La respuesta liberal de Edmund Burke a la crisis de legitimidad política del siglo XVIII

Edmund Burke is both the greatest and the most underrated political thinker of the last three hundred years. We could not agree more with this assertion of Jesse Norman. Very few political-statesmen have attainted the enormous repercussion both in politics and in history that Burke had deployed over the last centuries. Nevertheless, Burke remains unfairly unknown for a wider public. And what it is more, the vast majority tend to think of him as a conservative, if not a liberal-conservative. A prior precision has to be made before continuing regarding the term liberal for the sake of accuracy. Burke was a prominent Whig, what in Spanish language we describe as a liberal, in the sense that both Hayek and Milton Friedman uttered, far from the meaning “kidnapped” of the word liberal by the Anglo-Saxon left. The object of this thesis is to investigate the non-solved controversy on Burke`s figure and the liberal answer he provided with to the political crisis of legitimacy of the 18th century. There is an existing shared opinion by the academia that prior to the Reflections on the Revolution of France, his masterpiece, he was an outstanding and prominent Whig. Champion of liberty, justice and good governance, guardian of liberal virtues and the authentic developer of the efficient policy put in place by the Marquis of Rockingham in order to curb the corruption and influence emanating from the court of George the Third and his double cabinet.

Post-liberal Regionalism in South America: The Case of UNASUR

This paper examines the formal features, the political rationale, distinctiveness, potential, and difficulties of post-liberal regionalism, with a particular focus on the case of UNASUR. Through this organization, traditional unionism and aspirations of Latin American regional integration are redefined in a South American geographic and ideational framework. Through this strategy South America became a political and economic construct in order to respond to globalization challenges and to achieve its members’ goals in development, regional autonomy (particularly in regards to the US), international influence and at the same time domestic governance of the involved countries. Nevertheless, the limits of this project’s future are being defined by nationalism, traditional visions of sovereignty and by a regional construction that involve significant institutional limitations, which are product of its intergovernmental logic, internal asymmetries and ambivalent Brazilian leadership