the concrete use of power unnecessary. We can't imagine the

unnecessary. We can't imagine the

unnecessary. We can't imagine the number of US military bases

number of US military bases

number of US military bases in the world. It's

in the world. It's

in the world. It's a prestige policy, so to

a prestige policy, so to

a prestige policy, so to speak, that directly conditions

speak, that directly conditions

speak, that directly conditions the actions of other states

the actions of other states

the actions of other states because it's visible.

because it's visible.

And it leads the United States to not necessarily have to

deploy, to enter into

deploy, to enter into conflicts because there's already something latent, there

conflicts because there's already something latent, there

conflicts because there's already something latent, there 's no demonstration of

's no demonstration of

's no demonstration of latent power.

latent power.

latent power. And something else to highlight about

And something else to highlight about

And something else to highlight about Morgenton's thinking is his

Morgenton's thinking is his

Morgenton's thinking is his conception of peace, right? Which is

conception of peace, right? Which is

conception of peace, right? Which is closely linked to his notion of

closely linked to his notion of

closely linked to his notion of international order, which we're going to

international order, which we're going to

international order, which we're going to discuss now.

discuss now.

discuss now. For him, the pursuit of

For him, the pursuit of

For him, the pursuit of national interests, which are not essential for

national interests, which are not essential for

national interests, which are not essential for national survival, is what

national survival, is what

national survival, is what contributes to international conflict,

contributes to international conflict,

contributes to international conflict, such as, for example, we've already

such as, for example, we've already

such as, for example, we've already mentioned, the intervention in

mentioned, the intervention in

mentioned, the intervention in affairs in regions that are not vital

affairs in regions that are not vital

affairs in regions that are not vital for security, for example,

for security, for example,

for security, for example, right? Vietnam.

right? Vietnam.

right? Vietnam. Well,

Well,

Well, and following the line of this notion,

and following the line of this notion,

and following the line of this notion, right?, of international order, which we already

right?, of international order, which we already

right?, of international order, which we already began, right?, to outline a bit

began, right?, to outline a bit

began, right?, to outline a bit when we looked at the realist political tradition

when we looked at the realist political tradition

when we looked at the realist political tradition that predates this

that predates this

that predates this theoretical development. And of the discipline of

theoretical development. And of the discipline of

theoretical development. And of the discipline of international relations in general,

international relations in general,

international relations in general, Morgentau is also going to discuss a bit

Morgentau is also going to discuss a bit

Morgentau is also going to discuss a bit in his book regarding the balance of

in his book regarding the balance of

in his book regarding the balance of power, understood as a type of

power, understood as a type of

power, understood as a type of international order.

international order.

international order. The idea of equilibrium

The idea of equilibrium

The idea of equilibrium , which comes more from the

, which comes more from the

, which comes more from the natural sciences, right? And which later permeated

natural sciences, right? And which later permeated

natural sciences, right? And which later permeated all the social sciences. That's why

all the social sciences. That's why

all the social sciences. That's why in economics we always talk about the

in economics we always talk about the

in economics we always talk about the equilibrium point, although

equilibrium point, although

equilibrium point, although the equilibrium point never exists. The idea of

the equilibrium point never exists. The idea of

the equilibrium point never exists. The idea of equilibrium means

equilibrium means

equilibrium means stability within a system

stability within a system

stability within a system composed of autonomous forces, right? In

composed of autonomous forces, right? In

composed of autonomous forces, right? In this framework of

this framework of

this framework of international politics. If this equilibrium is

international politics. If this equilibrium is

international politics. If this equilibrium is disturbed by an external force or by

disturbed by an external force or by

disturbed by an external force or by a change in any of the elements that

a change in any of the elements that

a change in any of the elements that make up the system, whether by carrying

make up the system, whether by carrying

make up the system, whether by carrying out the political types that

out the political types that

out the political types that we saw here, right? For example,

we saw here, right? For example,

we saw here, right? For example, in

in

in this system, right? What it will tend to do

this system, right? What it will tend to do

this system, right? What it will tend to do is reestablish the old equilibrium or

is reestablish the old equilibrium or

is reestablish the old equilibrium or establish a new one.

establish a new one.

establish a new one. Of course, while Morgentau didn't

Of course, while Morgentau didn't

Of course, while Morgentau didn't invent the concept because it

invent the concept because it

invent the concept because it was already a

was already a

was already a diplomatic principle that had originated in the

diplomatic principle that had originated in the

diplomatic principle that had originated in the 10th century and that even

10th century and that even

10th century and that even reappeared in 1815 with the Congress of

reappeared in 1815 with the Congress of

reappeared in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna, which is what brought order to

Vienna, which is what brought order to

Vienna, which is what brought order to Europe after the

Europe after the

Europe after the Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleonic Wars. Uh, so, the balance of power

Uh, so, the balance of power

Uh, so, the balance of power was already a very current European concept. Uh,

was already a very current European concept. Uh,

was already a very current European concept. Uh, what Morgentó did was systematize it

what Morgentó did was systematize it

what Morgentó did was systematize it theoretically and bring it to a

theoretically and bring it to a

theoretically and bring it to a more global scale.

more global scale.

more global scale. Uh, and in the face of the persistent,

Uh, and in the face of the persistent,

Uh, and in the face of the persistent, right, competitive dynamic of the system,

right, competitive dynamic of the system,

right, competitive dynamic of the system, Morgentó considered the balance of

Morgentó considered the balance of

Morgentó considered the balance of power to be the most effective technique. It is effective in

power to be the most effective technique. It is effective in

power to be the most effective technique. It is effective in managing power in an

managing power in an

managing power in an international system, since it was what

international system, since it was what

international system, since it was what limited national power.

limited national power.

limited national power. Their purpose was not to maintain the

Their purpose was not to maintain the

Their purpose was not to maintain the stability of the system without destroying the

stability of the system without destroying the

stability of the system without destroying the multiplicity of elements that

multiplicity of elements that

multiplicity of elements that compose it, right? That is, that is why you must, you

compose it, right? That is, that is why you must, you

compose it, right? That is, that is why you must, you must ensure that no element gains

must ensure that no element gains

must ensure that no element gains ascendancy, ascendancy over

ascendancy, ascendancy over

ascendancy, ascendancy over all the others, eh, because that way

all the others, eh, because that way

all the others, eh, because that way each one perceives their

each one perceives their

each one perceives their tendencies, right? to the point where

tendencies, right? to the point where

tendencies, right? to the point where one is not so strong that he surpasses

one is not so strong that he surpasses

one is not so strong that he surpasses the others, but

the others, but

the others, but strong enough to prevent the

strong enough to prevent the

strong enough to prevent the others from surpassing him, right? Which

others from surpassing him, right? Which

others from surpassing him, right? Which corresponds to the interest in

corresponds to the interest in

corresponds to the interest in survival. It would be like

survival. It would be like

survival. It would be like a regulatory mechanism of the

a regulatory mechanism of the

a regulatory mechanism of the system and that regulatory mechanism

system and that regulatory mechanism

system and that regulatory mechanism always ends up concluding

always ends up concluding

always ends up concluding with a war that reestablishes

with a war that reestablishes

with a war that reestablishes some kind of balance.

some kind of balance.

some kind of balance. However, I think I don't even remember,

However, I think I don't even remember,

However, I think I don't even remember, but I had read a story, a

but I had read a story, a

but I had read a story, a story I had read a paper that I

story I had read a paper that I

story I had read a paper that I don't remember now by which author and that

don't remember now by which author and that

don't remember now by which author and that basically what it did was demonstrate

basically what it did was demonstrate

basically what it did was demonstrate that in all the transitions of international order

that in all the transitions of international order

like the one we are experiencing

like the one we are experiencing now, right?,

now, right?,

now, right?, eh all those transitions had

eh all those transitions had

eh all those transitions had ended, had culminated in some

ended, had culminated in some

ended, had culminated in some type of war eh and that the only eh

type of war eh and that the only eh

type of war eh and that the only eh like the passing of the baton, right?, of

like the passing of the baton, right?, of

like the passing of the baton, right?, of world hegemonies, right? that at some

world hegemonies, right? that at some

world hegemonies, right? that at some point it was Great Britain, well,

point it was Great Britain, well,

point it was Great Britain, well, later it was the United States, nah, eh, and

later it was the United States, nah, eh, and

later it was the United States, nah, eh, and that the only one that hadn't ended, that

that the only one that hadn't ended, that

that the only one that hadn't ended, that only relay that hadn't

only relay that hadn't

only relay that hadn't ended in war between the

ended in war between the

ended in war between the main powers was the relay

main powers was the relay

main powers was the relay from British hegemony to

from British hegemony to

from British hegemony to American hegemony, because

American hegemony, because

American hegemony, because in that process it meant a strategic alliance

in that process it meant a strategic alliance

in that process it meant a strategic alliance that favors that one could

that favors that one could

that favors that one could argue that it favors one more than the

argue that it favors one more than the

argue that it favors one more than the other, but the truth is that

No, no, it's not like it meant the

No, no, it's not like it meant the destruction of Great Britain.

destruction of Great Britain.

destruction of Great Britain. Uh, however,

Uh, however,

Uh, however, even to this day, uh, it's

even to this day, uh, it's

even to this day, uh, it's the same company. Clear. Defining what

the same company. Clear. Defining what

the same company. Clear. Defining what balance of power actually is is

balance of power actually is is

balance of power actually is is very difficult, since it's a

very difficult, since it's a

very difficult, since it's a very vague concept with multiple meanings.

very vague concept with multiple meanings.

very vague concept with multiple meanings. I feel like every time I'm

I feel like every time I'm

I feel like every time I'm teaching them I'm telling them the same thing. It

teaching them I'm telling them the same thing. It

teaching them I'm telling them the same thing. It cannot be defined, it is infused and has

cannot be defined, it is infused and has

cannot be defined, it is infused and has many meanings. Eh, but that's

many meanings. Eh, but that's

many meanings. Eh, but that's because authors use it in

because authors use it in

because authors use it in different ways many times. So, for

different ways many times. So, for

different ways many times. So, for example, when one reads Morgentó,

example, when one reads Morgentó,

example, when one reads Morgentó, eh, one can understand the balance of

eh, one can understand the balance of

eh, one can understand the balance of power as a policy oriented toward a

power as a policy oriented toward a

power as a policy oriented toward a certain state of affairs or as a

certain state of affairs or as a

certain state of affairs or as a concrete state of affairs or as a

concrete state of affairs or as a

concrete state of affairs or as a distribution of power that is more or less

distribution of power that is more or less

distribution of power that is more or less equal among all the elements or as

equal among all the elements or as

equal among all the elements or as any type of distribution of power,

any type of distribution of power,

any type of distribution of power, even if it is unstable, right? Other authors will

even if it is unstable, right? Other authors will

even if it is unstable, right? Other authors will even use the concept to

even use the concept to

even use the concept to talk about the process of balancing

talk about the process of balancing

talk about the process of balancing toward a type of order, eh, or a

toward a type of order, eh, or a

toward a type of order, eh, or a balance of peace as a synonym for a

balance of peace as a synonym for a

balance of peace as a synonym for a moment of stability or peace or a

moment of stability or peace or a

moment of stability or peace or a moment of instability or war,

moment of instability or war,

moment of instability or war, right?, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And

right?, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And

right?, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And the concept is used, isn't it?,

the concept is used, isn't it?,

the concept is used, isn't it?, to connote either balance or

to connote either balance or

to connote either balance or imbalance or any distribution

imbalance or any distribution

imbalance or any distribution of power, whether balanced or not. No? Uh,

of power, whether balanced or not. No? Uh,

of power, whether balanced or not. No? Uh, or even like a kind of politics, right?

or even like a kind of politics, right?

or even like a kind of politics, right? This actor pursues a foreign policy

This actor pursues a foreign policy

This actor pursues a foreign policy oriented towards a balance of power.

oriented towards a balance of power.

oriented towards a balance of power. Eh, that's why it's complex sometimes and

Eh, that's why it's complex sometimes and

Eh, that's why it's complex sometimes and just like what happened to us with the word

just like what happened to us with the word

just like what happened to us with the word geopolitics, what's interesting is

geopolitics, what's interesting is

geopolitics, what's interesting is when one encounters this word at

when one encounters this word at

when one encounters this word at some point to position oneself as the

some point to position oneself as the

some point to position oneself as the actor who enunciates it and say, well,

actor who enunciates it and say, well,

actor who enunciates it and say, well, from what place are they saying it, with

from what place are they saying it, with

from what place are they saying it, with what objectives, with what ends, with what

what objectives, with what ends, with what

what objectives, with what ends, with what reading.

reading.

reading. eh precisely because of this problem that

eh precisely because of this problem that

eh precisely because of this problem that we have. But

we have. But

we have. But what happened with Iran, which was bombed

what happened with Iran, which was bombed

what happened with Iran, which was bombed to prevent technological development in Iran, is good for Morgentó, and it

to prevent technological development in Iran, is good for Morgentó, and it

to prevent technological development in Iran, is good for Morgentó, and it alters the balance of power in the

alters the balance of power in the

alters the balance of power in the region, right? Luckily, you're going to have

region, right? Luckily, you're going to have

region, right? Luckily, you're going to have a Middle Eastern subject who will be

a Middle Eastern subject who will be

a Middle Eastern subject who will be able to answer that question much better

able to answer that question much better

able to answer that question much better than I can. I

than I can. I

than I can. I couldn't tell you if it's really for

couldn't tell you if it's really for

couldn't tell you if it's really for a balance in the region, because the

a balance in the region, because the

a balance in the region, because the truth is that the justification for

truth is that the justification for

truth is that the justification for interventions in the Middle East

interventions in the Middle East

interventions in the Middle East based on alleged

based on alleged

based on alleged nuclear developments can also be quite

nuclear developments can also be quite

nuclear developments can also be quite questionable, I would say.

questionable, I would say.

questionable, I would say. For 10 years now, Netahu has been saying,

For 10 years now, Netahu has been saying,

For 10 years now, Netahu has been saying, "In 10 days, Iran will have the

"In 10 days, Iran will have the

"In 10 days, Iran will have the atomic bomb." And that's what the media says.

atomic bomb." And that's what the media says.

atomic bomb." And that's what the media says. Just like that. Yes. It is and is what the

Just like that. Yes. It is and is what the

Just like that. Yes. It is and is what the geopolitical discourses of certain

geopolitical discourses of certain

geopolitical discourses of certain actors with certain interests. Eh,

actors with certain interests. Eh,

actors with certain interests. Eh, but save that question and I would tell you to

but save that question and I would tell you to

but save that question and I would tell you to ask it directly to the

ask it directly to the

ask it directly to the Middle Eastern teachers, eh, who will be

Middle Eastern teachers, eh, who will be

Middle Eastern teachers, eh, who will be able to give you much more

able to give you much more

able to give you much more complex answers than I can. Eh, but well, for

complex answers than I can. Eh, but well, for

complex answers than I can. Eh, but well, for Morgentó, eh, so it

Morgentó, eh, so it

Morgentó, eh, so it 's not the balance of power

's not the balance of power

's not the balance of power itself, right? I mean, not as a result of

itself, right? I mean, not as a result of

itself, right? I mean, not as a result of that balance of power, but the

that balance of power, but the

that balance of power, but the international consensus that is formed, right?

international consensus that is formed, right?

international consensus that is formed, right? Or on and upon which

Or on and upon which

Or on and upon which that balance is built, which actually

that balance is built, which actually

that balance is built, which actually preserves international peace.

preserves international peace.

preserves international peace. eh, it's the acceptance, right?, of the

eh, it's the acceptance, right?, of the

eh, it's the acceptance, right?, of the elements with respect to a certain

elements with respect to a certain

elements with respect to a certain balance.

balance.

balance. Hey, if you don't accept it, there's no

Hey, if you don't accept it, there's no

Hey, if you don't accept it, there's no balance. Eh, because the idea of

balance. Eh, because the idea of

balance. Eh, because the idea of balance is based, eh, on the fear of

balance is based, eh, on the fear of

balance is based, eh, on the fear of attack, right? Directly. And it

attack, right? Directly. And it

attack, right? Directly. And it then assumes that every nation has to be

then assumes that every nation has to be

then assumes that every nation has to be prepared for war.

prepared for war.

prepared for war. eh, it cannot be considered in itself in

eh, it cannot be considered in itself in

eh, it cannot be considered in itself in a real sense as a guarantee for

a real sense as a guarantee for

a real sense as a guarantee for international peace, but it can for an

international peace, but it can for an

international peace, but it can for an unstable peace, right? Because the

unstable peace, right? Because the

unstable peace, right? Because the anarchic nature of the international system is

anarchic nature of the international system is

anarchic nature of the international system is precisely what makes the only

precisely what makes the only

precisely what makes the only guarantee for unstable peace the

guarantee for unstable peace the

guarantee for unstable peace the balance of power and not

balance of power and not

balance of power and not international law, since only power

international law, since only power

international law, since only power can restrain power, right? And that's

can restrain power, right? And that's

can restrain power, right? And that's where we also return to the first

where we also return to the first

where we also return to the first principle, as power is the measure of

principle, as power is the measure of

principle, as power is the measure of all things. Interests are

all things. Interests are

all things. Interests are defined in terms of power. This is

defined in terms of power. This is

defined in terms of power. This is the whole Morgentón theory.

the whole Morgentón theory.

the whole Morgentón theory. Eh,

Eh,

Eh, but the reality is that while in

but the reality is that while in

but the reality is that while in theory, right?, the balance of power,

theory, right?, the balance of power,

theory, right?, the balance of power, right?, and that consensus helped preserve

right?, and that consensus helped preserve

right?, and that consensus helped preserve peace and state sovereignty,

peace and state sovereignty,

peace and state sovereignty, as Morgentón said, in practice,

as Morgentón said, in practice,

as Morgentón said, in practice, the exercise of said policy

the exercise of said policy

the exercise of said policy also often gave way to

also often gave way to

also often gave way to war.

war.

war. Eh, so from that place it can be

Eh, so from that place it can be

Eh, so from that place it can be questioned.

questioned.

questioned. So,

So,

So, uh, the realist theory, right? First,

uh, the realist theory, right? First,

uh, the realist theory, right? First, with Car and then with Borgentó, it

with Car and then with Borgentó, it

with Car and then with Borgentó, it dominated the study of

dominated the study of

dominated the study of international relations mainly in the United States

international relations mainly in the United States

international relations mainly in the United States , but the truth is that in

, but the truth is that in

, but the truth is that in Europe too, eh, from the 40s

Europe too, eh, from the 40s

Europe too, eh, from the 40s to the 70s, 60s more or less, eh,

to the 70s, 60s more or less, eh,

to the 70s, 60s more or less, eh, that's where, in that period,

that's where, in that period,

that's where, in that period, the English school also begins to appear

the English school also begins to appear

the English school also begins to appear , but the English school doesn't

, but the English school doesn't

necessarily dominate the field of study, it just places more

necessarily dominate the field of study, it just places more emphasis on multiplicity.

emphasis on multiplicity.

emphasis on multiplicity. Eh,

Eh,

Eh, and they left us, right? The realist school

and they left us, right? The realist school

and they left us, right? The realist school left us certain assumptions that

left us certain assumptions that

left us certain assumptions that characterize, right?, the thinking of the

characterize, right?, the thinking of the

characterize, right?, the thinking of the time, such as, well,

time, such as, well,

time, such as, well, state-centrism, right? Because realism

state-centrism, right? Because realism

state-centrism, right? Because realism always speaks from a system of

always speaks from a system of

always speaks from a system of states, it never involves other

states, it never involves other

states, it never involves other actors.

actors.

actors. Well, this disavowal of

Well, this disavowal of

Well, this disavowal of foreign policy as a bit of public policy,

foreign policy as a bit of public policy,

foreign policy as a bit of public policy, as a separate sphere, as a

as a separate sphere, as a

as a separate sphere, as a differentiated sphere that has its own

differentiated sphere that has its own

differentiated sphere that has its own rules.

rules.

rules. And that can only be questioned

And that can only be questioned

And that can only be questioned by these, the characterization

by these, the characterization

by these, the characterization that international politics is a

that international politics is a

that international politics is a constant power struggle in an

constant power struggle in an

constant power struggle in an anarchic environment, and also that all

anarchic environment, and also that all

anarchic environment, and also that all states, even if they have

states, even if they have

states, even if they have legal equality, have different

legal equality, have different

legal equality, have different capacities within a system of

capacities within a system of

capacities within a system of states, that makes them different and

states, that makes them different and

states, that makes them different and unequal.

unequal.

unequal. So, these are some of the

So, these are some of the

So, these are some of the precepts that remain with us and

precepts that remain with us and

precepts that remain with us and that continue to govern our

that continue to govern our

that continue to govern our studies even today. And

studies even today. And

studies even today. And in part, realist theory presents itself

in part, realist theory presents itself

in part, realist theory presents itself as, at least at first, a

as, at least at first, a

as, at least at first, a critique of utopianism, right? or to idealism,

critique of utopianism, right? or to idealism,

critique of utopianism, right? or to idealism, as it is generally called, eh, and

as it is generally called, eh, and

as it is generally called, eh, and which also has a normative emphasis

which also has a normative emphasis

which also has a normative emphasis as the latter had, that is, it has

as the latter had, that is, it has

as the latter had, that is, it has a form of justification for

a form of justification for

a form of justification for action.

action.

action. Uh, but it basically established that

Uh, but it basically established that

Uh, but it basically established that the idealism that the

the idealism that the

the idealism that the state system could be transformed through

state system could be transformed through

state system could be transformed through international law and organization.

international law and organization.

international law and organization. Realist theory is also normative, it

Realist theory is also normative, it

Realist theory is also normative, it is also oriented towards

is also oriented towards

is also oriented towards politics. But in contrast, he believes there

politics. But in contrast, he believes there

politics. But in contrast, he believes there is no prospect of

is no prospect of

is no prospect of transforming the system, not that we

transforming the system, not that we

transforming the system, not that we can move towards something better,

can move towards something better,

can move towards something better, fundamentally because there is no

fundamentally because there is no

fundamentally because there is no harmony of interests between nations.

harmony of interests between nations.

harmony of interests between nations. Uh, on the other hand, uh, they have

Uh, on the other hand, uh, they have

Uh, on the other hand, uh, they have national objectives that are in conflict and

national objectives that are in conflict and

national objectives that are in conflict and therefore compete with each other.

And in this way, because one could

And in this way, because one could say, "No, well, but

say, "No, well, but

say, "No, well, but alliances exist." Sure, but alliances are

alliances exist." Sure, but alliances are

alliances exist." Sure, but alliances are ephemeral, I'm tempted to say, they're just in a

ephemeral, I'm tempted to say, they're just in a

ephemeral, I'm tempted to say, they're just in a given context and can be broken when

given context and can be broken when

given context and can be broken when circumstances change, right? Well, they are

circumstances change, right? Well, they are

circumstances change, right? Well, they are common interests at a very

common interests at a very

common interests at a very particular moment in history and

particular moment in history and

particular moment in history and time.

Strategic as such.

Strategic as such. Uh, drawing a parallel with the

Uh, drawing a parallel with the

Uh, drawing a parallel with the classical geopolitics class, although in

classical geopolitics class, although in

classical geopolitics class, although in realist theory power is a

realist theory power is a

realist theory power is a multidimensional phenomenon, right? Because we

multidimensional phenomenon, right? Because we

multidimensional phenomenon, right? Because we were saying this, that it

were saying this, that it

were saying this, that it 's not just anything that involves getting

's not just anything that involves getting

's not just anything that involves getting the other person to do what I want them to do,

the other person to do what I want them to do,

the other person to do what I want them to do, where ideology can even be considered

where ideology can even be considered

where ideology can even be considered . I sometimes get confused about who is who

. I sometimes get confused about who is who

. I sometimes get confused about who is who , but I think Morgent is the one

, but I think Morgent is the one

, but I think Morgent is the one who introduces the concept of

who introduces the concept of

who introduces the concept of cultural imperialism, right? Also, it

cultural imperialism, right? Also, it

cultural imperialism, right? Also, it seems to me that I'm confusing him with

seems to me that I'm confusing him with

seems to me that I'm confusing him with who said ideological subordination,

who said ideological subordination,

who said ideological subordination, but no. Morgent also speaks of

but no. Morgent also speaks of

but no. Morgent also speaks of cultural imperialism, that is, culture

cultural imperialism, that is, culture

cultural imperialism, that is, culture as a tool of power. Even, it is

as a tool of power. Even, it is

recognized, right?, that certain

recognized, right?, that certain factors, you will see even

factors, you will see even

factors, you will see even in Morgenton's book, it is recognized

in Morgenton's book, it is recognized

in Morgenton's book, it is recognized that certain power factors are

that certain power factors are

that certain power factors are largely immutable, such as

largely immutable, such as

largely immutable, such as geography or resources, and that

geography or resources, and that

geography or resources, and that therefore the location of states in that

therefore the location of states in that

therefore the location of states in that sense affects

sense affects

sense affects national capabilities.

national capabilities.

national capabilities. Be careful not to confuse capabilities with power;

Be careful not to confuse capabilities with power;

Be careful not to confuse capabilities with power; they are two different things, because when

they are two different things, because when

they are two different things, because when we talk about capabilities, we are always

we talk about capabilities, we are always

we talk about capabilities, we are always talking about factors of power, but in a

talking about factors of power, but in a

talking about factors of power, but in a potential sense, right? Well, power is

potential sense, right? Well, power is

potential sense, right? Well, power is an exercise, so those

an exercise, so those

an exercise, so those potential abilities then have to be

potential abilities then have to be

potential abilities then have to be exercised in practice to become

exercised in practice to become

exercised in practice to become power.

power.

power. Which is like Argentina's problem,

Which is like Argentina's problem,

Which is like Argentina's problem, basically, that we are full of

basically, that we are full of

basically, that we are full of potential capabilities and it's as if we

potential capabilities and it's as if we

potential capabilities and it's as if we are always truncated

are always truncated

are always truncated in their use,

in their use,

in their use, eh, to convert them into factors of

eh, to convert them into factors of

eh, to convert them into factors of power, as I said, not in a

power, as I said, not in a

power, as I said, not in a pejorative sense, but capable of

pejorative sense, but capable of

pejorative sense, but capable of even our own

even our own

even our own productive economic development and nothing more than that.

productive economic development and nothing more than that.

productive economic development and nothing more than that. So, in realism, it is recognized that

So, in realism, it is recognized that

So, in realism, it is recognized that geography shapes options and

geography shapes options and

geography shapes options and limitations,

limitations,

limitations, but this multidimensionality of

but this multidimensionality of

but this multidimensionality of power, right? This way of conceiving

power, right? This way of conceiving

power, right? This way of conceiving power as something much broader than

power as something much broader than

power as something much broader than just those factors also

just those factors also

just those factors also allows us to think about what

allows us to think about what

allows us to think about what power is at a given

power is at a given

power is at a given historical moment, right?

historical moment, right?

historical moment, right? that if we take them to the factors

that if we take them to the factors

that if we take them to the factors even more tangible, more

even more tangible, more

even more tangible, more immutable, more material, it is not

immutable, more material, it is not

immutable, more material, it is not always the same resources that at

always the same resources that at

always the same resources that at a given moment are really a

a given moment are really a

a given moment are really a symbol of power. No, I don't know if anyone has

symbol of power. No, I don't know if anyone has

symbol of power. No, I don't know if anyone has read a

read a

read a book by Gullo,

book by Gullo,

book by Gullo, I think it's about the theory of

I think it's about the theory of

I think it's about the theory of international relations, we'll see it anyway,

international relations, we'll see it anyway,

international relations, we'll see it anyway, but he puts forward this concept that

but he puts forward this concept that

but he puts forward this concept that at different moments in history there are

at different moments in history there are

at different moments in history there are thresholds of power, eh, and that the

thresholds of power, eh, and that the

thresholds of power, eh, and that the states that reach them, right? eh,

states that reach them, right? eh,

states that reach them, right? eh, are the ones that sort of fall into another

are the ones that sort of fall into another

are the ones that sort of fall into another category of founding insubordination,

category of founding insubordination,

category of founding insubordination, that concept already appears, eh, they sort of fall

that concept already appears, eh, they sort of fall

that concept already appears, eh, they sort of fall into another category. So, at one

into another category. So, at one

into another category. So, at one point

point

point the interconnection, eh sorry, at one

the interconnection, eh sorry, at one

the interconnection, eh sorry, at one point the continental state, right?

point the continental state, right?

point the continental state, right? How vast was a threshold of

How vast was a threshold of

How vast was a threshold of power, right? The state that had that

power, right? The state that had that

power, right? The state that had that territorial configuration was

territorial configuration was

territorial configuration was automatically no longer

automatically no longer

automatically no longer above others because it would give you a

above others because it would give you a

above others because it would give you a multitude of resources, right?

multitude of resources, right?

multitude of resources, right? Precisely today, it is not

Precisely today, it is not

Precisely today, it is not necessarily that territorial extension

necessarily that territorial extension

necessarily that territorial extension that necessarily marks you as a

that necessarily marks you as a

that necessarily marks you as a threshold of power, right? Perhaps we can

threshold of power, right? Perhaps we can

threshold of power, right? Perhaps we can think about it more from the idea of a

think about it more from the idea of a

think about it more from the idea of a certain technological development.

certain technological development.

certain technological development. Now, even

Now, even

Now, even technological development varies depending on the

technological development varies depending on the

technological development varies depending on the historical moment. At one point it was

historical moment. At one point it was

historical moment. At one point it was electricity, at another point it was

electricity, at another point it was

electricity, at another point it was achieving rail power, at

achieving rail power, at

achieving rail power, at another point it was sea power, right?

another point it was sea power, right?

another point it was sea power, right? Because it will depend on the

Because it will depend on the

Because it will depend on the evolution of the story. So this

evolution of the story. So this

evolution of the story. So this much more comprehensive way of

much more comprehensive way of

much more comprehensive way of thinking about power allows us to

thinking about power allows us to

thinking about power allows us to analyze using these concepts

analyze using these concepts

analyze using these concepts at different historical moments.

at different historical moments.

at different historical moments. But well,

But well,

But well, it is possible then at this moment

it is possible then at this moment

it is possible then at this moment where we can go deeper into the

where we can go deeper into the

where we can go deeper into the ideology as well, of course. Yes,

ideology as well, of course. Yes,

ideology as well, of course. Yes, where we can go deeper then

where we can go deeper then

where we can go deeper then regarding the difference between

regarding the difference between

regarding the difference between classical geopolitics

classical geopolitics

classical geopolitics and the discipline of

and the discipline of

and the discipline of international relations.

international relations.

international relations. The uniqueness of geopolitics is not

The uniqueness of geopolitics is not

The uniqueness of geopolitics is not that it is a knowledge that is totally

that it is a knowledge that is totally

that it is a knowledge that is totally indivisible from concrete political action

indivisible from concrete political action

indivisible from concrete political action , right?

, right?

, right? Because the relationship

Because the relationship

Because the relationship was raw or at the beginning you mentioned

was raw or at the beginning you mentioned

was raw or at the beginning you mentioned controlling the minds of others. Clear.

controlling the minds of others. Clear.

controlling the minds of others. Clear. And that control of course. Well, yeah, eh, no do

And that control of course. Well, yeah, eh, no do

And that control of course. Well, yeah, eh, no do n't think about it. I mean, ideology is one

n't think about it. I mean, ideology is one

n't think about it. I mean, ideology is one of those. Eh, that control eh is this,

of those. Eh, that control eh is this,

of those. Eh, that control eh is this, making eh of my will the will of the

making eh of my will the will of the

making eh of my will the will of the other, right? Uh, and that control can

other, right? Uh, and that control can

other, right? Uh, and that control can be due to both ideological factors and

be due to both ideological factors and

be due to both ideological factors and coercive factors, right? Hey, you're

coercive factors, right? Hey, you're

coercive factors, right? Hey, you're also like the idea of the pal. Yes, yes,

also like the idea of the pal. Yes, yes,

also like the idea of the pal. Yes, yes, but you saw that, sorry, but you saw that, I

but you saw that, sorry, but you saw that, I

but you saw that, sorry, but you saw that, I mean, like before, like before, eh,

mean, like before, like before, eh,

mean, like before, like before, eh, power is control, what we were

power is control, what we were

power is control, what we were seeing from this author, control of the

seeing from this author, control of the

seeing from this author, control of the minds of men, a

minds of men, a

minds of men, a psychological relationship. Previously,

psychological relationship. Previously,

psychological relationship. Previously, control was also carried out with and in

control was also carried out with and in

control was also carried out with and in war instances. Eh, now the

war instances. Eh, now the

war instances. Eh, now the determining factor is the power, the war power

determining factor is the power, the war power

determining factor is the power, the war power that a country has, but eh, having, as

that a country has, but eh, having, as

that a country has, but eh, having, as I mentioned about military bases,

I mentioned about military bases,

I mentioned about military bases, having other types of controls, it's not like it's

having other types of controls, it's not like it's

having other types of controls, it's not like it's necessary, I mean, like there's a

necessary, I mean, like there's a

necessary, I mean, like there's a cloud, I ca

cloud, I ca

cloud, I ca n't quite put the word in, but like

n't quite put the word in, but like

n't quite put the word in, but like I have this power, eh, and you're already

I have this power, eh, and you're already

I have this power, eh, and you're already conditioning others even without using

conditioning others even without using

conditioning others even without using all those powers.

all those powers.

all those powers. materials that you have because you

materials that you have because you

materials that you have because you already cut it in the ideas.

already cut it in the ideas.

already cut it in the ideas. Clear. Well, here Diego is talking

Clear. Well, here Diego is talking

Clear. Well, here Diego is talking about what is considered

about what is considered

about what is considered soft power, right? That is, contrary to

soft power, right? That is, contrary to

soft power, right? That is, contrary to hard power, which would be coercive power,

hard power, which would be coercive power,

hard power, which would be coercive power, military power. eh,

military power. eh,

military power. eh, he mentions investments,

he mentions investments,

he mentions investments, trade relations, right? Eh, that

trade relations, right? Eh, that

trade relations, right? Eh, that 's why the ideological thing is fundamental, right?

's why the ideological thing is fundamental, right?

's why the ideological thing is fundamental, right? Even, let's see, liberal ideology, eh,

Even, let's see, liberal ideology, eh,

Even, let's see, liberal ideology, eh, was predominant at one time and was a

was predominant at one time and was a

was predominant at one time and was a factor of power, right?, which later led

factor of power, right?, which later led

factor of power, right?, which later led to much more material consequences,

to much more material consequences,

to much more material consequences, such as, I don't know, the demand

such as, I don't know, the demand

such as, I don't know, the demand for free navigation of

for free navigation of

for free navigation of inland waterways, for example, eh,

inland waterways, for example, eh,

inland waterways, for example, eh, but founded directly on an

but founded directly on an

but founded directly on an ideology,

ideology,

ideology, eh, which later had

eh, which later had

eh, which later had material consequences.

material consequences.

material consequences. Eh, but yes, exactly. As long as,

Eh, but yes, exactly. As long as,

Eh, but yes, exactly. As long as, whatever the tool, we

whatever the tool, we

whatever the tool, we get the other person to do our

get the other person to do our

get the other person to do our will, maybe doing our

will, maybe doing our

will, maybe doing our will is also favorable for the

will is also favorable for the

will is also favorable for the other person, right? I mean, that's often

other person, right? I mean, that's often

other person, right? I mean, that's often discussed around China, like China

discussed around China, like China

discussed around China, like China is, as they say, China offers you a

is, as they say, China offers you a

is, as they say, China offers you a win-win negotiation, right? Where you

win-win negotiation, right? Where you

win-win negotiation, right? Where you also win something, you lose something, and you

also win something, you lose something, and you

also win something, you lose something, and you also win something in the same way

also win something in the same way

also win something in the same way they do. This doesn't necessarily

they do. This doesn't necessarily

they do. This doesn't necessarily have to be like a control

have to be like a control

have to be like a control where the other person loses, but

where the other person loses, but

where the other person loses, but as long as you achieve your goal,

as long as you achieve your goal,

as long as you achieve your goal, well, it's already a demonstration of power.

well, it's already a demonstration of power.

well, it's already a demonstration of power. Well, then, as I was saying, there are

Well, then, as I was saying, there are

Well, then, as I was saying, there are differences, similarities, right?, between

differences, similarities, right?, between

differences, similarities, right?, between geopolitics and

geopolitics and

geopolitics and international relations. The uniqueness of

international relations. The uniqueness of

international relations. The uniqueness of geopolitics is that it's an

geopolitics is that it's an

geopolitics is that it's an indivisible knowledge, right? Of concrete political action

indivisible knowledge, right? Of concrete political action

indivisible knowledge, right? Of concrete political action , which is what we had seen,

, which is what we had seen,

, which is what we had seen, because there is a stark or

because there is a stark or

because there is a stark or totally exposed relationship that its authors

totally exposed relationship that its authors

totally exposed relationship that its authors formulated, eh, with political action, which

formulated, eh, with political action, which

formulated, eh, with political action, which is its very essence, right? Geopolitics has

is its very essence, right? Geopolitics has

is its very essence, right? Geopolitics has always been explicit in its

always been explicit in its

always been explicit in its connection to political action. That's why

connection to political action. That's why

connection to political action. That's why we saw that many of its authors were

we saw that many of its authors were

we saw that many of its authors were also politicians. That's why we saw that they

also politicians. That's why we saw that they

also politicians. That's why we saw that they wrote from a subjective perspective,

wrote from a subjective perspective,

wrote from a subjective perspective, that they applied

that they applied

that they applied situated thinking, right? That they spoke for their

situated thinking, right? That they spoke for their

situated thinking, right? That they spoke for their own states. Eh, while

own states. Eh, while

own states. Eh, while international relations

international relations

international relations as a scientific discipline, which

as a scientific discipline, which

as a scientific discipline, which geopolitics never quite got around to

geopolitics never quite got around to

geopolitics never quite got around to doing, are eh, much more scientific

doing, are eh, much more scientific

doing, are eh, much more scientific and academic,

and academic,

and academic, although that doesn't mean they're not foreign to

although that doesn't mean they're not foreign to

although that doesn't mean they're not foreign to seeking to influence the foreign policy

seeking to influence the foreign policy

seeking to influence the foreign policy of states, right?, from where they arise and

of states, right?, from where they arise and

of states, right?, from where they arise and in a given context. But it is true

in a given context. But it is true

in a given context. But it is true that the theoretical formalization they use

that the theoretical formalization they use

that the theoretical formalization they use gives them perhaps a false, a false,

gives them perhaps a false, a false,

gives them perhaps a false, a false, but ultimately a sense of

but ultimately a sense of

but ultimately a sense of objectivity and universality, right? This can be

objectivity and universality, right? This can be

objectivity and universality, right? This can be seen, for example, with the laws that

seen, for example, with the laws that

seen, for example, with the laws that Morgenton proposes. He seeks to give us

Morgenton proposes. He seeks to give us

Morgenton proposes. He seeks to give us categories of analysis,

categories of analysis,

categories of analysis, conceptual categories that can be applied

conceptual categories that can be applied

conceptual categories that can be applied at any moment in history and not

at any moment in history and not

at any moment in history and not on the basis of a specific reading

on the basis of a specific reading

on the basis of a specific reading of a given historical moment.

Another substantial difference between

Another substantial difference between international relations and

international relations and

international relations and geopolitics is that, as we began to

geopolitics is that, as we began to

geopolitics is that, as we began to see today, but which we will

see today, but which we will

see today, but which we will understand much better in the next class,

understand much better in the next class,

understand much better in the next class, in international relations there is

in international relations there is

in international relations there is a plurality of voices,

a plurality of voices,

a plurality of voices, and by voices I mean theories, right?

and by voices I mean theories, right?

and by voices I mean theories, right? Today it may not have been so clear because

Today it may not have been so clear because

Today it may not have been so clear because today we have a kind of realism,

today we have a kind of realism,

today we have a kind of realism, idealism that appeared,

idealism that appeared,

idealism that appeared, but we will see it better in the next class

but we will see it better in the next class

but we will see it better in the next class and they are already established voices and theories

and they are already established voices and theories

and they are already established voices and theories , right? And they are in a

, right? And they are in a

, right? And they are in a constant dialogue, so to speak, with each

constant dialogue, so to speak, with each

constant dialogue, so to speak, with each other, to see who can best explain to the

other, to see who can best explain to the

other, to see who can best explain to the world, because that's the goal, to

world, because that's the goal, to

world, because that's the goal, to explain the international dynamics. That's

explain the international dynamics. That's

explain the international dynamics. That's why the theory of

why the theory of

why the theory of international relations is a field

international relations is a field

international relations is a field organized around a plurality of

organized around a plurality of

organized around a plurality of theoretical schools: realists,

theoretical schools: realists,

theoretical schools: realists, liberals, Marxists, and

liberals, Marxists, and

liberals, Marxists, and institutionalists.

institutionalists.

institutionalists. And perhaps the mother theories are a

And perhaps the mother theories are a

And perhaps the mother theories are a few, but then a

few, but then a

few, but then a lot of other constructivist ones emerge,

lot of other constructivist ones emerge,

lot of other constructivist ones emerge, eh, and many of them are

eh, and many of them are

eh, and many of them are established

established

established as legitimate traditions of

as legitimate traditions of

as legitimate traditions of thought that compete to

thought that compete to

thought that compete to explain international politics

explain international politics

explain international politics through constant updating.

through constant updating.

through constant updating. Because we're going to see that although what we

Because we're going to see that although what we

Because we're going to see that although what we saw today, for example, realism is

saw today, for example, realism is

saw today, for example, realism is characterized as classical realism, it

characterized as classical realism, it

characterized as classical realism, it will later be updated over

will later be updated over

will later be updated over time by other authors depending on the

time by other authors depending on the

time by other authors depending on the context, right? And it will continue to be

context, right? And it will continue to be

context, right? And it will continue to be realism, but another type of realism,

realism, but another type of realism,

realism, but another type of realism, even in Argentina, which we

even in Argentina, which we

even in Argentina, which we will also see in the class we will

will also see in the class we will

will also see in the class we will have for

have for

have for Argentine international relations theory, eh,

Argentine international relations theory, eh,

Argentine international relations theory, eh, we have a theory developed by

we have a theory developed by

we have a theory developed by Carlos Escude called

Carlos Escude called

Carlos Escude called peripheral realism, right? So, based on

peripheral realism, right? So, based on

peripheral realism, right? So, based on realism,

realism,

realism, he made a situated and

he made a situated and

he made a situated and concrete interpretation to guide

concrete interpretation to guide

concrete interpretation to guide Argentine foreign policy, fundamentally in

Argentine foreign policy, fundamentally in

Argentine foreign policy, fundamentally in the 1990s.

the 1990s.

So,

So, international relations

international relations

international relations are nourished, right?, by concepts

are nourished, right?, by concepts

are nourished, right?, by concepts associated with classical geopolitics, which

associated with classical geopolitics, which

associated with classical geopolitics, which preexisted, but they will continue to delve

preexisted, but they will continue to delve

preexisted, but they will continue to delve deeper into those concepts and will

deeper into those concepts and will

deeper into those concepts and will create new and more complex

create new and more complex

create new and more complex conceptual categories of

conceptual categories of

conceptual categories of analysis.

analysis.

analysis. And finally, although the

And finally, although the

And finally, although the formal scientific development of

formal scientific development of

formal scientific development of classical geopolitics precedes that of

classical geopolitics precedes that of

classical geopolitics precedes that of international relations,

international relations,

international relations, the theoretical models of

the theoretical models of

the theoretical models of international relations are those that

international relations are those that

international relations are those that were predominant, for example, in

were predominant, for example, in

were predominant, for example, in South America in the last 40 years or

South America in the last 40 years or

South America in the last 40 years or internationally after the

internationally after the

internationally after the World War, when we already saw what happened

World War, when we already saw what happened

World War, when we already saw what happened with classical geopolitics. Today

with classical geopolitics. Today

with classical geopolitics. Today we are seeing that

we are seeing that

we are seeing that this situation is reversing somewhat. Today, there's

this situation is reversing somewhat. Today, there's

this situation is reversing somewhat. Today, there's started to

started to

started to appear—maybe even more

appear—maybe even more

appear—maybe even more confusion, right?—between

confusion, right?—between

confusion, right?—between international relations and geopolitics, because the

international relations and geopolitics, because the

international relations and geopolitics, because the truth is that

truth is that

truth is that geopolitical studies are becoming

geopolitical studies are becoming

geopolitical studies are becoming increasingly predominant.

And as I mentioned, we're almost

And as I mentioned, we're almost done, don't worry.

done, don't worry.

done, don't worry. The title of this class was

The title of this class was

The title of this class was International Relations as a

International Relations as a

International Relations as a Discipline,

Discipline,

Discipline, First Debate, Classical Realism versus

First Debate, Classical Realism versus

First Debate, Classical Realism versus Idealism. And here we refer to the

Idealism. And here we refer to the

Idealism. And here we refer to the first debate?

first debate?

first debate? There is an explanatory way of

There is an explanatory way of

There is an explanatory way of presenting, isn't there?, like the

presenting, isn't there?, like the

presenting, isn't there?, like the theoretical development of

theoretical development of

theoretical development of international relations. Today I

international relations. Today I

international relations. Today I took you more along a chronological path, but

took you more along a chronological path, but

took you more along a chronological path, but now you'll better understand why,

now you'll better understand why,

now you'll better understand why, which involves historicizing that process, right?,

which involves historicizing that process, right?,

which involves historicizing that process, right?, of the development of the theory in terms

of the development of the theory in terms

of the development of the theory in terms of great debates.

of great debates.

of great debates. And these debates, which according to the author who is

And these debates, which according to the author who is

And these debates, which according to the author who is leaving could be from three to

leaving could be from three to

leaving could be from three to five debates, right?, of the last 100

five debates, right?, of the last 100

five debates, right?, of the last 100 years, had diverse axes, whether

years, had diverse axes, whether

years, had diverse axes, whether philosophical, epistemological,

philosophical, epistemological,

philosophical, epistemological, methodological, and even ontological.

methodological, and even ontological.

methodological, and even ontological. And the first of those debates, which was a

And the first of those debates, which was a

And the first of those debates, which was a theoretical debate, uh, was the

theoretical debate, uh, was the

theoretical debate, uh, was the classical realism versus idealism debate, right?

classical realism versus idealism debate, right?

classical realism versus idealism debate, right? The second debate is more of a

The second debate is more of a

The second debate is more of a methodological nature, which we won't cover due to

methodological nature, which we won't cover due to

methodological nature, which we won't cover due to the time constraints of this

the time constraints of this

the time constraints of this subject, and we'll

subject, and we'll

subject, and we'll skip to the third debate in the next class

skip to the third debate in the next class

skip to the third debate in the next class .

.

. Eh,

Eh,

Eh, but then, what was this first

but then, what was this first

but then, what was this first debate? No, like realism versus

debate? No, like realism versus

debate? No, like realism versus idealism. So, was this debate real?

idealism. So, was this debate real?

idealism. So, was this debate real? The reality is that, well, the authors sat down to

The reality is that, well, the authors sat down to

The reality is that, well, the authors sat down to debate. How did it go? Well, the

debate. How did it go? Well, the

debate. How did it go? Well, the reality is that if you

reality is that if you

reality is that if you read a little deeper, the idea of

read a little deeper, the idea of

read a little deeper, the idea of debates is quite questionable,

debates is quite questionable,

debates is quite questionable, because, for example, the first debate

because, for example, the first debate

because, for example, the first debate never actually existed as such, that is, there

never actually existed as such, that is, there

never actually existed as such, that is, there was no dialogue or exchange

was no dialogue or exchange

was no dialogue or exchange between the authors of each side,

between the authors of each side,

between the authors of each side, so to speak. The same goes for idealism, as it does

so to speak. The same goes for idealism, as it does

so to speak. The same goes for idealism, as it does n't really have a

n't really have a

n't really have a finished theoretical exponent for this era. Uh,

finished theoretical exponent for this era. Uh,

finished theoretical exponent for this era. Uh, and it's not like the authors even sat down to

and it's not like the authors even sat down to

and it's not like the authors even sat down to discuss, and it's not like they

discuss, and it's not like they

discuss, and it's not like they responded to each other in papers, right? As

responded to each other in papers, right? As

responded to each other in papers, right? As it were.

it were.

it were. But nevertheless, this idea, right?, that there was

But nevertheless, this idea, right?, that there was

But nevertheless, this idea, right?, that there was a crossfire

a crossfire

a crossfire between idealists and unrealists, is

between idealists and unrealists, is

between idealists and unrealists, is what allowed realism a couple of

what allowed realism a couple of

what allowed realism a couple of decades later, right?, in 1940, to

decades later, right?, in 1940, to

decades later, right?, in 1940, to consolidate itself as the

consolidate itself as the

consolidate itself as the hegemonic current with the greatest

hegemonic current with the greatest

hegemonic current with the greatest explanatory capacity after the failure of

explanatory capacity after the failure of

explanatory capacity after the failure of idealism with the Second World War.

idealism with the Second World War.

idealism with the Second World War. So Wilson didn't write theory,

So Wilson didn't write theory,

So Wilson didn't write theory, right? The 14 points are seen much more as

right? The 14 points are seen much more as

right? The 14 points are seen much more as something of a normative nature. Eh, and the

something of a normative nature. Eh, and the

something of a normative nature. Eh, and the closest thing we can find to a

closest thing we can find to a

closest thing we can find to a sort of contrast between these two

sort of contrast between these two

sort of contrast between these two currents is precisely Kart's book

currents is precisely Kart's book

currents is precisely Kart's book , The Midlife Crisis, where

, The Midlife Crisis, where

, The Midlife Crisis, where he first

he first

he first characterizes utopianism, then he

characterizes utopianism, then he

characterizes utopianism, then he characterizes realism.

characterizes realism.

characterizes realism. But hey, even Icarus doesn't talk about

But hey, even Icarus doesn't talk about

But hey, even Icarus doesn't talk about idealism, right? That's a category that was

idealism, right? That's a category that was

idealism, right? That's a category that was given much later

given much later

given much later to the thinking of that time and calling it

to the thinking of that time and calling it

to the thinking of that time and calling it utopianism always

utopianism always

utopianism always sounds kind of pejorative to me, to

sounds kind of pejorative to me, to

sounds kind of pejorative to me, to contrast it with realism.

contrast it with realism.

contrast it with realism. Uh, and in that sense, when we talk about

Uh, and in that sense, when we talk about

Uh, and in that sense, when we talk about uh

uh

uh and Car did it even taking a

and Car did it even taking a

and Car did it even taking a stand, right? I mean, it was an exercise

stand, right? I mean, it was an exercise

stand, right? I mean, it was an exercise of its own, right? debate was also a single

of its own, right? debate was also a single

of its own, right? debate was also a single author. And when we talk about

author. And when we talk about

author. And when we talk about liberalism, idealism, or utopianism,

liberalism, idealism, or utopianism,

liberalism, idealism, or utopianism, we're actually talking about the same

we're actually talking about the same

we're actually talking about the same thing. Eh, in international relations there

thing. Eh, in international relations there

thing. Eh, in international relations there are always about 1000 ways to name the

are always about 1000 ways to name the

are always about 1000 ways to name the same thing, but that's because it depends on

same thing, but that's because it depends on

same thing, but that's because it depends on the historical context it's given, right?

the historical context it's given, right?

the historical context it's given, right? Talking about liberalism takes us

Talking about liberalism takes us

Talking about liberalism takes us back to the political philosophical tradition

back to the political philosophical tradition

back to the political philosophical tradition of Kant.

of Kant.

of Kant. Eh, as for democratic peace,

Eh, as for democratic peace,

Eh, as for democratic peace, for mercantilism, right? While

for mercantilism, right? While

for mercantilism, right? While talking about idealism

talking about idealism

talking about idealism somewhat circumscribes the focus on what

somewhat circumscribes the focus on what

somewhat circumscribes the focus on what Wilson's foreign policy was

Wilson's foreign policy was

Wilson's foreign policy was in 1919,

in 1919,

in 1919, utopianism was a way of characterizing

utopianism was a way of characterizing

utopianism was a way of characterizing Wilson's idealism

Wilson's idealism

Wilson's idealism as a more failed policy, right? By

as a more failed policy, right? By

as a more failed policy, right? By a single author, by Carp.

a single author, by Carp.

a single author, by Carp. So, to add to this idea of the

So, to add to this idea of the

So, to add to this idea of the first debate that never existed,

first debate that never existed,

first debate that never existed, the reality is that at the time,

the reality is that at the time,

the reality is that at the time, idealism and liberalism in

idealism and liberalism in

idealism and liberalism in international relations did not have a

international relations did not have a

international relations did not have a strong theoretical production like

strong theoretical production like

strong theoretical production like realism did. That's why today we're addressing

realism did. That's why today we're addressing

realism did. That's why today we're addressing so much realism with Morgent's book

so much realism with Morgent's book

so much realism with Morgent's book , Politics Among Nations.

, Politics Among Nations.

, Politics Among Nations. So the idea of debates

So the idea of debates

So the idea of debates actually serves to organize this

actually serves to organize this

actually serves to organize this historical and theoretical development of the

historical and theoretical development of the

historical and theoretical development of the discipline.

discipline.

discipline. Uh, and it's a way of organizing it that became

Uh, and it's a way of organizing it that became

Uh, and it's a way of organizing it that became popular mainly from

popular mainly from

popular mainly from 1980 onwards,

1980 onwards,

1980 onwards, not that it was contemporary with the time.

not that it was contemporary with the time.

not that it was contemporary with the time. However, talking about debates in

However, talking about debates in

However, talking about debates in international relations is a very

international relations is a very

international relations is a very good way to organize this

good way to organize this

good way to organize this evolutionary process in this scientific field,

evolutionary process in this scientific field,

evolutionary process in this scientific field, or rather, the process that led it to

or rather, the process that led it to

or rather, the process that led it to become increasingly scientific.

become increasingly scientific.

become increasingly scientific. Because, for example, as I was saying

Because, for example, as I was saying

Because, for example, as I was saying before, while the first debate

before, while the first debate

before, while the first debate focused mainly on determining which

focused mainly on determining which

focused mainly on determining which actors were relevant to the

actors were relevant to the

actors were relevant to the global scene, what interests

global scene, what interests

global scene, what interests mobilized them, how they perceived their environment,

mobilized them, how they perceived their environment,

mobilized them, how they perceived their environment, what restrictions they had on

what restrictions they had on

what restrictions they had on acting, among several other things.

acting, among several other things.

acting, among several other things. Well,

Well,

Well, the second debate, for example, which took

the second debate, for example, which took

the second debate, for example, which took place more or less between the

place more or less between the

place more or less between the 1950s and 1960s, which was between

1950s and 1960s, which was between

1950s and 1960s, which was between traditionalists versus scientists,

traditionalists versus scientists,

traditionalists versus scientists, responded strictly to a need

responded strictly to a need

responded strictly to a need to consolidate the discipline and

to consolidate the discipline and

to consolidate the discipline and to the main issue, the

to the main issue, the

to the main issue, the discussion around

discussion around

discussion around theoretical production itself, right? So, how do we

theoretical production itself, right? So, how do we

theoretical production itself, right? So, how do we do science? That is, more of an

do science? That is, more of an

do science? That is, more of an epistemological debate.

epistemological debate.

epistemological debate. So the question at that time was

So the question at that time was

So the question at that time was whether to continue down a path of

whether to continue down a path of

whether to continue down a path of case studies based on history or

case studies based on history or

case studies based on history or law, or whether to ultimately opt for

law, or whether to ultimately opt for

law, or whether to ultimately opt for embracing the scientific method, which

embracing the scientific method, which

embracing the scientific method, which was much more strongly linked

was much more strongly linked

was much more strongly linked to the natural sciences.

to the natural sciences.

to the natural sciences. And for that reason, we're going to skip this

And for that reason, we're going to skip this

And for that reason, we're going to skip this debate, because, as

debate, because, as

debate, because, as interesting as it may be in the subject,

interesting as it may be in the subject,

interesting as it may be in the subject, what we want is to provide you with

what we want is to provide you with

what we want is to provide you with concepts and analytical tools for

concepts and analytical tools for

concepts and analytical tools for the analysis of international politics,

the analysis of international politics,

the analysis of international politics, and not so much to delve into, well, how

and not so much to delve into, well, how

and not so much to delve into, well, how the epistemological development of

the epistemological development of

the epistemological development of international relations was.

international relations was.

international relations was. So, the invention of the theory,

So, the invention of the theory,

So, the invention of the theory, right? In quote marks, in international relations

right? In quote marks, in international relations

it is situated with the realist authors,

it is situated with the realist authors, even though the non-academic starting point was

even though the non-academic starting point was

even though the non-academic starting point was in 1919, the

in 1919, the

in 1919, the invention of the theory is situated with the

invention of the theory is situated with the

invention of the theory is situated with the American realist authors of

American realist authors of

American realist authors of the 40s and 50s of the 20th century,

the 40s and 50s of the 20th century,

the 40s and 50s of the 20th century, which is when

which is when

which is when international relations appeared as a

international relations appeared as a

international relations appeared as a scientific discipline in its own right,

scientific discipline in its own right,

scientific discipline in its own right, differentiated from international law,

differentiated from international law,

differentiated from international law, from the history of treaties, from

from the history of treaties, from

from the history of treaties, from diplomatic history.

diplomatic history.

diplomatic history. And when we talk about

And when we talk about

And when we talk about theory, right? In this sense, perhaps I

theory, right? In this sense, perhaps I

theory, right? In this sense, perhaps I should have said it at the

should have said it at the

should have said it at the beginning, what we are referring to more than

beginning, what we are referring to more than

beginning, what we are referring to more than anything is a search for a

anything is a search for a

anything is a search for a general explanation, right?, of certain

general explanation, right?, of certain

general explanation, right?, of certain selected phenomena. That is, a

selected phenomena. That is, a

selected phenomena. That is, a theory proposes a systematic approach to

theory proposes a systematic approach to

theory proposes a systematic approach to phenomena, presenting a series

phenomena, presenting a series

phenomena, presenting a series of propositions or hypotheses

of propositions or hypotheses

of propositions or hypotheses that specify, right?, the relationships

that specify, right?, the relationships

that specify, right?, the relationships between variables, and for which

between variables, and for which

between variables, and for which indicators are sought, right?, that

indicators are sought, right?, that

indicators are sought, right?, that lead us to validate these hypotheses or

lead us to validate these hypotheses or

lead us to validate these hypotheses or refute them, in order to present

refute them, in order to present

refute them, in order to present explanations and even make predictions

explanations and even make predictions

explanations and even make predictions about the phenomena. And that's why the

about the phenomena. And that's why the

about the phenomena. And that's why the organization of the discipline focused

organization of the discipline focused

organization of the discipline focused more than others, right? This organization

more than others, right? This organization

more than others, right? This organization of saying, "Well, first debate, second

of saying, "Well, first debate, second

of saying, "Well, first debate, second debate, is very focused more than in

debate, is very focused more than in

debate, is very focused more than in others on the theory itself and on the

others on the theory itself and on the

others on the theory itself and on the development of the theory itself, because the

development of the theory itself, because the

development of the theory itself, because the development of a theory of

development of a theory of

development of a theory of international relations was an

international relations was an

international relations was an instrumental achievement for its affirmation in the

instrumental achievement for its affirmation in the

instrumental achievement for its affirmation in the field of social sciences, although they are

field of social sciences, although they are

field of social sciences, although they are also a

also a

also a simplification.

simplification.

simplification. The second debate was more a debate

The second debate was more a debate

The second debate was more a debate between social sciences and humanities,

between social sciences and humanities,

between social sciences and humanities, so to speak. And well, yes, it is because

so to speak. And well, yes, it is because

so to speak. And well, yes, it is because you see that today, eh, I

you see that today, eh, I

you see that today, eh, I cannot put, eh, I cannot write, eh, and

cannot put, eh, I cannot write, eh, and

cannot put, eh, I cannot write, eh, and say that well, states are managed

say that well, states are managed

say that well, states are managed this way because human nature is

this way because human nature is

this way because human nature is evil. Well, we can't say that anymore,

evil. Well, we can't say that anymore,

evil. Well, we can't say that anymore, right? I mean, those eh,

right? I mean, those eh,

right? I mean, those eh, much more philosophical theoretical forms that were

much more philosophical theoretical forms that were

much more philosophical theoretical forms that were allowed back then. Eh, today there is

allowed back then. Eh, today there is

allowed back then. Eh, today there is a whole scientific development in the

a whole scientific development in the

a whole scientific development in the social sciences that no longer allow it

social sciences that no longer allow it

social sciences that no longer allow it as much. Eh,

as much. Eh,

as much. Eh, and well, and all that development was

and well, and all that development was

and well, and all that development was very involved, right?, in the second

very involved, right?, in the second

very involved, right?, in the second debate on

debate on

debate on international relations, because also think

international relations, because also think

international relations, because also think that later on I will also

that later on I will also

that later on I will also mention it a little in the next class, in

mention it a little in the next class, in

mention it a little in the next class, in 1970, and we

1970, and we

1970, and we also have the epistemological shifts

also have the epistemological shifts

also have the epistemological shifts of Thomas Kun, which influenced all

of Thomas Kun, which influenced all

of Thomas Kun, which influenced all sciences in general, including

sciences in general, including

sciences in general, including international relations.

international relations.

international relations. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, well, we've reached the end of the class,

well, we've reached the end of the class,

well, we've reached the end of the class, which was much more dense than the

which was much more dense than the

which was much more dense than the previous ones, because the subject demands it.

previous ones, because the subject demands it.

previous ones, because the subject demands it. Uh, I wanted to let you know because you've

Uh, I wanted to let you know because you've

Uh, I wanted to let you know because you've asked me, that I haven't uploaded

asked me, that I haven't uploaded

asked me, that I haven't uploaded the syllabus yet, uh, because we're doing

the syllabus yet, uh, because we're doing

the syllabus yet, uh, because we're doing a bibliography review during the

a bibliography review during the

a bibliography review during the course of teaching this subject,

course of teaching this subject,

course of teaching this subject, uh, and I'm afraid that if I upload it now,

uh, and I'm afraid that if I upload it now,

uh, and I'm afraid that if I upload it now, I'll confuse you even more, but

I'll confuse you even more, but

I'll confuse you even more, but tell me if it's useful in any case, and I'll

tell me if it's useful in any case, and I'll

tell me if it's useful in any case, and I'll upload, like, updating the

upload, like, updating the

upload, like, updating the syllabus class by class, right? Like,

syllabus class by class, right? Like,

syllabus class by class, right? Like, well, we give a class, we gave some

well, we give a class, we gave some

well, we give a class, we gave some material, and I'll upload a PDF with the

material, and I'll upload a PDF with the

material, and I'll upload a PDF with the syllabus, with the bibliography. Tell me

syllabus, with the bibliography. Tell me

syllabus, with the bibliography. Tell me if that might help you

if that might help you

if that might help you solve that problem. I'm not

solve that problem. I'm not

solve that problem. I'm not looking to finish the syllabus at the end of

looking to finish the syllabus at the end of

looking to finish the syllabus at the end of the subject, but before, but

the subject, but before, but

the subject, but before, but maybe that'll be good for you. Uh, perfect,

maybe that'll be good for you. Uh, perfect,

maybe that'll be good for you. Uh, perfect, Valeria. So, I'm going to do that, I'm

Valeria. So, I'm going to do that, I'm

Valeria. So, I'm going to do that, I'm going to Take note. And then, well, if

going to Take note. And then, well, if

going to Take note. And then, well, if anyone wants to open the microphone, ask a

anyone wants to open the microphone, ask a

anyone wants to open the microphone, ask a question, make a comment, they

question, make a comment, they

question, make a comment, they 're welcome.

So, geography depends on

So, geography depends on politics or politics depends on

politics or politics depends on

politics or politics depends on geography. And well, I guess it

geography. And well, I guess it

geography. And well, I guess it depends on who you ask. Also, what

depends on who you ask. Also, what

depends on who you ask. Also, what we can say is that,

we can say is that,

we can say is that, look, there's a specific study that is

look, there's a specific study that is

look, there's a specific study that is political geography, right? And the study of

political geography, right? And the study of

political geography, right? And the study of political geography depends on

political geography depends on

political geography depends on geography, right? Now, that field of

geography, right? Now, that field of

geography, right? Now, that field of study has particular objects of analysis

study has particular objects of analysis

study has particular objects of analysis that can intersect, but

that can intersect, but

that can intersect, but don't necessarily correspond as

don't necessarily correspond as

don't necessarily correspond as such, with political science or

such, with political science or

such, with political science or international relations, right?

international relations, right?

international relations, right? Although the variables converge.

Although the variables converge.

Although the variables converge. But even today, even in

But even today, even in

But even today, even in geography, there's still a lot of multiplicity

geography, there's still a lot of multiplicity

geography, there's still a lot of multiplicity because to the extent that

because to the extent that

because to the extent that other currents were adopted, right? And as things

other currents were adopted, right? And as things

other currents were adopted, right? And as things continued to happen,

continued to happen,

continued to happen, more interrelated and

more interrelated and

more interrelated and multidisciplinary processes began to take place. Today, we even have

multidisciplinary processes began to take place. Today, we even have

multidisciplinary processes began to take place. Today, we even have human geography, right? To

say that one depends on the other,

say that one depends on the other, well, is a positioning, it seems to me.

well, is a positioning, it seems to me.

What we can say is that at a

What we can say is that at a given moment in the development of

given moment in the development of

given moment in the development of Geopolitics

Geopolitics

Geopolitics was much more closely associated with geography

was much more closely associated with geography

was much more closely associated with geography itself, understood as

itself, understood as

itself, understood as opposed to

opposed to

opposed to political science, right? Which are

political science, right? Which are

political science, right? Which are distinct forms of interpretation, eh, and the

distinct forms of interpretation, eh, and the

distinct forms of interpretation, eh, and the development of knowledge,

development of knowledge,

development of knowledge, and based on how that geopolitics

and based on how that geopolitics

and based on how that geopolitics adopted other variables of

adopted other variables of

adopted other variables of analysis, it began to get much closer

analysis, it began to get much closer

analysis, it began to get much closer and position itself within what is

and position itself within what is

and position itself within what is political science, right?

I think that maybe that will become a

I think that maybe that will become a little clearer with the

little clearer with the

little clearer with the critical geopolitics class,

critical geopolitics class,

critical geopolitics class, eh,

eh,

eh, but the truth is that, well, having an

but the truth is that, well, having an

but the truth is that, well, having an opinion one way or another would be more of a

opinion one way or another would be more of a

opinion one way or another would be more of a position, right? I don't know exactly for

position, right? I don't know exactly for

position, right? I don't know exactly for what purposes, eh, but ultimately it

what purposes, eh, but ultimately it

what purposes, eh, but ultimately it seems to me that, eh, geography is a

seems to me that, eh, geography is a

seems to me that, eh, geography is a variable that has to be included within

variable that has to be included within

variable that has to be included within political analysis according to the

political analysis according to the

political analysis according to the object of study that one has. If I,

object of study that one has. If I,

object of study that one has. If I, honestly, my object of study, for

honestly, my object of study, for

honestly, my object of study, for example, is to analyze dead cows and if I

example, is to analyze dead cows and if I

example, is to analyze dead cows and if I dismiss the geographic factors in

dismiss the geographic factors in

dismiss the geographic factors in that analysis, I'm very likely

that analysis, I'm very likely

that analysis, I'm very likely eating into several things and therefore my

eating into several things and therefore my

eating into several things and therefore my conclusions are going to be a little

conclusions are going to be a little

conclusions are going to be a little biased or a little or be a little

biased or a little or be a little

biased or a little or be a little reductionist.

reductionist.

reductionist. Eh, I

Eh, I

Eh, I hope I've answered you. Uh, and Romina,

hope I've answered you. Uh, and Romina,

hope I've answered you. Uh, and Romina, uh, no, I didn't leave one for last class

uh, no, I didn't leave one for last class

uh, no, I didn't leave one for last class , but I'm going to leave one for this one,

, but I'm going to leave one for this one,

, but I'm going to leave one for this one, uh, I mean, I'm not going to overwhelm them

uh, I mean, I'm not going to overwhelm them

uh, I mean, I'm not going to overwhelm them all with an assignment or a

all with an assignment or a

all with an assignment or a reflection. That's why,

Professor, a question.

Professor, a question. Yes, I can hear you a bit. Let's see.

Hello. Hello.

Hello. Hello. Yes, I can hear you. Let's see,

Yes, I can hear you. Let's see,

Yes, I can hear you. Let's see, it's regarding how to

it's regarding how to

it's regarding how to approve, let's say, the space with a

approve, let's say, the space with a

approve, let's say, the space with a final project, right?

final project, right?

final project, right? Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Good. Because I missed one class and I don't

Good. Because I missed one class and I don't

Good. Because I missed one class and I don't remember if they said it there or when it was that they

remember if they said it there or when it was that they

remember if they said it there or when it was that they mentioned it.

mentioned it.

mentioned it. No, I didn't mention it, actually, so

No, I didn't mention it, actually, so

No, I didn't mention it, actually, so very well. Uh, yes, it's going to be with a

very well. Uh, yes, it's going to be with a

very well. Uh, yes, it's going to be with a final evaluation that we're going to make

final evaluation that we're going to make

final evaluation that we're going to make available at the end. Uh, in relation to that

available at the end. Uh, in relation to that

available at the end. Uh, in relation to that final evolution, uh, I'm also going to take into

final evolution, uh, I'm also going to take into

final evolution, uh, I'm also going to take into consideration uh

consideration uh

consideration uh participation with the assignments, uh because it

participation with the assignments, uh because it

participation with the assignments, uh because it 's basically like uh keeping in mind uh

's basically like uh keeping in mind uh

's basically like uh keeping in mind uh the visualization of the classes, Right?

the visualization of the classes, Right?

the visualization of the classes, Right? Like reading the material, because while

Like reading the material, because while

Like reading the material, because while I don't grade those

I don't grade those

I don't grade those assignments, it's my decision, uh, and that's why I

assignments, it's my decision, uh, and that's why I

assignments, it's my decision, uh, and that's why I make them more reflective. My

make them more reflective. My

make them more reflective. My idea is that, with

idea is that, with

idea is that, with Karen's question, uh, you

Karen's question, uh, you

Karen's question, uh, you complete at least three assignments. uh, I

complete at least three assignments. uh, I

complete at least three assignments. uh, I understand that it's the same methodology you

understand that it's the same methodology you

understand that it's the same methodology you 're using in other subjects, more

're using in other subjects, more

're using in other subjects, more than anything like this, like with a

than anything like this, like with a

than anything like this, like with a class control, uh, for the time to get to the

class control, uh, for the time to get to the

class control, uh, for the time to get to the final evolution. Therefore, I'm

final evolution. Therefore, I'm

final evolution. Therefore, I'm letting you know that we are very attentive, uh,

letting you know that we are very attentive, uh,

letting you know that we are very attentive, uh, even though it's an unresolved issue

even though it's an unresolved issue

even though it's an unresolved issue , to the use of

, to the use of

, to the use of artificial intelligence in those submissions. uh,

artificial intelligence in those submissions. uh,

artificial intelligence in those submissions. uh, but that would be the idea, to take into

but that would be the idea, to take into

but that would be the idea, to take into consideration the submission of three

consideration the submission of three

consideration the submission of three reflections, because it also helps me

reflections, because it also helps me

reflections, because it also helps me understand how you're making

understand how you're making

understand how you're making interpretations and if I have to go

interpretations and if I have to go

interpretations and if I have to go back and clarify

back and clarify

back and clarify topics that weren't well understood,

topics that weren't well understood,

topics that weren't well understood, uh, and because it reflects that

uh, and because it reflects that

uh, and because it reflects that participation, so to speak, in this

participation, so to speak, in this

participation, so to speak, in this context of virtuality,

context of virtuality,

context of virtuality, uh, that would be the idea, but uh, the

uh, that would be the idea, but uh, the

uh, that would be the idea, but uh, the final focus will be on the

final focus will be on the

final focus will be on the evaluation.

evaluation.

evaluation. uh,

uh,

uh, there, Caren. I answered you.

there, Caren. I answered you.

there, Caren. I answered you. Politics and geography go hand in hand for

Politics and geography go hand in hand for

Politics and geography go hand in hand for me, the famous living space, and I think of

me, the famous living space, and I think of

me, the famous living space, and I think of how the United States annexed

how the United States annexed

how the United States annexed Mexican territory in its expansion

Mexican territory in its expansion

Mexican territory in its expansion towards the east. Well, it was part of a

towards the east. Well, it was part of a

towards the east. Well, it was part of a very specific moment. Today, uh, it would

very specific moment. Today, uh, it would

very specific moment. Today, uh, it would n't occur to me to suggest that

n't occur to me to suggest that

n't occur to me to suggest that Argentina has to annex territory,

Argentina has to annex territory,

Argentina has to annex territory, some kind of territory, right? For

some kind of territory, right? For

some kind of territory, right? For example, at one point, what we were saying

example, at one point, what we were saying

example, at one point, what we were saying about the threshold of power, acquiring

about the threshold of power, acquiring

about the threshold of power, acquiring territories and resources was one of the

territories and resources was one of the

territories and resources was one of the bases, right? for power. Uh,

bases, right? for power. Uh,

bases, right? for power. Uh, then, uh, one can also acquire

then, uh, one can also acquire

then, uh, one can also acquire British colonies, right? Uh,

British colonies, right? Uh,

British colonies, right? Uh, also without directly

also without directly

also without directly annexing, but they were also.

annexing, but they were also.

annexing, but they were also. Today, I think there are other tools

Today, I think there are other tools

Today, I think there are other tools as well, right?

as well, right?

as well, right? Uh, correct. Or how the United States

Uh, correct. Or how the United States

Uh, correct. Or how the United States influenced the separation of Panama from

influenced the separation of Panama from

influenced the separation of Panama from Colombia and the creation of the

Colombia and the creation of the

Colombia and the creation of the Panama Canal. The length of the others is

Panama Canal. The length of the others is

Panama Canal. The length of the others is 500 words, that is, short. Yes,

500 words, that is, short. Yes,

500 words, that is, short. Yes, exactly. Yes, yes, yes. The last one also had a

exactly. Yes, yes, yes. The last one also had a

exactly. Yes, yes, yes. The last one also had a limit of 500 words, it

limit of 500 words, it

limit of 500 words, it wasn't to coerce them. you, but

wasn't to coerce them. you, but

wasn't to coerce them. you, but so that you can take as a reference

so that you can take as a reference

so that you can take as a reference that the idea is that they are

that the idea is that they are

that the idea is that they are reflections, precisely because that's where

reflections, precisely because that's where

reflections, precisely because that's where I'm going to draw, uh,

I'm going to draw, uh,

I'm going to draw, uh, whether the concepts were understood or not

whether the concepts were understood or not

whether the concepts were understood or not . Uh, and not

. Uh, and not

. Uh, and not so much as, well, defining such a thing,

so much as, well, defining such a thing,

so much as, well, defining such a thing, because sometimes, uh, we've already seen that it's

because sometimes, uh, we've already seen that it's

because sometimes, uh, we've already seen that it's impossible to define many things, I'm not

impossible to define many things, I'm not

impossible to define many things, I'm not going to tell you to do it. Uh,

going to tell you to do it. Uh,

going to tell you to do it. Uh, but well, the idea is always

but well, the idea is always

but well, the idea is always to stay within a limit, even up to

to stay within a limit, even up to

to stay within a limit, even up to less than 500 words, uh, and it's not

less than 500 words, uh, and it's not

less than 500 words, uh, and it's not that you have to comply with 500 words. If

that you have to comply with 500 words. If

that you have to comply with 500 words. If the reflection is done, uh, and it's well

the reflection is done, uh, and it's well

the reflection is done, uh, and it's well done, ready.

done, ready.

done, ready. Uh,

Uh,

Uh, good. Well, if it's okay with you, today

good. Well, if it's okay with you, today

good. Well, if it's okay with you, today the class was a little longer, uh, we'll

the class was a little longer, uh, we'll

the class was a little longer, uh, we'll leave it here. Uh, thank you very much for all

leave it here. Uh, thank you very much for all

leave it here. Uh, thank you very much for all the attention and for the interventions that

the attention and for the interventions that

the attention and for the interventions that I think were very good. Uh,

I think were very good. Uh,

I think were very good. Uh, and if it's okay with you, then we'll see you

and if it's okay with you, then we'll see you

and if it's okay with you, then we'll see you next Saturday back with what

next Saturday back with what

next Saturday back with what will be uh the third debate on

will be uh the third debate on

will be uh the third debate on international relations, which is uh

international relations, which is uh

international relations, which is uh neorealism and

neorealism and

neorealism and complex interdependence.

complex interdependence.

complex interdependence. So, thank you very much, and we'll

So, thank you very much, and we'll

So, thank you very much, and we'll see you next time.

YouTube Transcript:
Clase N°4 - Geopolítica y Relaciones Internacionales

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:Clase N°4 - Geopolítica y Relaciones Internacionales

Video Transcript

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
Clase N°4 - Geopolítica y Relaciones Internacionales