Crash course in international relations: 

For presidents, ambassadors and the Kings.

To establish common rules, understand the political, economic, social and cultural forces as diverse, it is necessary to understand the speech, taking into account the interior, the subjective of others, if not, we may be talking to the wind, because the understanding can be equal in some places, but in others, a word, an image, a movement out of the understanding of the other, can put everything to lose.

 Charaudeau (2010) summarizes his proposal: to be able to discuss the ideas that are the subject of a debate, to say what is the theoretical framework in which we inscribe. Mine is, in a perspective of discourse analysis, the problem of framework of influence defined in various writings and will content myself to summarize here very briefly. A problem of influence rests on four principles:

i. A principle of otherness that says, in a phenomenological filiation, the awareness of the existence of itself depends on the perception of the existence of the other and his gaze; there is no "Me Without You", which I carry to the field of language, E. Benveniste becomes no "I without you" and vice versa; (There is a unique relationship, I state without Tu-State, the relationship is: only exist because you exist). It also says Emilia Mendes that this principle means: "Who am I to me address those" (Mendes, 2009), ie, the act of communication is a process of exchange between two partners who must be recognized at the same similar time (should agree on the meaning of what they say) and different (their positions are different Enunciator / enunciatee and retain different intentions). Each partner must engage in a recognition of the other process. (Mendes, 2009). Ex: States should recognize each other.

ii. A principle of influence itself that says the other is a threatened at least one question (the Montesquieu syndrome) - in this case, the speaking subject must try to make the other come into his universe of discourse; (The other-I must make it understood by the other you, bringing it into your universe, removing the most noise (Pinto, 2008) possible, and then they can understand the international arena, Mendes (2009 ) adds that the subject enunciating aims to influence the partner, is to make him act, is to guide your thinking, to be emotional it).

iii. A principle of regulation, it may assume that the other has, by itself, an influence project requires regular meeting and this a priori. (Forces the speaking subject to pose the question: What to do to continue the exchange - How to manage, prevent or explore the risks of confrontation or disruption inherent in every exchange is the role of regulation of speech whose purpose? it is to ensure the continuity of the exchange (or set break): respect for the turn of speech (the time for each speaker to speak), acceptance or rejection of the speech of the other, appreciation or depreciation partner (Mendes, 2009).

iv. Principle of relevance that, according to Sperber ET Wilson says that we must try to understand the world and that to do so, the two partners of the language act recourse to discursive environments supposedly shared. Mendes says that "the statements should be appropriate to its context and its purpose (Maximum conversacionais- Grice) (MENDES, 2009; Charaudeau, 2007, p.243). (This is also the theory of dialogism baktiniano).

To understand the dialogic Bakhtin (1992), the enunciation is the product of the interaction of two socially organized individuals, because their nature is social. The enunciation does not exist outside of a socio-ideological context in which each speaker has a "social horizon" well defined, designed and directed to a social hall also set. Therefore, the enunciation comes from someone and is intended for someone else. Any utterance proposes a replica, a reaction. It is understood that should the actors try to share their worlds, but try this sharing concepts, symbols that seemed like identical, but that should go through the clearance of noise, so that the dialogue is not jamming and keep moving.

 Relations on the right go through these principles, not exhausting, but they are a good starting point for dialogue. It is an exchange between subjects, on an object, and a permanent dialogue, because it is constantly moving, the ages are fleches we see times are shortened, it seems they are even apocalyptic, it is understood that we need to be vigilant and not lose we are always solving old and new conflicts and interests in law.

Charaudeau (2007) poses some problems for which there is this exchange between subjects-actors: a) How to contact the other? B) How to impose his person speaking subject to the other? C) Playing the other? d) How to organize the description of the world that proposes / imposes another? (Charadeau, 2007, p.244).

When we come into contact with each other (refer to item (a) above), what we seek is adherence of standards, a form of contract between subjects, membership is coming by convincing through discourse, the discourse between subjects who seek relationship. Charadeau brings this clarification of these problems:

  Contact the other is the perspective of an enunciation process consisting of: (a) justify why it takes the floor, because to speak is an act of exclusion of the other (when one speaks, the other does not speech) it takes legitimate and (b) establish a certain kind of relationship with each other in which assures him a place. This corresponds to the regulatory process (Legitimacy) above ... The purpose of this process is the adherence to social norms of behavior. (Charaudeau, 2007, p.244).

He continues to clarify the points on how to establish this exchange between subjects:

The. "The question as to impose his person speaking subject to the other responds to the need that the speaking subject has to do with that is recognized as a person worthy to be heard (or read) or because we consider credible, either because we can give you confidence, or because she is a charismatic model. "(Charaudeau, 2007). At this point a need for inclusion of the other, a need for representation, the "I" to the other, "you", can understand me and understand this dialogue between subjects. At this point also sees the issue of imaginary, an issue raised by the philosopher during his visit to Brazil in 2011, at UFMG. Imaginary will be present in the Internal space of subjects, while in your outdoor space will be their concepts, static symbols. You must enter the internal space of the other if we want to talk and convince you of our point of view. The Movement will be at the level of emotions, pathos, as entering the intuitive right, back and understanding the object inside and not just on the outside.

B. He continues that the question of "how to play the other is the goal that the speaking subject may have to make this other does not make reflections on the speech in question and get carried away by the movements (Italics mine) of their affections." (Charaudeau, 2007, p.245). When we face our another you should seek touch his "soul," the emotions of our listener, so that the clash in the speech to be won by us, for the purpose of discourse in international law is to win the discursive clash that It presents the actors in the construction of law. He says that we must resort to discursive strategies that touch the feelings of others, we must seduce or, on the contrary, do you fear. We must cause adherence to our point of view, we must bring to our side the subjects that impinge, more than another, as is very common in international law between states and international societies. Preparation for the discursive clash should be part of the curriculum of our colleges, or at least the preparatory courses for international law, often we see people unprepared giving in to blackmail rather than dominate the scene. (Charaudeau, 2007).

w. On the issue of how to organize the description of the world that we propose / impose on the other, he says that it takes place on one side, describing and narrating the events and the other explaining how and why these events. To this we must organize the speech, a rational narrative (smart right), as argumentative (intuitive right), and while we do this, laçamos the possibility of joining another by recognizing the arguments. (Charaudeau, 2007).

 Taking into account the dynamic of the smart right and the intuitive right, formed the meanings and expressando- is through discourse and the world is always moving, in my article "The Law and the Pathos: The emotions in speech" ( Oliveira, 2011) demonstrate that, according to Mendes and Mendes (2005), Charaudeau proposes "to trivialize the conditions of a discursive study of emotions, with an approach that situates the discourse analysis of emotions in a rhetorical membership, preferring the term pathos, the term emotion "as he says," the patemização can be treated as sense and therefore should be taken in a context switching, according to the interlocutor and representations partners underlying this exchange "(Charaudeau, 2007).

 What makes us understand that the right of discourse analysis requires an understanding of this exchange ratio between the enunciator / enunciatee and enunciatee / annunciator, permeated by the "values" that surround the life and the social fabric that surround these two subjects actors.

also reveals Mendes and Mendes (2005) that three principles underpin this analysis:

1- The pathos is intentional (intuitive-intelligent), and directed to a goal (international law), has the object and subject set to reach (international law actors).

2- The pathos, emotions, is linked to the values ​​of the subject (intuitive right), their beliefs and socio-cultural values ​​of the subject (a relationship already portrayed by Bakhtin).

3- The pathos is a representation of the senses, it is the attempt to make "tangible" emotions (enter the object).

 The discourse on the right, here treated in the view of emotions, pathos, leads us to understand that the discursive clash of law involves, in addition to the ethos, which would not only BE, but have OPINION, and logos, the reason that it would be the most sublime goal of every jurist, and pathos, non-psychological emotions, moods, but signs carriers of meanings recognized by another subject of communication / relationship.

 To Charadeau (2007) the clash of the right is in the speech, it is the clash of ideas between the enunciator / enunciatee and enunciatee / enunciator when one on one side tries to prove his "truth" before the other. In this context, I mean GUY should use words that bring messages that can carry them the feelings of another.

 Charaudeau (2007) makes an analysis of the very proper communication when he says that the speech first passes through the sphere of communication in the social environment of the subject, is the communicant or the subject interpretant, and this sphere of construction of the senses, the subject communicant will issue its words according to their social life and the interpreter will interpret them according to their social life.

 The act of communication can not be understood then as an act of one, and not as the act of two, a symmetrical, static and dead process, but in an act of communication where the implicit and explicit are at stake. He says:

  i) the speech will be born specific speech circumstances. The facts which led the subjects to find in the speech.

  ii) will be held at the meeting point of production and interpretation processes. It rises contacts, points in common, but they may have different meanings to the subject when we enter the two communication levels proposed here: the right intelligent and intuitive right.

  iii) will be staged by two entities, two subjects, split into subjects of speech and subject agents. The I and Thou are not the only ones to participate in the discourse When I pronounced, he thinks he's talking to a Thou, says Charaudeau, ideal, that you will be receptive and added, easy prey. But you is revealed more than he appeared, with unexpected concepts, questions, impassable because it has internal concepts of both their social sphere, (Smart) creation, the concepts created by him (intuitive) of all circumstances he went, he was taught, that presents the inner you, not one that you goal but a Subjective. The same now equivalent to that I track the same movement ... For this reason the right is moving, and can not be interpreted as static, I came, saw, and conquered ... You can come, you see, understand speech wrong, speak wrong way and lose the discursive clash. (Charaudeau 2007)

 The author says that the internal space and where inside the beings of speech, which is the world of words, where is the enunciator-enunciatee (I-tu) and that their knowledge is closely linked representations of social practices , which are the speech situations (Charaudeau, 2007).

 But the external space, is connected to the social world, which is the experience, where the communication situations. As an example, an illustration to understand when two people lock a meeting discursive: In the 80s, the church was sending many missionaries to indigenous nations, here the place as nations, as is an international relationship if they snag as such, and they sent a mission to evangelize a tribe, but they did not speak the language missionary nor he theirs, really should learn the language and customs, only to then start drawing a speech with those people. Already years later, living among them, speaking and translating felt able to catch a speech with some members of that village. He began by saying that they were created by God, he was in his culture a creator God and that he loved them. The meaning of love was present in their culture, but when asked the missionaries where their God lived: He, in the position he was, standing under a tree, pointed to the sky and said, there is where He lives! Not knowing the word for sky, in their language, he asked the subject-Indian, and the subject, you, gave you an answer began to use. The missionary, thinking he had convinced his subjects, was satisfied, but noted that soon after this, they did not give him more attention. He lost the attention it had gained through the years of missionary work. What happened? Revisiting his speech, he discovered that when he pointed to the sky and asked the Indian what's the word for sky, the Indian looked where he was pointing and saw the direction of his finger was a spider web. He said then that heaven meant: cobweb. Every time that the missionary spoke where God lived, they, the Indians, understood that God lived in the spider web of tree near the tribe.

  The right is dynamic, see what it says Savoy on international relations (2010): "It should be noted, however, that, being international relations a dynamic field, even when operating on existing instruments and standards, the diplomat acts on we contribute, sometimes through the practice of the state that represents an evolution of the standard over time and adapt to contemporary needs. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), art. 31, 2 (b), lists among the criteria of interpretation of a treaty to "subsequent practice in the application of the treaty that set up an agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation." The CDI has just started, through a Study Group established on the topic "treaties in time" examination of the scope of this complex device. "(ISERE, 2010).

  The dynamism of law, brings the need to improve the discourse field with emphasis on pathos, emotions. The know each other, knowing what brings good and bad memories, what you really think the guy who wants to convince me or be convinced by your and my arguments, based on what he knows and what he has created over time. Relations, the legal struggle in organizations may have and will have a strong advantage for those who master the discursive resources that present themselves.

 Report is to win the right to speak, to communicate is not only to inform, to map objective of the object, but communication is also convincing, persuading the other of my arguments, bring to light my senses together to him, communication is also seduce, entice and attract, convince through the emotions, relationships that make the speech partners, would be the points that unite us rather than those that separate us.

 For relationships in its discursive aspect has success, to settle what Charadeau (2010) calls Communication Agreement.

 he says that "the notion of contract assumes that individuals belonging to the same body of social practices, are likely to reach an agreement on linguareiras representations of these social practices" (CHARADEAU, 2009). Mendes (2009) tells us that every act of communication is part of a pre-structured framework, however, the picture varies according to which the situation is inscribed. The situation is described in four words:

The. The purpose of the exchanges: What are the goals that speaks of speech? What subjects in this international relationship are aiming in his speeches? What are your purposes?

B. The identity of-subjects Who is who? Who is the utterer, who is enunciatee, and at what time they have become the other?

w. What is the purpose? The speech topic, speak what this speech?

d. The device- talk in which the picture? (MENDES, 2009)

 Charaudeau (2010) says that communication is an act that arises from a double bet: (i) the speaking subject expects the contracts is proposing to the other, the subject-interpreter will be for him perceived and (ii) also expects the strategies employed in the communication in question will produce the desired effect. (Charaudeau, 2010, p.57).

 What he says is that all this speech that we propose should be accepted by the other, it must be realized if the other does not notice if he does not understand the contract being proposed, and then panned, can by all to lose.

  We not only know the object objectively, but also know it subjectively, as a right not enters the object, not knowing in their contours and senses, you may lose the discursive struggle not understand the language circuits (CHAURADEAU 2008)