Search

Contemporary international relations are characterized by increasing interstate rivalry, which is especially pronounced at the level of regional subsystems. Latin Caribbean America (LCA) serves a vivid example, becoming the arena of competition (including in ideological terms) between the United States, which has traditionally considered the region its sphere of influence, and China, which is actively forging cooperation with the LCA countries in various fields. The purpose of this article is to identify and assess the role of the ideological component in the policy of the J. Biden administration towards the LCA countries against the background of the growing U.S.-Chinese rivalry in the region. The first section of the article defines the place of LCA in the foreign policy strategy of the current administration in the context of the Democrats’ rhetoric about the struggle over the ‘free world’ challenged by the authoritarian regimes, in particular by the PRC. The second section analyzes the main forms and directions of the PRC’s policy aimed at strengthening its presence in LCA. The author notes that the American authorities assess these PRC activities extremely negatively, as undermining the foundations of the U.S. leadership in the region. As a result, a new bipartisan consensus is emerging on the need to take urgent measures to counter the growing influence of China. The third section examines the key initiatives of the J. Biden administration aimed at strengthening the U.S. positions in the LCA countries. The author concludes that the steps taken by the 46th President of the United States in the Latin American direction have strong ideological overtones. They actually force the LCA countries to take sides in the U.S.-Chinese confrontation, which in turn leads to further polarization of the region in the spirit of a new Cold War.

This article will focuses on the concept of "Großraum Order" proposed by the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt. In the 1920s, Schmitt observed structural changes in international law and order, which he believed indicated the emergence of an empire seeking to impose a universal order on other nations. During the Nazi era, Schmitt developed the concept of the "Großraum Order" to restore the balance of power in international relations and prevent external interference in Central and Eastern European affairs. This concept was derived from a reinterpretation of the United States' Monroe Doctrine. At its core, the "Großraum Order" proposes a pluralistic world order characterized by multiple regional hegemons, wherein hierarchical international legal order exists between the hegemonic states and subordinate nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors analyze the process of interaction between Russia, Mexico and the United States in the context of the struggle for Alta California. The essence of this process was the diplomatic, military-political and economic activity of these powers aimed at occupying lands in California and legalizing them by some of them. The purpose of the study is to establish the reasons for the unsuccessful actions of Spain and Russia in Alta California which led to the subordination of this territory to the United States of America. The source base is the office, diplomatic and memoir sources published in various collections and periodicals. The study shows the struggle between Russia, Mexico and the United States for the possession of lands in Alta California. It was established that Russia acted through the Russian-American company which controlled the Russian colonies in America. At the same time, the Russian government adhered to the principle of legitimism which restrained the company’s initiatives to expand its influence. The authors conclude that the United States was more active in the region and used its economic and trade superiority to increase its influence. Russia was unable to compete with the United States and missed a good opportunity to conclude an agreement with Mexico to confront the Americans and legalize its possessions in California, Fort Ross and other territories.

This paper analyzes the representations of U.S. statesmen, Bolívar, and San Martín during the centenaries of the Monroe Doctrine (1923) and the Congress of Panama (1926). On the one hand, it examines the characterizations of U.S. leaders and Bolívar, as well as the connections established between them, in the public interventions of various agents and articulators of U.S. Pan-American policy in the Americas during both commemorations. On the other hand, it explores the tensions and exchanges that these operations generated with "Bolivarian" political and literary referents, who insisted on presenting the Liberator as the unique father of Pan-Americanism. Finally, this article focuses on the efforts of some important politicians and intellectuals of Argentine and Chilean origin who tried to attribute to San Martín and other historical figures of the time a significant role in the birth of continental solidarity and cooperation. Ultimately, I argue that these centenaries triggered a series of complex political-ideological interactions among numerous diplomats, politicians, and intellectuals from across the continent, proving that the 1920s was a time of strong hegemonic expectations in which history became a powerful and effective resource in the attempt to reorganize and/or secure the hierarchies of the inter-American order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Monroe Doctrine occupies a unique place in the US history. It became one of the key foreign policy documents of its time and provided the basis for a wide variety of interpretations of the United States’ role and goals in the international arena at turning points of world history. One of these moments was the turn of the 1910s−1920s, when a new Versailles-Washington order of international relations was emerging. In the US public discourse, this period was marked by intense debates between supporters of the Democratic President V. Wilson and his isolationist opponents. Both Republicans and Democrats constantly referred to the Monroe Doctrine, on the one hand, to justify their own views on US foreign policy in the new conditions, and, on the other hand, to refute the arguments of their political opponents. The controversy surrounding the Monroe Doctrine has been reflected in publications in periodicals and analytical journals, as well as in cartoons. Studying these materials, it is possible to trace the evolution of the approaches of American politicians, experts, editors, and journalists to the Monroe Doctrine. The arguments of the Republicans against the ‘internationalist’ interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine that emerged in the face of the changing global context after the First World War are of particular interest. The study shows that at the initial stage of discussions (1920), the Monroe Doctrine was used by the Republicans primarily to criticize W. Wilson’s concept of international relations in general and his position on the League of Nations in particular. At the next stage (1921−1923), the debate focused around the need to revise the Monroe Doctrine itself, that aroused due to new trends in the development of international relations in the Far East and, in particular, because of the increasing competition between the United States and Japan. The author identifies several main approaches to the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine formulated during the public debate in 1921−1923. It is shown that, despite significant divergences of view, both isolationists and internationalists eventually came to broader interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine, recognizing the need to extend its principles to the entire Asia-Pacific region.

Despite the growing academic attention to the problem of interference in internal affairs, rhetorical techniques the state uses to legitimize interventions in the eyes of foreign counterparties, remain somewhat understudied in the Russian IR studies. In this regard, the case of the Monroe Doctrine, a landmark ideological construct in the history of international relations and US foreign policy, provides a unique framework for an in-depth study of the practices of legitimization and stigmatization of interventions. The paper examines the role of the doctrine in denouncing the interference of European powers in the domestic affairs of Latin American countries and justifying US actions in the region. The author outlines a set of issues related to legitimizing, both externally and internally, the actions of the state in the international arena. It is shown that the appeal to national interests suitable for solving the problems of domestic political legitimization, turns out to be ineffective in justifying interventions in the eyes of the international community and therefore gives way to references to established traditions and historical narratives. The paper examines the historical background of the 1823 presidential address and the ways how the US foreign policy establishment appealed to it later on, both to promote the idea of the inadmissibility of European interference in the affairs of the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and, subsequently, to justify American interventionism. Special attention is paid to the so-called Roosevelt Corollary, since it allows one to better understand the specifics of the US leaders’ perception of the Monroe Doctrine and to separate them from the distortions and stereotypes formed during the ensuing public debates and uncritically replicated in many academic studies. The author concludes that, though the Monroe Doctrine is regarded as a cornerstone of US foreign policy, in fact it played a limited role in both diplomatic justification and stigmatization of interventions. In this regard, it is more appropriate to consider it as a rhetorical asset rather than a strict guiding principle. In general, the case of the Monroe Doctrine reveals the situational conditionality of the practices legitimizing interventions, resulting in their limited persuasiveness. The latter seems to be almost inevitable given the constitutive importance of the institution of sovereignty for the maintenance of international society.

The rapid transformation of the current world order excites renewed interest of the expert community in the phenomenon of empire (as a form of the organization of political life). And since the United States plays a central role in this transformation, the history of the Pax Americana, its formation and development, both at the level of the idea and in the field of real politics is of particular relevance. The author argues that clarification of the role and significance of the colonial background in the projection of US military-political power in the late 19th — early 21st centuries allows for better understanding of the theory and practice of international relations both in the era of ‘high imperialism’ and world wars of the 20th century, and in the context of transition from global colonial empires to nuclear superpowers. It may also be instrumental in addressing the deepening contradictions between advocates of a ‘global leadership’ concept and proponents of a multipolar world during the post-Cold War period. In this regard, the paper examines the works of the US military theorists of the late 19th − first half of the 20th centuries that focused on the colonial experience of the leading European powers, as well as the experience gained from interventions involving the US Army and Marine Corps. Special emphasis is given to the concept of ‘small wars’. Building on a wide array of primary sources, presented both by the works of military experts, direct participants in various counterinsurgency operations in the colonies, as well as by the teaching materials and field manuals of the US Marine Corps, the author traces the evolution of this concept which implied establishment of external management and/or control through military and police measures. This allows the author to restore the historical genealogy of current models of internal security promoted in American foreign policy in conditions of proliferating, protracted, and increasingly hybrid civil conflicts. The author concludes that in the interwar period the US law enforcement agencies pragmatically implemented the relevant experience of global empires in Latin American countries within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine, while regarding European powers as political rivals. It is noted that conflicting imperatives of asymmetric and conventional threats to US national security urge researchers and practitioners to revisit after a post-Vietnam period of neglect the approaches of colonial empires to the conduct of small wars and to adapt them to modern conditions. The findings broaden the understanding of the modern leading powers’ approaches to internal security models transfer, as well as of its limits.

The new US foreign policy concept in the Western hemisphere introduced by the American President J. Monroe in December 1823 has become a milestone both in the country’s history and in the theory and practice of international relations in general. For Great Britain, the principles of the Monroe Doctrine acquired new relevance after the end of the First World War. The prospect of unfettered Bolshevik expansion into British colonies and dependent territories in Asia and Africa became a matter of particular concern for the UK ruling circles. It was this threat that forced the military and political elites of Great Britain to turn to the experience of their overseas counterparts and develop a set of measures that can be described as the British edition of the Monroe Doctrine. These measures were directed right against the Bolsheviks’ attempts to revolutionize the national liberation movement and to use it to undermine the ‘colonial rear’ of the imperialist powers. British decision-makers interpreted these attempts as a Bolsheviks’ endeavor to revive the foreign policy practices of the Russian Empire and denoted them as ‘communist militarism’. It is through the lens of the collision of the British edition of the Monroe Doctrine and the concept of ‘communist militarism’ that this study examines the dynamics of the Soviet-British confrontation in Central Asia in the mid-1920s. Special attention is paid to the struggle that took place between the two countries in Iran (Persia), Afghanistan, northwest India, Xinjiang and Tibet. This competition for influence over local rulers took a variety of forms: from information and propaganda campaigns to rivalry in the field of infrastructure and logistics projects. At the same time, it was accompanied by a constant clash of interests of various factions within the USSR and Great Britain, which prevented them from pursuing a coherent policy in the region. Together, these circumstances endowed the Soviet-British rivalry in Central Asia in the 1920s with a number of unique features that does not allow it to be interpreted as just yet another round of the ‘Great Game’.

Pan-Asianism as a concept is conventionally associated with Japan's imperialism during the Second World War. This paper, in contrast, argues that far from being merely a language of hegemony, Pan-Asianism had a far more complex role to play in the early twentieth century. As an anti-imperial ideology, Pan-Asianism advanced a normative argument for the emancipation of Asia from Western imperialism and provided an alternative vision of civilization. As an anti-imperial strategy, Pan-Asianism offered Indian nationalist leaders in exile a necessary language to gain international support in favour of their nationalist movement. The paper explains how the ideological and strategic aspects of Pan-Asianism then affected and informed the development of contemporary international law with specific reference to the law of neutrality, the right to self-determination, racial equality, and the Monroe Doctrine. By doing so, it sheds light on an important yet ignored episode of the historical development of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Janus.Net: e-Journal of International Relations is the property of Universidade Autonoma de Lisboa, Observare / Observatorio de Relacoes Exteriores and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Latin American Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Monroe Doctrine, which represents a formative trauma for Latin American states, is infl uencing both their attitudes to the war in Ukraine, in which they distance themselves from both Russia and Western states, as well as their role as a neutralizing and stabilizing power in the international system. Since its beginning, most Latin American governments‘ assessment of the war in Ukraine has diff ered from Western countries in various important respects. On the one hand, all Latin American states condemn Russia‘s military intervention in Ukraine, yet, on the other hand, they diverge from the “West” on the causes of the war, on questions of sanctions and guilt, and on end scenarios. In this article, I investigate how Latin America‘s experiences with the Monroe Doctrine has infl uenced its independent attitude to the war in Ukraine, its intermediate position in the new tension between the great powers, and its peace-promoting potential in the newly forming international system. Theoretically, I deal critically with imperialism and strategic development approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Security Studies / Güvenlik Calışmalari Dergisi is the property of Turkish National Police Academy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article seeks to historicize both the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the debate on realism occasioned by Russian aggression in Ukraine since 2014. Using the research of Gerard Toal on Russia's construction of its security interests in the post-Soviet spaces that include Ukraine, the article argues that neorealist geopolitical explanations fail to do justice to the roles of contingency and culture in setting Russia's so-called 'red lines.' It also identifies an agency problem in realism: realists not only fail to do justice to the agency of small states like Ukraine in this conflict but elide the moral and practical agency of decisionmakers like Russian President Vladmir Putin. The article also suggests that the current realism debate is the tip of an iceberg: realism has long had a problem specifying the relation of its theory to its practice. The article concludes by discussing the long shadow of 19th century imperial history over contemporary discussions of spheres of influence and great power status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Modern Turkish History Studies / Çagdas Türkiye Tarihi Arastirmalari Dergisi is the property of Journal of Modern Turkish History Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article demonstrates the pre-eminent place the issue of interstate relations occupies in Carl Schmitt's political thinking between the early 1920s and early 1940s. First, I discuss how Schmitt's understanding of interstate relations develops from 1923 until the Nazi's taking power. By focusing on his critique of imperialism and universalism in international law during this period, I reveal that his engagement with the Monroe Doctrine, the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg–Briand Pact results in a change in his views in Roman Catholicism and Political Form in which he talks about the possibility of a world state in the form of a League of Nations with supra-state and supra-sovereignty powers. Second, I show to what extent the novel international circumstances created by the emergence of the Nazi rule leads him to elaborate the concepts of the Reich and the Groβraum in addition to his continuing engagement with the concepts of imperialism and universalism. By accentuating the development of his interest in the concepts of imperialism, universalism, the Reich and the Groβraum, I argue that the question of interstate relations is the sine qua non of Schmitt's political thinking. I conclude by asserting that studying Schmitt's political thinking in its connection with his interest in interstate relations provides a promising path for leftist political theorists to understand, explain and reimagine the contemporary global order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Mediterranean Sea is an important geopolitical region which defines the economic and strategic interests of the world powers, including the USA. The author`s vision of the US Mediterranean policy and its periodization was presented in the article. Research objective: the paper is devoted to the problem of the US Mediterranean policy in the 19th century. The purpose of the presented study is to research origin and development of the US Mediterranean policy taking into account the context of the European and world historical processes. Scientific novelty: the innovative nature of the article lies in the revision of the approach to the US Mediterranean policy`s timeline. The author`s periodization of the US Mediterranean policy was presented in the research. A special attention was focused on the US economic and geopolitical interests` transformations at each stage. Research methods. The history and genetic method was used in the article. It helps to research the origins of the US Mediterranean policy and to separate this policy into self-contained stages. Author`s periodization of the US Mediterranean policy became practical results of the mentioned method. The author demonstrated connections between all stages as holistic process of the American foreign policy`s evolution. An accent is done on research of geopolitical and economic interests of the USA in the field of the system analysis. That allows to consider connection between American foreign policy and European and world historical processes. The influence of the Concert of Europe and the Doctrine of Monroe on the US Mediterranean policy was taken into account also. Conclusions. In contradiction with widespread vision of the US Mediterranean policy in the 19th century as an unseparated historical period, it is possible to defined three stages. The first period (1776–1823) represented the early vision of the American state`s economic interests. The US Mediterranean policy until 1823 was characterized by intensive commercial, political and military activity in the region. The first military conflict in the history of the USA as an independent state was connected with the trade routes and security of navigation in the Mediterranean Sea. The second period (1823–1898) was characterized by principles of the Monroe Doctrine. During the period of isolationism, the USA maintained diplomatic and economic ties with the Mediterranean countries. A main aspect of the US Mediterranean policy at the mention period consisted of the humanitarian and commercial efforts in the Northern Africa and The Middle East. The third period (1898–1914) showed a gradually revision of the Monroe Doctrine. The transformation of the American political course was observed after the Spanish war and in the eve of the First World War. It was concluded that the Mediterranean policy of the USA in 19th century had an evolutional character and corresponded with inclusive European and American policy. Each of the mentioned stages represented an important period of history of the American diplomacy and foreign policy, that is why a research has a prospect for a future survey.

This article explores three important dimensions of the work and trajectory of Camilo Barcia Trelles: his understanding of the Monroe Doctrine; his vision and contribution to the debates in Latin America and the United States over intervention and the codification of American international law; and how his own understanding of the intellectual legacy of Francisco de Vitoria shaped his views and approaches to these topics. The article argues that Barcia Trelles provided a Spanish Americanist version of international law in the Americas, according to which, following the Spanish conquest of America and Vitoria's important contribution to international law, a irreversible division began to emerge between the two Americas, that is, the Latin American and US traditions of international law, especially since the US Declaration of Independence, the collapse of the Spanish Monarchy and the independence of the Spanish American republics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carl Schmitt's The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum (1950) undertook a re-interpretation of the modern origins of the discipline of international law, placing Vitoria at its pivot, as the Spanish international law professor Camilo Barcia Trelles (1888–1977) had done before. Barcia's work had a strong influence on some of the seminal pieces on international law and geopolitics that Schmitt wrote in the period from 1941 to 1950. This was the case for Schmitt's historical mythology of the opposition between sea and earth and its juridical consequence, his doctrine of the Grossraum, which had as its basis Barcia's account of the Monroe Doctrine, and also of Schmitt's critique of the 'discrimination of war' formalized in the Kellogg–Briand Pact. According to Barcia, the exclusion of European powers from the American continent by the United States as a rising hegemon was transformed – thanks to its domination of the sea – into the global reach of a world police power. Barcia did not agree with Brown Scott's transformation of international law through American liberal internationalism into 'modern international law'. While Brown Scott and Schmitt were competing for two opposing vernaculars of the discipline in search for a new definition and to shape it, Barcia was instrumental in the opposed efforts of these two apparently very dissimilar representatives of international law by ushering Vitoria into their service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, historians have focused on efforts at the turn of the 20th century by Alejandro Álvarez, Luis María Drago, and Baltasar Brum (all Southern Cone diplomats) to foster continental cooperation by Pan-Americanizing the Monroe Doctrine. Overlooked in this endeavor are the remarkable activities of Colombian author, journalist, and diplomat, Santiago Pérez Triana. Using primary and secondary sources, this article analyzes Pérez Triana’s support of the Drago Doctrine at the 1907 Hague Convention, his speeches at the Pan-American Financial Conference in 1915, and his essays published in Hispania, a journal that he edited between 1912 and 1916, to show how he won the respect of American and European diplomats by emerging as an influential spokesman for Pan-Americanizing the Monroe Doctrine and for hemispheric unity.

Review for a monograph Farkhutdinov I. Z. “American Doctrine of Preventive Military Strike from Monroe to Trump: International Legal Aspects”. M. : EURASNIIPP, 2017. 338 p.The monograph of the prominent Russian expert in the field of international law, Insur Zabirovich Farkhutdinov “The American Doctrine of Military Strike from Monroe to Trump: International Legal Aspects” sparked a lively scientific discussion around the problem of the use of force in the modern international system. On the one hand, to preserve the global legal order, it is absolutely necessary to intervene internationally in the political situation where human rights are violated, on the other hand, the unjustified use of force creates the threat of escalating political instability and undermines international security. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Monroe Doctrine was created as a political instrument to protect the US from interference by foreign governments in the internal affairs of America, but became a means of spreading national sovereignty to spaces with an international regime and the territory of other countries.