IPLA Final

Liberalism (Lowenthal)

Focuses on cooperation and international institutions to achieve common goals government as key actor compromising mutually beneficial economic concerns, a central Mexican revolution 1910 to 20 US supported factions of revolution the line with its interest. Wilson promoted constitutional democracy and refused to recognise non-democratic governments.

Radicalism (Lowenthal)

US foreign policy serves the interests of capitalism. What liberals regard as miscalculations, misinterpretations, radicals call it a rational coherent and patterned. US prefers allies to be dependable and weak conflict of interest economic, focus business and organisations influence government Pancho, Vilara rated Columbus New Mexico, 1916 lead to punitive expedition to capture and kill him to protect US Imperial national interests. Aim to maintain US economic dominance.

Idealism (Lowenthal)

Foreign policy reflects internal values and ideas of the state prioritise ethical and moral values, advocating for cooperation and a more just in peaceful world. Political focus government is the main actor assumes all countries want to uphold liberal ideologies and values interest, groups and businesses are selfish the government must count of them to protect human rights emphasise national goals in diplomacy Wilson's moral diplomacy 1915 to 17, believed the US should support stable democratic leadership in Mexico and spread its values Support Carranza for democratic Mexico, despite complex over Royal nationalisation, refused to recognise pancho villa due to his violent/unstable government, conflicting Wilsons democratic vision for Mexico

Realism

Power and self interest drive state behaviour can oversimplify other influences US alone on the world stage they can only help themselves nation state is the most important actor power, national interest and security. At the forefront. The world is competitive. Conflict is inevitable, state unitary, rational, actor, US and Verracruz 1914, took over port secured US geopolitical and economic power, driven by US self interest, not moral objectives.

Bureaucratic framework (Lowenthal)

Many agencies operate independently, driven by their own interests, aiming to grow in power and influence, striving to become the main actor. Different people have specialised roles within the government, leading to a distribution of responsibilities contrasts realism, know single unitary actor, rather a plurality of voices and interests.

• Defining national interests difficult as competing, agendas shape policy decisions, highlights, complexity, of politics, and the challenge of achieving unified goals.

Transnational Politics

State is not the only actor, but they're also non-governmental actors that play a role in international relations lobbying international governmental organisations influence global policies, political interactions, cross national borders involving nonstate, actors, NGOs, advocacy groups, corporations, and individuals. This challenges the view that politics only occurs between states, power and influence is D centralised and disperse challenges realism through complementation power beyond state centric view changing liberalism through dispersion, no shared or mutual interests.

Grenada

1983 - US military with Caribbean allies, intervened. Operation Urgent Fury to protect the lives of US students, restore democratic government and eradicate Cuban influence on the island. NJM movement flirted with Cuba (example of Escalation, misperceptions, whirlpool (Pastor). US intervened where there was no legitimate government, to restore democracy (worked)

^^ Under Reagan (barely on a map? a threat?)

Nicaragua/El Salvador

Historically was a dictatorship, but anti-communism (aligned w US). U.S pressure on Sandinista Guerrilla government to work in interest of U.S. Nicaragua, provided arms to El Salvador U.S worried about spread of revolution, and Cuban influence. US hesitant to invade post Vietnam. Employed exiles (contras) with U.S help hoping to could invade dislodge the Sandinista government.

• Exiles stopped arms, moving between Nicaragua and El Salvador.

• U.S mines around Nicaragua, and embargo (1985). To "halt its export of armed insurrection, terrorism, and subversion in neighbouring countries." To end its military ties to Cuba and the Soviet Union.

^^ Done under Reagan (Iran-Contra scandal) willing to lose presidency over this.

Panama

Bush sucked in Panama whirlpool (grow) - full scale military invasion to instil democracy. Concern w the Dictator Noreiga (drug tarafficking), remained civil as wanted allies in LA with Nicaragua. Pressured dictatorship to step down through economic sanctions. Next election was rigged, the winner violated democracy, U.S applies more pressure, Panama declares a state of war, and U.S intervenes.

• Motivations: security threat (drug war), priority of values/democracy, Reputation.

• four objectives: Safeguard the lives of Americans in Panama, protect the democratic election process, apprehend Noriega for drug trafficking, and to protect integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty

• Result: Success, installed previously elected government, been democratic since.

Cuba

• Us Defeat

The U.S. and Castro learned from the Guatemalan experience. attempted embargo failed. The Bay of Pigs (exile) invasion in 1961 to overthrow Castro failed.

• Castro was already Communist/Marxist before US troubles, Soviet aligned with them more.

• Initially, the US wanted to provide support to Cuba, hoping they’d become democratic. e.g. Sugar trade (US buy lots of sugar at higher than market price, they didn’t even need to help the Cuban economy/markets)

• Mutual breakdown of relations.

• There was an initial diplomatic engagement, neither side planned on becoming enemies. (Escalation of the whirlpool)

Cuba (post cold war)

Until the 1990s, hostility was unsurprising, given the general communist threat. After the Soviet fall, Cuba no longer posed a threat. Cuban immigrants influencing US FP (realists say this hijacks US foreign policy, liberals say this is normal/encouraged).

Embargo in 60s fell apart when the US weakened, leading to its allies to undermine it. The U.S forced companies to adhere to the embargo, undermining, punishing them with no access to U.S markets if not adhering.

Lack of soviet power provides an opportunity for better relations.

• generational change

• weak economy allows this.

Obama wanted to normalize relations with Cuba, Trump wants to keep embargo, there is some business and economic potential.

Haiti

From dictatorship to populism, mass immigration seen as a problem to U.S security (interest-driven realism). A left-wing populist priest wins election, promotes the needs of the populations. Populists don't want to be constrained by institutions, they want to do what they think is best, this is more dominant than the liberal. Conservatives take over in a suppressive coup causing many to flee. Bush/Clinton not happy, want to restore democracy. The U.S. can only help enforce democracy in the short term, hard to upkeep without institutions, and a weak system.

• peacekeeping mission in 2004 restored some democracy

• struggled after the earthquake

US intervene because of a brutal military regime causing an immigration surge.

Aristide removed

Chile

Covert Military operation, Allende overthrown by Pinochet, Allende nationalised copper mining (economic), Allende becoming close with Cuba and Soviet ties, Pinochet aligned more with U.S interests than Allende. (fear of “another Cuba”) 1973 11 september

Track I - encourage a coup in

Track II - CIA would fund/ support military coup, but not be directly involved

Devine vs Kornbluh

Devine:

• Former CIA argues that the CIA's actions were aimed at protecting Chile's democratic institutions from President Allende's.

• The U.S. government's primary strategy was to support opposition parties and media outlets to create conditions for Allende's electoral defeat in future elections.

• The military coup and the rise of General Pinochet were unintended consequences, not direct objectives of U.S. policy

Kornbluh:

• Asserts that the CIA maintained an active role in efforts to remove Allende from power.

• U.S. covert operations went beyond merely supporting democratic opposition; they included initiatives designed to destabilise Allende's government and create a climate conducive to a military coup.

• U.S. did not abandon its objective of ousting Allende and that the CIA's activities significantly contributed to the events leading up to the coup and Pinochet's subsequent dictatorship.

Dominican Republic

• US Victory

US direct intervention 1965 In civil war to restore peace and stability, and remove communist/soviet threat, brought through revolution.

Supported and assisted by Organisation of American States (OAS).

• led to a peaceful political settlement.

Pastor (Whirlpool)

• The process of escalation in the US in LA countries, the deeper the US gets involved, the harder it is for them to get out.

• In Grenada, the U.S didn't intervene because Grenada was a threat, but rather because of the potential influence in the region

• gets worse and worse, escalation hard to get out of the whirlpool.

• Cuban conflict emerged through escalation on both sides but could've been avoided. (not wanted)

• conflict starts small but blows out of proportion, often avoidable, leads to a series of mistakes, misinterpretations, and overreactions, often brought about by paranoia and mutual reinforcement of misperception.

• US doesn't pay all that much attention to Latin America, there's a lack of understanding of the politics and FP in the area (root cause of U.S getting sucked in)

• The Pastor’s account is more liberal. He assumes actors have a compatibility of interest. They work together and they want the same things and act in the same way for the same reasons.

Grow

• The US cannot prosper without security.

• Security and the fear of Communism is central to US foreign policy

  Realism emphasises national security and power dynamics, whereas liberalism recognises the role of International corporations and institutions.

• Grow disagrees with radicalism. He rejects the idea that business interests drive US foreign policy. Security concerns are more important than economics. Economic self-interest does not play a decisive role in US decisions to intervene.

• Says the Presidents believe a passive response makes the US look weak.

• Grow argues that it was not threats to U.S. national security or endangered economic interests that were decisive in prompting presidents to launch these interventions. Rather, each intervention was part of a symbolic geopolitical chess match in which the White House sought to project an image of overpowering strength to audiences at home and abroad-in order to preserve both national and presidential credibility.

Guatemala

Communist influences were alarming the US, especially through nationalisations Arbenz land reform 2/3 away from the UFCO taking away bananas and coffee. CIA coup 1954, stop Communist spread. Supporting military regime to overthrow of ends with pro US government militia of exiles non-direct intervention.

Mexico

constitutional reform 1917 land reform labour rights, nationalisation, US accepted this as they didn't want to drive Mexico way they successfully reconciled because of location. Economic ties, intervention didn't work, and reconciliation was more attractive during World War I (needed Mexican support) and not hostile.

Bolivia

Rich in copper, tin and silver South America was pretty anti-Communist Bolivian revolution threatened US interest through nationalisation of industries beginning of alliance for progress US help to stabilise the political economy, reconciliation not intervention.

Nixon 1969-74

Was a realist, didn’t want the Panama Canal to go ahead, delegated control of LA to Brazil, wanted to contain communism in China and the Soviet Union. Covert military coup in Chile to overthrow Allende with Pinochet. Controversy of Watergate.

Carter 1977-81

Idealist, focused on human rights, development and cooperation over the Cold War. Successfully initiated Panama Canal Treaty (1977). He emphasised diplomacy and aimed to improve relations with Latin America.

Reagan 1981-89

Promoted a strong anti-communist stance, emphasised military buildup, largely ignored South America, causing a debt crisis. Supported the Contras in Nicaragua and placed an embargo. South America/Central American Divide. Invaded Grenada (1983) ousted Marxist NJM under Bishop.

Bush 1989-93

Globalization

• creates both opportunities for cooperation and sources of conflict.

• States often choose cooperation to avoid economic and political fallout.

• the interconnectedness of economies and cultures across borders, leading to both positive and negative consequences for nations and communities.

• Increased mobility of goods, people, and ideas.

• Porous borders → harder to control what crosses (e.g., drugs, migrants).

• Spread of wanted goods (tech, investment) and unwanted ones (drugs, arms).

• Migration became a major topic.

• Environmental issues crossed borders (e.g., deforestation in the Amazon).

Foreign Policy Post-Cold War

Was there a coherent policy?

• The U.S. tried to pursue a consistent approach:

  • Promote democracy, human rights, and economic development.

  • Address drug trafficking and organized crime.
    Examples: Support for anti-drug efforts in Colombia (Plan Colombia); economic aid and trade deals.

But... it was often inconsistent:

• Policies changed with administrations (e.g., Obama vs. Trump).

• Focused on short-term gains (like reducing migration) rather than solving root issues like poverty or corruption.
  Critics say U.S. actions were often self-serving, not regionally collaborative.

Would a coherent policy help?

• Yes, it could help build stronger, more stable partnerships.

• Hard to achieve, because:

  • The region is diverse (different cultures, economies, politics).

  • Countries have different needs and relationships with the U.S.

Leftist Wave

• In the mid-2000s, many countries elected left-wing governments.

  • Seen as a response to failed neoliberal policies from the 80s–90s.

  • Examples: Venezuela (Chávez), Bolivia (Morales), Ecuador (Correa).

• These leaders were:

  • Democratically elected, but often populist and anti-U.S..

  • Rejected neoliberalism and pushed state control of resources.

• The U.S. didn’t intervene much, even though Chávez openly criticized them.

• Reasons:

  • Less strategic interest in the region.

  • Leftist governments weren’t always a clear military or security threat.

    Radical left was stronger in smaller or weaker economies.

  • Many countries (e.g., Brazil, Colombia) remained moderate or right-leaning.

  • Leftist strength relied on:

    • Oil money from Venezuela.

    • Commodity boom — when prices dropped, so did their power.

  • Their dependence on Chávez’s support made their influence unsustainable in the long run.

Unilateralism

(acting alone, without global approval)

• Panama military invasion 1989 (Bush)

• More common under George W. Bush (2000s).

  • Example: Iraq War – U.S. pushed for support from the UNSC but didn’t consult them on interventions in LA

  • Mexico and Chile were pressured at the UN to support the war, causing tension.

• Venezuela under Hugo Chávez became a concern:

  • He used oil money to gain influence, especially in the Caribbean and OAS (Organization of American States).

  • The U.S. saw this as a threat to its dominance in the region

  • the policy of a state acting independently in international affairs, without seeking consent or collaboration from other countries or international organizations. This approach highlights a preference for pursuing national interests over multilateral negotiations.

multilateralism

(working together through international institutions)

• Promoted by Robert Pastor (liberal approach).

  • Encouraged diplomatic collaboration, mutual problem-solving.

  • Example: shared responsibility in tackling regional issues.

• Advantages for the U.S.:

  • Spreads the burden of action.

  • Legitimizes U.S. policies through international support.

• Challenges:

  • Institutions often use equal voting (e.g., Grenada = U.S.), which the U.S. dislikes.

  • U.S. wants more influence to reflect its power.

As a result, multilateralism can feel limiting for the U.S.

realist view on globalization

•  Sees globalization as a threat to state control and sovereignty.

  • Focuses on border security and state power.

  • Emphasizes the need for states to protect their interests and maintain autonomy in a rapidly changing global landscape.

liberal view on globalization

• Supports globalization.

  • Sees it as driven by individual choice and economic opportunity.

  • Encourages cooperation, free movement, and interdependence.

  • Proponents argue it leads to greater prosperity and cultural exchange, benefiting societies globally.

radical view on globalisation

• globalization primarily serves corporate interests, increasing wealth gaps and undermining workers' rights, especially in developing nations.

  • Sees globalization as exploitative.

  • Worsens inequality between rich (Global North) and poor (Global South).

  • Big businesses benefit, workers suffer.

Modernization theory (sunkel)

• Assumes a linear path to development: from traditional to modern society.

• Argues that economic development leads to democracy, better governance, and higher living standards.

• Promotes integration into the global economy as universally beneficial.

• Example: Belief that competition and specialization will automatically lift countries into prosperity.

Dependency theory (Sunkel)

• Economic underdevelopment in Latin America is a result of development in the Global North.

• The North’s prosperity is directly linked to the South’s poverty.

• Emphasizes exploitation through global capitalism.

• Example: Latin American countries stuck exporting low-value goods (like bananas) while importing high-value manufactured goods.

• Summary of Dependency Theory (Sunkel):

  • Rich countries grow at the expense of poor ones.

  • Global South’s underdevelopment is built into the global system.

  • Breaking free requires autonomy, reduced reliance on foreign capital, and prioritizing domestic industries.

TNC role in dependency (Sunkel)

• TNCs distort development by dominating key sectors, outcompeting local businesses.

• Skew social development by worsening inequality, creating enclaves of modernity surrounded by poverty.

• Undue political influence: Shape domestic policies, weaken local sovereignty.

• Technological impacts: Automation reduces labor needs, fewer jobs for locals.

• Transnational integration, national disintegration: TNCs embed themselves in economies but bypass local communities.

  • Example: A mining company benefits elite and foreign investors while locals face pollution and displacement.

Dependency development (Geraffi)

Dependent Development:

• Development is possible within dependency—e.g., through integration into global commodity chains.

• Global (Asymmetrical) Commodity Chains (GCCs): Products are made through a sequence involving many countries, but profits and power are concentrated in the North.

  • Example: Latin America mines raw materials, while Northern firms do the design, branding, and high-profit steps.

  New Dependency:

  • Adds tech, media, and cultural dimensions.

  • Dependency also within and among developed nations.

  • Some opportunities for advancement via ICT and digital integration.

  Gereffi’s Contribution

  • Retains focus on global inequality.

  • Introduces the idea of "upgrading" in commodity chains.

  • Development is possible—but only if countries move up the value chain.

    • Example: Moving from raw coffee bean export to branding and selling high-end coffee.

Role of state in dependency

• States can manage dependency by setting conditions (e.g., requiring local hires or tech transfer).

• Success varies: Brazil (skilled workforce, better leverage) vs. Bolivia (more limited bargaining tools).

Outsourcing & Industrialization:

• Manufacturing jobs moved to Global South, but this does not equal Northern-style industrialization.

• South often stuck in low-value tasks (assembly, raw materials).

Chinas rising role

• Became top trading partner in many countries after 2000.

• Buys raw materials (copper, soy), sells manufactured goods.

• Boosted Latin American economies: more jobs, tax revenue, funding for social programs.

  • Example: Venezuela funded social policies with Chinese-backed oil revenues.

Opportunities:

• Alternative to US hegemony.

• New leverage for Latin American countries.

• Economic support for leftist movements.

Risks:

• New dependency: reliance on Chinese demand.

• Lower accountability: Chinese firms less concerned about labor/environment than Western TNCs, because western TNCs are built on liberal tendencies, so must uphold this view of compatible interests.

• Domestic industry strain: cheaper Chinese goods outcompete local producers.

  • Example: Mexican manufacturers struggled to compete with Chinese imports.

  • China's role in Latin America is not just economic, they have the tools to become a potential political and military influence in the region

  • this is a Challenge to U.S. dominance in the region, causing china to be a potential geopolitical rival

Liberal view of regional economic integration

advocates that economic integration fosters collaboration between nations, leading to increased trade, mutual benefits, and enhanced diplomatic relations. It suggests that when countries engage economically, they are less likely to enter conflicts.

• Free trade = mutual benefit and efficiency.

• Integration promotes peace, democracy, prosperity.

• Emphasis on economic interdependence and global norms

radical view of regional economic integration

• this perspective suggests that economic integration predominantly benefits Transnational Corporations (TNCs) while increasing inequality and jeopardizing labor rights. This view argues that such integration reinforces dependency on core countries, particularly the United States.

• Exacerbates inequality, and undermines labor rights.

• Strengthens dependency on core countries (esp. U.S.).

realist view of regional economic integration

• States act in self-interest; politics drive economics.

• Integration as a tool for regional influence and power.

• Example: NAFTA as U.S. geopolitical strategy to bind Mexico to U.S. rather than focus on trading or economics.

Regional integation (Covarrubius)

political instability has hindered regional integration in Latin America attempts from OAS and MERCOSER to manage aspects of the economy and democracy, revival post-Cold War could not addressed your political dynamics at play leading to factions and inconsistent governments, fragmentation reflects deep-rooted, political disputes, and lack of consensus amongst Latin American nations limit in cooperative interests for shared goals, unity, threatened by persistent change.

NAFTA (Stallings)

• Nature: Neoliberal trade agreement (1994); replaced by USMCA (2018, minimal changes).

• Effects:

  • Increased trade and investment.

  • Outsourcing of jobs to Mexico; U.S. job losses in manufacturing.

  • Mexican agriculture harmed by U.S. imports.

  • No regional compensation or social support mechanisms.

  • Helped Mexican economic diversification and limited democratic gains.

• Critiques:

  • Failed to address inequality between U.S. and Mexico.

  • Mixed results; benefits unevenly distributed.

FTAA

Free Trade Area of the Americas, was proposed to create a trade agreement among countries in the Americas, aiming to eliminate trade barriers and promote economic integration across the hemisphere.

• U.S. Goals: Hemisphere-wide free trade zone.

• Latin American Resistance:

  • Fear of U.S. dominance.

  • Concerns about sovereignty, inequality, and local development.

• Key Opponents: Venezuela (Chávez), Brazil.

• U.S. Side Problems:

  • Unwillingness to compromise on agriculture, IP rights.

  • Shifted focus to bilateral deals (e.g., TPP).

ALBA (Cusack)

• Founder: Hugo Chávez (Venezuela), supported by Cuba, Bolivia, others.

• Goals:

  • Counter-hegemonic; block FTAA and NAFTA

  • Emphasize solidarity, social justice, and sovereignty.

  • Promote cooperation in education, health, energy.

• Achievements:

  • Cuban doctors, subsidized oil, rhetorical leadership.

• Limitations:

  • Lacked institutionalization.

  • Dependent on Chávez's leadership and oil wealth.

  • Weakened after Chávez's death and Venezuela’s crisis.

U.S implementation of Democracy (Wiarda)

Problematic as it assumes shared ideals and ignores the cultures, history and politics of nations can clash with Latin American preferences, causing scepticism. The US wants identical democracies, but it doesn't have to be that way US is it perfect, either wise or hypocritical?

• U.S. ideals vs. reality

  • Idealism, paternalism, inconsistency

  • Interests often prioritized over democratic principles

  • Democratic concerns sidelined except under some presidents (e.g., Carter, Kennedy)

• Democracy in Latin America

  • Authoritarian wave in the 60s–70s

  • Shift towards democracy began in 1978 (e.g., Dominican Republic, Costa Rica)

  • 1980s: emergence of multiple democratic governments

Perfect democracy

• Elections must be:

  • Free, fair, and competitive

  • Coupled with civil/human rights

• Institutional strength:

  • Checks and balances

  • Rule of law

• Societal prerequisites:

  • Security
    Social and economic equality

• Tensions between:

  • U.S. liberal democratic model

Latin American needs and realities

Authoritarian Backsliding (Populism) Di Bonaventura

Backsliding questions, rational regional organisations, ability to enforce democratic principles. In context of shifting political ideologies can go bad fast, need strong institutions to overcome or backsliding will occur

• Key features:

  • Personalized, charismatic leadership

  • Anti-elitism, anti-institutionalism

  • Appeals to the "people"

  • Resistance to liberal constraints

• Tactics:

  • Bold promises, rapid implementation

  • Loyalty-based appointments

  • Weakening of checks and balance

• Left-wing populists: Aristide, Chávez, López Obrador

Right-wing populists: Fujimori, Bolsonaro, Bukele

• Short-term empowerment of the majority

• Long-term risks:

  • Authoritarian tendencies

  • Erosion of fair competition

  • Undermining judicial and legislative institutions

  • potential breakdown of liberal frameworks (weakening systems)

Honduras 2009 coup

• President Zelaya:

  • Elected democratically, drifted toward authoritarianism

  • Sought constitutional reforms (re-election, like Chávez)

• Opposition reaction:

  • Viewed reforms as unconstitutional

  • Congress and military forced him into exile

• Outcome:

  • Neither side acted democratically

  • Congress assumed power (military overstepped)

• International response:

  • OAS and UN condemned it as a coup

  • U.S. hesitant—balancing values vs. strategic interests

  • ALBA is seen as hypocritical (supportive of Chávez) why support democracy in Honduras but nowhere else?

Human Rights (Lessa/Olsen)

• Origins & Philosophy

  • Rooted in Western political liberalism and secularism

  • Emphasizes individual rights as universal principles

  • Proclaimed widely, but inconsistently upheld in practice

• Tensions within the concept:

  • Individual vs. collective rights

  • Freedom from (negative liberty—e.g., torture, censorship) vs. Freedom to (positive liberty—e.g., education, housing)

    • Freedom from = enforceable, judicial clarity

    • Freedom to = aspirational, state must act (more subjective)

• Contradictions:

  • Liberal rights vs. socio-economic rights

  • Idealism vs. political limitations in real-world contexts

Human rights vs democratic stability

• Post-authoritarian challenges:

  • Military often retains de facto power (control over arms)

  • Amnesty laws often used to protect transition stability

• Tensions:

  • Justice vs. Stability

  • Moral obligation vs. Political prudence

• Consequences of prosecutions:

  • May destabilize fragile democracies

  • Risk of authoritarian backlash

• Dictators’ incentives:

  • Stay in power to avoid trial

  • Amnesty gives them a reason to leave peacefully

• Timing paradox:

  • Moral urgency highest when wounds are fresh

  • Political feasibility increases over time—but perpetrators may die unpunished

Transitional Justice

• Argentina:

  • 1980s: Military prosecuted → backlash → pardons issued

  • 2000s: Stronger democracy → Congress overturned amnesty laws

• Chile:

  • Truth commissions (e.g., Rettig Report)

  • Exposed abuses, named perpetrators—without prosecuting

  • Civil society (lawyers, NGOs) pushed for justice

  • Legal loophole: Disappearance = ongoing crime → prosecution possible

• Key takeaways:

  • Strong civil society enables justice efforts

  • Military power inversely related to prosecutorial ability

  • Long-term accountability can emerge even after initial pardons

Universal Jurisdiction (Fowler)

• Definition:

  • Certain crimes (e.g., genocide, torture, crimes against humanity) affect all of humanity → any country can prosecute

• Advantages:

  • Circumvents domestic legal/political blockages

  • Symbolic and legal reaffirmation of justice

• Challenges:

  • Jurisdictional confusion (legal gray areas)

  • Risk of political manipulation

  • Potential backlash from powerful states (e.g., U.S.)

• Pinochet Case (1998):

  • Arrested in London on Spanish warrant

  • There were no Spanish victims? He was not in Spain? He wasn’t Spanish. He was prosecuted under universal jurisdiction

  • Sparked international legal debate

• Political fallout:

  • UK caught in diplomatic storm

  • Chile insisted on sovereign right to decide

  • Example of idealism vs. realpolitik

U.S. role in UJ

• U.S. actions and contradictions:

  • Publicly supports human rights

  • But resists international courts (e.g., ICC immunity agreements)

  • policy under Bush = exempt U.S. personnel from ICC prosecution

• Lessa, Olsen:

  • U.S.-based actors can support trials via:

    • Diplomatic pressure

    • Funding and advocacy for civil society

    • Sanctions and conditional aid

• Risks of foreign involvement:

  • Undermining sovereignty

  • Political backlash

  • Selective justice (going after enemies, not allies)

Populists and UJ

populist leaders often have a large following, and very invested supporters. They can cause problems when it comes to justice. They are often let off to retain order and stability in the country, rather than cause unrest in a weak democracy, supporters can potentially cause conflict and further problems.

Influences for accountability

• Civil site society demand

• No veto players’

• Domestic judicial leadership

• Internal pressures

Realist view on immigration

• Argument: States must control borders; immigration is a national security issue.

• Example: War on Terror heightened scrutiny post-9/11.

• Debate:

  • Pro: Sovereignty and security must come first.

  • Con: This view ignores humanitarian needs and economic realities.

Liberal view on immigration

• Argument: Migration, like trade, is mutually beneficial in a global market. If we advocate free movement of products, people should be allowed to move freely too.

• Example: Migrants fill labor gaps and revitalize aging populations.

• Debate:

  • Pro: Promotes growth and freedom.

  • Con: Risks ignoring distributional impacts on lower-income U.S. workers.

Radical view on immigration

• Argument: Migration is driven by structural inequality and neoliberal policies.

• Example: NAFTA hurt Mexican farmers, leading to migration.

• Debate:

  • Then: Migration is seen as brain drain (the migration of highly skilled and educated individuals from one country to another, typically from developing nations to developed ones). Competition in U.S.

  • Now: Emphasis on migrant rights, remittances, and systemic reform.

Transnational politics view on immigration

• Argument: Migrants connect societies culturally and economically.

• Example: Remittances, binational identity, stronger U.S.-Latin America diplomacy.
  Debate:

  • Pro: Fosters understanding and global ties.

  • Con: Some fear it weakens national cohesion.

Idealist view on immigration

• Argument: Moral duty to protect asylum seekers and refugees.

• Example: Refugees fleeing violence in Central America.

• Debate:

  • Pro: Upholds human rights.

  • Con: Critics fear abuse of the asylum system.

Pros and Cons of Immigration

Economic

• Benefits: Fills labor shortages, supports aging society, brings innovation.

• Costs: Raises housing prices, pressures wages, public services strain.

• Debate: Who bears the cost—recent vs. long-established immigrants?

Cultural

• Benefits: Enhances diversity, brings new cultural perspectives.

• Challenges: Risk of social fragmentation or cultural clash.

• Debate: Integration vs. identity preservation.

Legal Compliance

• Concern: Undocumented migration may erode trust in legal institutions.

• Debate: Enforcement vs. providing legal pathways.

fundamental issues of immigration

• What to do about people already in the country without legal status?

• How to stop illegal migration

• How can we go about reforming immigration policy to make it better?

Possible solutions to immigration

comprehensive immigration reform only through a congressional bill as a permanent long-term solution better than short-term executive unilateral actions by administrations. In order to pass this however, there needs to be a lot of comprehensive corporation, concession and give-and-take.

why is immigration reform so hard?

• Conflicting interests and concerns, different people want different things. Some are more open to immigrations other and more closed off and security, focused hard to design reform because there is no compromise being made fragmentation of interests within groups, electoral interests change views of parties, hard to make Congressional comprehensive reform.

• Institutional fragmentation and multiple veto points. US political system makes it easy to block and kill legislature. effort for federal legal reform has failed in the past few decades.

• If it's a federal legal reform trends towards unilateral federal change, if Congress won't do anything, we will have to do it ourselves polarised, not long term and can easily be reversed in next administration. Example, Trump versus Obama.

How US addressed drug trafficking

• A realist strategy ‘war on drugs’, sees it as a security issue. States need to reinforce control over borders to diminish and combat the problem. The term war allows the use of cohersive powers like military police,

• Using power and influence to cut down drug production in Latin America area, spraying police and military go after traffickers, Peru drug plane shot down.

• US wants an American military involved over police because there's less chance of corruption and bribery the military, however don't want this. They don't want to be come corrupt and it is not their job to police, the nation.

why is drug trafficking a concern

• Health issues and disease, overdoses, epidemics, expensive healthcare

• harm from unsafe, consumption to self as well as others

• relationship to crime, drug addicts need to get money, gangs

• undermine state authority, infiltrates state sovereignty

• corruption and bribery

• intimidation and violence.

how should U.S. address drug trafficking

• Increase the drug war (realism reinforced)

• Move focus on decreasing internal demand

• Selective legislation to depenalise, does prohibiting it make it worse.

• Pragmatic harm reduction, make drug consumption safer more initiatives and centres. Help move the issue away from crime.

• Whole drug scheme is dependent on the market demand, as long as people continue to buy drugs at such a high price, the issue will continue.

success of drug trafficking efforts

• Demand is consistent fluctuating and persistent consumption within the US when there is still demand for drugs, people find a way around the barriers

• Supply is plentiful and production and transshipment continues. Drugs are in attractive market, good money, edven as a producer. It incentivises poor countries. Plan Columbia 2000 planned to combat drug cartels and leftist and Colombian armed conflict through aid and training of Colombian military. production ended up going up in the other areas.

• Market beats the state, especially in globalisation. US has put so much into combating the issues such as Sniff Dogs, tight border control, and have had little progress. profitability makes it hard to control. Traffickers are increasingly inventive.

root causes for environmental problems

• Dependency

• Capitalism

• Neoliberalism

• Temptations of extractivism, Latin American makes money, commodity Broome minerals, oil, gas all attractive markets, but negative to the environment

• Modernisation and it's various stages. companies tend to transfer dirty stages in production to the global South, because environmental regulations are weak at the environmental bombs to the south

North pressures for environmental protectionism

• Latin American environmentalists faced domestic issues NGOs movements, governments, and organisations from global North moving into the picture we should help and support their environmentalists in the south

• Latin American dependency as a source of leverage. If you want funding from organisations such as the World Bank, you'll need to improve your environmental record conditions to improve environmental policy. They're not going to land if it's for unsustainable practices.

• The role of transnational relations increasingly involved. They have supported environmentalism in Brazil, get environmentalists from the north to fund and support initiatives in the south pressure governments in Latin American nations to intervene in internal affairs.

issues facing indigenous peoples

• Economic integration, destruction and temptation development has expanded into undeveloped areas in Brazil, encroaching on indigenous people so and beef causing to designation impacting indigenous environments. Many indigenous still want access to modern medicine and infrastructure normal indigenous people for your cultural identity and are happy for more modernisation

• cultural assimilation versus collective autonomy. There is a lack of collective culture in interest some indigenous people, one individual modernisation

• indigenous populations don't have that much voting power they make up a tiny percentage of Brazil's population, so they need allies both domestically and internationally to help their interests.

transnational activism for indigenous causes (Nye and Kohen)

• Importance of activism by northern NGOs for their culture to survive, transnational activism is needed. Natives are able to get help outside of their domestic areas

• transnational activism label them as ‘noble savages’, and it put a face to environmental issues. Same protection as less of an environmental issue, but as a way to protect the people of the rainforest, noble savage, we can protect Indians, but by doing so, we can also protect the environment, tensions between first world, actors and indigenous people's arguments for guardianship and someone to oversee a long-term actor to protect indigenous from being exploded by modern world,

• selective role, and focus of transnational activism. Romanticise view of indigenous people. is it okay for some worthy of protection, if more assimilated into modern society there is less interest to help, despite their continued vulnerability and culture. Indigenous people can be integrated but still disadvantaged.

nationalists response to transnational actors

• Brazilians don't agree with the notion that the Amazon is the lungs of the world it doesn't belong to the world. It belongs to Brazil and believes that this view encroach is on Brazil, sovereignty, and borders.

• Disagreements with many international activists and domestic anthropologist activist do not have to experience consequences and hardship of the new policies they are trying to implement

• The Amazon is area for illegal drugs, mining, migration and is a large and protected area. The military think the area is to open an unsecured drugs are ruining, Latin American democracies

• Nationalists believe outsiders are hypocritical. Why do we need to protect Amazon? If you didn't protect your forests, not our problem mentality.

Trump

Unilateralism, uncertainty and conflict:

Realist impulses:

• Believe that great powers have the right energy to assert its power. They want to create a sphere of influence influence around regional area wants to be the only hegemony in the geopolitical area make America. Great again.

Protectionism:

• Bring back US as a manufacturing court for economic development within the country, defence, tariffs trade wars. This all seems to be a step backwards, giraffe. You said manufacturing is not the name of the game, any more low profit in manufacturing and less competitive.

Populist:

• Revolves around personal listed leadership realist impulses, but a lot of discretion unpredictability haphazard policy-making, without fully understanding the meanings or repercussions lots of back-and-forth hard for International community to form a response as he can change his mind the next minute.

Obama

Difficult moves towards cooperation

New beginning for US

• Can you add a multicultural background wanted a different type of non-unilateral leadership in America wanted better relationships with Latin America

Intentions

• New hope for Latin America

Efforts

• Less than expected no initial push for normalisation with Kubo. Very little changes in Latin American policy.

Limitations

• Right in the middle of the economic crisis of 2008, he needed to focus on the recession and economic crisis before creating immigration reform and looking towards Latin America rising issues in Afghanistan, Iraq and China's rivalry rising power

Bolder 2nd term

• Contested as “lame-duck” he had less electoral incentive to do things

• DACA DAPA programs

• More of a high profile in Latin America

• Pushed for normalisation and Lift the embargo on Cuba.

• Not too much, actually achieved though.

Future prospects of US-LA relations

• Lower attention to Latin America, limited influence

• Greater multipolarity rise of Brazil, entry of China

• Divergent orientations, and trends in Latin America