Abstract What follows is a much-needed appraisal of the current state of scientificity and progressiveness in the study of international politics. Imre Lakatos’ Methodology of Scientific Research Programs will provide the epistemological grounds. Three broad claims will be made and supported: (i) Waltz’s neorealism is not an isolated theory of international politics, but a proper scientific research program; (ii) Mearsheimer’s offensive realism too is not an isolated theory, but a set of theoretical amendments to the Neorealist Scientific Research Program’s protective belt; and (iii) the offensive-realist theoryshift is both theoretically and empirically progressive.

This article presents a critical evaluation of the study of military coercion, a field that has gained growing prominence since the end of the Cold War. Its purpose is to analyze what may be the most representative work to come out of this line of research: Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, by Robert A. Pape (1996). It will interrogate the underlying premise of the work – one shared by the remainder of the substantial literature in this area – according to which military coercion is fundamentally different from war. This interrogation takes into account the contrast between Pape's approach (1996) and Carl von Clausewitz' theory of war (1993). It concludes by identifying what lies at the heart of military coercion and war, and makes two central assertions for the study of military coercion: 01. that military coercion is essentially war and, as such, is a wholly political phenomenon, with results entirely subordinate to politics; and 02. that the occurrences which Pape defines as successful military coercion are nothing more than manifestations of limited war – limited war being one of the two possible forms that war can take.

O governo brasileiro tem definido a busca por uma reforma do Conselho de Segurança como um dos principais pontos de sua agenda de política externa há pelo menos vinte anos. O presente artigo se propõe a analisar de maneira crítica e teoricamente informada o argumento que legitima esta demanda, tentando responder amplamente a duas questões: (i) em que medida a configuração sistêmica no pós-Guerra Fria corresponde às expectativas dos defensores da reforma?; e (ii) dada a real estrutura de poder do sistema internacional contemporâneo, uma expansão do Conselho de Segurança traria maior efetividade ao sistema de segurança coletiva baseado na ONU?

The Brazilian government has pursued a reform of the Security Council as a main topic of its foreign policy agenda for at least 20 years. This article analyses, in a critical and theoretically informed way, the argument advanced to justify this demand, while trying to answer two separate and interrelated questions: (i) does the power configuration of the post-Cold War international system correspond to the expectations put forth by the proponents of the reform?; and (ii) given the actual power structure of the current international system, would an expansion of the Security Council actually improve the effectiveness of the UN's collective security system?

Propõe-se a apreciação crítica do sistemático estudo da paz democrática realizado por Oneal e Russett em Triangulating peace - democracy, interdependence and international organizations (2001). O estudo de Oneal e Russett é importante e representativo porque oferece uma construção teórica para explicar um suposto "fato" internacional e porque tenta incorporar e controlar algumas variáveis identificadas com a principal abordagem rival: o realismo político. Argumentar-se-á que Oneal e Russett falham em suas duas principais tentativas de contribuição. O princípio causal identificado pelos autores não resiste ao entendimento, derivado da teoria da guerra de Clausewitz, da guerra como um fenômeno integralmente político. Incidentalmente, essa crítica também será válida para o empreendimento dos teóricos da paz democrática como um todo, na medida em que compartilhem os mesmos pressupostos. E os autores não são capazes de identificar e controlar as variáveis "realistas" como pretendido, não se precavendo, portanto, contra a crítica de epifenomenalidade.

The purpose of the article is to undertake a critical analysis of the democratic peace approach laid out in Oneal and Russett's Triangulating peace - democracy, interdependence and international organizations (2001). This study offers a theoretical framework to explain a supposed international "fact" and attempts to incorporate and control some variables of the main approach it seeks to challenge - structural realism. The article argues that Oneal and Russett fail in their two main attempted contributions. The causal mechanism identified by the authors does not withstand resist the understanding, derived from Clausewitz's theory of war, of war as an integral political phenomenon. Incidentally, this criticism also applies to other prominent works on the democratic peace, given these share the same assumptions. Furthermore, the authors are incapable of identifying and controlling the "realist" variables as planned, which makes them vulnerable to the criticism of epiphenomenalism.