%0 Journal Article
%T The Politics of Legitimacy and Force in International Relations: Vitoria and Rawls on the 'Law of Peoples' and the Recourse to War La pol赤tica de la legitimidad y la fuerza en las relaciones internacionales: Vitoria y Rawls sobre el "Derecho de Gentes" y el recurso de la guerra
%A LUIS VALENZUELA-VERMEHREN
%J Revista de Ciencia Pol赤tica
%D 2012
%I Pontificia Universidad Cat車lica de Chile
%X This article confronts two philosophical positions that define the nature of international order in matters concerning state legitimacy and the justifications for the recourse to war. The first position, set forth by Francisco de Vitoria in the sixteenth century, frames legitimacy and the use of force within the traditional, Christian natural law conception of justice. Legitimate are those states that uphold universal principles of justice, not the political principles of a particular regime form, while the recourse to war is likewise justified by the constitutive tenets of the ius ad bellum and the ius in bello. By contrast, Rawls' Law of Peoples, which compares itself to the Christian natural law tradition, articulates nonetheless a particular liberal conception of justice that defines legitimacy in wholly political terms. In addition, in its appeal to the so-called 'supreme emergency exemption' the Rawlsian Law of Peoples dispenses with a crucial aspect of the traditional ius in bello that prohibits the targeting of civilian populations, as an exceptional means for defending and promoting a liberal international order. It is argued that such an ideologically based view of order posits a non-inclusive conception of justice in a culturally and politically diverse world and, hence, encourages conflict, resistance and strife between liberal and non-liberal states, and even strengthens autocratic government beyond the liberal zone of peace. A more tolerant and sound view, held by Terry Nardin's conception of 'common morality', is similar to Vitoria's traditional conception of a more politically tolerant justice-based order and expresses in contemporary ethical language the principal tenets of the tradition of the laws of war set forth by Vitoria himself. Este art赤culo compara dos posturas filos車ficas que definen la naturaleza del orden internacional en materia de legitimidad estatal y las justificaciones para el recurso a la guerra. La primera posici車n, establecida por Francisco de Vitoria en el siglo XVI, plantea los marcos de legitimidad y el uso de la fuerza dentro de la concepci車n tradicional cristiana del derecho natural y la justicia. Leg赤timos son aquellos estados que respetan los principios universales de justicia, sin importar el r谷gimen espec赤fico de 谷stos. Asimismo, el recurso a la guerra s車lo encuentra su justificaci車n en los principios constitutivos del ius ad bellum y el ius in bello. El Derecho de Gentes de Rawls, que se compara con la tradici車n del derecho natural cristiano, articula, por el contrario, una particular concepci車n liberal de l
%K Teor赤a normativa de las relaciones internacionales
%K John Rawls
%K Francisco de Vitoria
%K pol赤tica internacional
%K derecho internacional
%K Normative international theory
%K John Rawls
%K Francisco de Vitoria
%K international politics
%K international law
%U http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-090X2012000200006