A legitimidade da guerra sob a ótica do ato-discurso: os casos da Primeira (1991) e da Segunda Guerra do Golfo (2003) em perspectiva comparada

Abstract

The essay hereby presented submits a case study about the securitization moves during the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, in a compared perspective, seeking to reveal the influence of presidential speeches in the perception of threats by the target audience and whether such menaces may derive from an artificial idea, even nonexistent, based on social constructions to legitimate actions of a State. To that effect, the following are surveyed: a) the historical evolution of the jus ad bellum – the right to do war; b) the theoretical concepts developed by the School of Copenhagen and the constructivist foundation; and c) the inner workings of the decision making process of the United States of America. Based on the following sources: official documents, pronouncements by government authorities and statements by high ranking government staff, media vehicles and a pertinent bibliographical data base. It is hence determined that the speech-act is a strong instrument in sanctioning a war and giving way to exceptional measures, as it does not depend necessarily on International Law Organizations.