Las empresas energéticas y la gran estrategia estadounidense hacia Irak : una reflexión sobre el rol de Exxon Mobil y Chevron como grupos económicos y de presión (2001- 2011)

La monografía pretende explicar el rol desempeñado por Exxon Mobil y Chevron en la formulación de la Gran Estrategia del gobierno Bush hacia Irak. Especialmente, se sostiene que las dos compañías multinacionales mencionadas lograron que la intervención militar en Irak, fuera pensada como un objetivo fundamental de la política energética del gobierno Bush. Para lograr este objetivo, Chevron y Exxon aprovecharon principalmente su posición en la economía nacional estadounidense. De hecho, lograron celebrar contratos a largo plazo para la extracción del crudo y de gas en Irak. Fundamentándose en un análisis documental, estas compañías son analizadas como grupos de presión empresarial y grupos económicos, cuyos beneficios derivados de la invasión en Irak pueden encontrarse incluso durante el gobierno Obama.

The “War on Terror” and the Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian La

Las nuevas amenazas a la seguridad que han surgido en los últimos años están poniendo seriamente en juego la importancia y la implementación del derecho internacional humanitario. Este artículo investiga el impacto de la guerra del terror en el principio de distinción en el derecho internacional humanitario. Examina, de forma específica, prácticas estatales, por ejemplo, de los Estados Unidos, que han cedido frente al surgimiento de nuevas reglas relativas al principio de distinción. Para esto, se hace un análisis de dicho principio bajo dos perspectivas: blancos concretos y captura

Corrective Justice vs. Social Justice in the Aftermath of War

How do we justify the practice of corrective justice for losses suffered during armed conflicts? This article seeks to show the force and relevance of this question, and to argue that, in cases of massively destructive wars, social justice should gain priority over corrective justice. Starting from a liberal Rawlsian conception of the relationship between corrective and social justice, it is argued that, paradoxically, the more destructive a war is, the less normative force corrective rights have and the higher priority policies of social justice, which guarantee basic rights to all citizens, should have.

Don't make war, make elections : Franchise extension and violence in XIXth-century Colombia

This paper studies the effect of strengthening democracy, as captured by an increase in voting rights, on the incidence of violent civil conflict in nineteenth-century Colombia. Empirically studying the relationship between democracy and conflict is challenging, not only because of conceptual problems in defining and measuring democracy, but also because political institutions and violence are jointly determined. We take advantage of an experiment of history to examine the impact of one simple, measurable dimension of democracy (the size of the franchise) on con- flict, while at the same time attempting to overcome the identification problem. In 1853, Colombia established universal male suffrage. Using a simple difference-indifferences specification at the municipal level, we find that municipalities where more voters were enfranchised relative to their population experienced fewer violent political battles while the reform was in effect. The results are robust to including a number of additional controls. Moreover, we investigate the potential mechanisms driving the results. In particular, we look at which components of the proportion of new voters in 1853 explain the results, and we examine if results are stronger in places with more political competition and state capacity. We interpret our findings as suggesting that violence in nineteenth-century Colombia was a technology for political elites to compete for the rents from power, and that democracy constituted an alternative way to compete which substituted violence.