Faculdade de Direito / Law faculty

This paper presents a simple model of exchange rate determination based on a very important seminal paper set forth by Dornbusch (1976), which assumes instantaneous adjustments in assets markets and slower adjustments in the goods markets. In the Dornbusch model the overshooting phenomenon is a consequence of the assumption that some markets do not adjust instantaneously. The model presented here attemps to analyse the same issues as the Dornbusch model, but within the context of market clearing. The main conclusion of the present paper is that the assumption of price stickiness in the Dornbusch model is not a necessary condition for the occurence of exchange rate overshooting.

This article intends to provide a contribution for a better understanding of the development in the field of the defense industry in order to evaluate how innovation and technology transfer may contribute to an increase in competitiveness. Following an analysis of the major developments in this industry since the end of the Cold War we present and analyse some of the existing measures for the development of a strategy for Portugal that creates conditions to benefit from operating in a high technology industry, taking as reference some significant examples of companies that are part of EMPORDEF, a Portuguese state-owned defense group.

Understanding the role that power and violence play in the international society seems essential in order to consider how the latter should be organised so that the world becomes safer and more stable. Should violence be recognized and taken into account within the international society or, alternatively, should we take an idealist view where, to a large extent, violence is neglected and ignored. The purpose of this research is to study these issues, from the perspectice of a specific author, and to attempt to position this author's thinking in the overall context of the theory of international relations.

In a dialogue with Jacques Maritain, Raymond Aron analyses the Machiavellian problem and the Kantian problem. The former follows from the problem of the legitimate means that can be used in the context of the relations between states, that is, the possibility of resorting to force, and the latter from the problem of the ban of force leading to universal peace. This tension-filled contradiction that is present in the international thought of Aron should lead us to review the way that this author considers the relations between states and the establishment and maintenance of international order. It is also this contradiction, among others, such as peace versus war that reveals significant differences in his international thought relative to realism in International Relations. In that context, it is argued that the international thought of Raymond Aron is best characterized as resulting from a tension between idealism and realism.

Keywords: Aron, antinomies, idealism, realism, international order.

Raymond Aron nasceu a 14 de Março de 1905, mas levantou questões que apenas foram objeto de maior atenção após a sua morte em 1983, com o terceiro debate nas Relações Internacionais, que é um debate essencialmente epistemológico. A verdade é que muitas dessas questões se encontram atualmente nas ideias construtivistas e, por essa razão e no meu entender, é possível de argumentar que existe um construtivismo embrionário  em Raymond Aron que merece relevo. É também esta ideia que me levou a considerar Raymond Aron, de um modo genérico ou tendencial, um construtivista “avant la lettre”.

What is the legitimate use of force by states in their relations? The answer to this question is analysed through a dialogue between Raymond Aron and Jacques Maritain, concerning the Machiavellian and the Kantian problem. The former follows from the problem of the legitimate means that can be used in the context of the relations between states, that is, the possibility of resorting to force, and the latter from the problem of the ban of force leading to universal peace.

The intention is to challenge the common perception that Raymond Aron is a realist author. Indeed, despite the author’s close affinities with classical realism Aron’s thinking displays a Kantian dimension and an idealist thinking concerned with moral issues and with a certain notion of freedom that set him apart from realism. Nevertheless, and despite this, it does not seem appropriate to consider him an idealist or a liberal author in the context of International Relations. A closer examination reveals some affinities with authors such as Martin Wight and Hedley Bull although it is not possible either to consider Raymond Aron as a member of the English School. The argument is that within the realm of International Relations the thinking of Raymond Aron is best seen as resulting from the existing tension between realism and liberalism, starting from a position close to classical realism that evolved towards what is considered to be the via media in International Relations.

Após ser conhecido o resultado do referendo realizado no Reino Unido relativamente à permanência na União Europeia, a atenção parece estar fundamentalmente centrada por um lado, na data em que o Reino Unido notificará formalmente o Conselho Europeu da sua intenção de sair da União Europeia e, por outro lado, sobre o tipo de negociação que ocorrerá entre as partes após essa notificação.

Sendo estas questões importantes, a realidade é mais complexa na medida em que existem um conjunto de temas em debate relativamente à legitimidade para invocar o artigo 50 do Tratado de Lisboa e ao procedimento de saída. Por outro lado, é possível analisar algumas hipóteses e impactos relativamente à negociação propriamente dita à luz de alguns exemplos de acordos comerciais já existentes e das razões que aparentemente subjazem ao resultado do referendo.

Assim, nesta aula aberta, procurar-se-á apresentar estas e outras questões directamente relacionadas com o Brexit, por forma a permitir compreender melhor o que está em causa, que é da maior importância para a União Europeia, para o Reino Unido e para Portugal.

The debate between realism and idealism continues to mark the discipline of International Relations. On the one hand, realism argues that international politics is a struggle for power and a quest for survival, which results in a condition of permanent conflict between states without any possibility of evolution or progress. On the other hand, idealism considers it possible to build a world of peaceful coexistence, prosperity and well-being, achieved through cooperation and based on values and aspirations shared by humans. The object of this article is to analyse the debate between idealism and realism, considering it as an ontological debate and taking into account the controversy it has generated. The argument presented here is that both realism and idealism are two responses to the creation and maintenance of international order, that is, how states relate in international society; however these responses are not mutually exclusive and can coexist in constant tension with one another. An analysis of internationalist thought of two authors, Hans Morgenthau and Raymond Aron, is also presented, which relates to how they are positioned in this debate as well as International Relations as a whole.

This article presents an overview of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, in terms of the main arguments surrounding the controversy concerning unilateral versus multilateral military action. Building on the literature that addresses this debate, the article identifies the main elements that support the idea that, while there are good reasons to legitimize unilateral interventions in specific circumstances, those interventions should be exceptional. The main argument is that multilateral interventions are the best alternative to, simultaneously, address the need to protect people threatened by mass atrocity crimes and the need to maintain international peace and security. Multilateral authorisations reduce the risk of conflicts emerging and spiralling among states, and in particular, the most powerful ones. They also reduce the likelihood of using the ‘humanitarian argument’ for intervening with different and self-serving agendas. In addition, they reduce the risk of abusive humanitarian intervention. Moreover, they foster more collaboration in terms of the need to address post-conflict situations and successful peacebuilding processes. Finally, they promote norm dissemination concerning the human rights agenda more effectively, particularly amongst non-liberal states.

A great deal has been written in the International Relations literature about international order, power, and legitimacy. International orders reflect the settled arrangements that define relations between states in certain moments in history. Order breaks down when the adopted set of organizational principles that define roles and the terms of those relations cease to operate. State power is limited by agreed-upon rules and institutions, and international organizations are also a central feature of the current order as well as an important source of legitimacy. I argue that there are organizational features related to institutional isomorphism that support the persistence and maintenance of the current international order. These features exist in organizational structures and processes that are industrywide, national or international, and that can be found in different markets, states, corporations and international organizations. Some of them are also often hard to square with either rational-actor or functionalist accounts. Differently from what is generally considered in regime theory the argument is based on the new institutionalism literature in organizational analysis that considers the homogeneity of practices and arrangements found in different institutions and organizations. The persistence of those practices and their reproduction in structures are to some extent self-sustaining but allow for changes in the distribution of power. This provides additional support to the idea that the current American-led international order may last longer than is often thought while accommodating some of the shifts in power that are taking place.

The aim of this article is to study the “Responsibility to Protect”, its evolution since 2000 and what can be expected for its future. Concurrently, the paper takes into account the need to protect populations, victims of certain types of aggression and to preserve the international order. Major criticisms of this doctrine are highlighted, as well as some of its impacts on the international community and, significantly, some of the difficulties that have arisen during its development – a process that has been controversial and troubled. Some of the main risks and uncertainties that affect its future are investigated, considering that a set of emerging countries who do not agree with the Western liberal order intends to be more active in international affairs. The fundamental argument is that the future of this doctrine might continue to be troubled and full of uncertainties. Thus, for RtoP to evolve in a favourable way, it will be necessary, on the one hand, that the members of the Security Council of the United Nations engage in genuine multilateral cooperation in order to safeguard the changes taking place in the international order; and, on the other hand, that the States consider such crimes to be an essential issue of international security and part of their interests.